Trump weighs next move on Iran

It’s decision time for President Trump.

Ten days ago, he said the United States was ready to “rescue” Iranian protesters if the Iranian government used violence against them.

The president said the United States was “locked, loaded and ready to go.”

This was before the violent crackdown in Iran actually began. Now, as the full extent of it is shockingly revealed, the world waits to see how Trump will react.

“Nobody knows what President Trump is going to do except President Trump,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The world can continue to wait and guess.”

But for how long?

Senior officials are expected to brief the president on possible action plans on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said he was looking at “some very strong options.”

Buoyed by success in Venezuela (the president called the capture of Nicolas Maduro one of the most successful operations in U.S. history), the temptation to deploy the military must be serious.

As the events of last summer showed, the United States has an excellent capacity to launch attacks from afar. B-2 stealth bombers flew 30-hour round-trip missions from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to drop bunker-busting bombs on two of Iran’s most important nuclear facilities.

Whether the United States chooses to do the same or pinpoints attacks on elements of the regime responsible for the current repression, it is reasonable to assume that Washington has a long list of targets to exploit.

According to BBC’s US partner CBS News, Pentagon officialsThey say the response could include a variety of other, more covert methods, including cyber operations and covert psychological campaigns aimed at disrupting and confusing Iran’s command structures.

But one scenario that can almost certainly be ruled out is anything remotely resembling what happened in Caracas on January 3.

Iran, even weakened and battered by recent American and Israeli attacks, is no Venezuela. The Islamic Republic is a war-hardened regime. The removal of a single figure is unlikely to bend the entire country to Washington’s will.

Trump’s recent reference to Jimmy Carter’s disastrous attempt to rescue American hostages held in Iran in 1980 also shows that he is aware of the pitfalls that could come with any attempt to put the US boots on the ground.

Eight American soldiers died when a helicopter and an EC-130 transport plane collided in Iran’s eastern desert.

This failed operation, combined with the humiliation felt at the sight of hooded American hostages paraded before cameras in Tehran, was a major factor in Carter’s election defeat that year.

“I don’t know if he would have won the election,” Trump told reporters from the New York Times last week, “but he certainly didn’t have a chance after this disaster.”

But forty-six years later, a larger question drives Washington’s military calculations: What is the Trump administration really trying to achieve in Iran?

“It’s hard to say exactly what kind of action Trump will take, because we don’t know what his exact goal here is,” said Will Todman, senior fellow in the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Todman said President Trump is likely trying to influence the behavior of the Iranian regime rather than overthrow it.

“I think the risks of regime change are so great that I don’t yet believe that’s his primary goal here,” he said. “More concessions may be made in the nuclear talks. It may be to stop the pressures. It may also be to try to implement reforms that will lead to the relief of sanctions.”

Trump said he had been contacted by some elements of the Iranian regime, possibly out of concern for negotiating a continuation of dialogue regarding the country’s nuclear program.

“What you hear publicly from the Iranian regime is quite different from the messages the administration is receiving privately,” Leavitt said Monday, adding that diplomacy “is always the first option.”

Unnamed officials told the Wall Street Journal:Vice President J.D. Vance, meanwhile, is one of a handful of senior aides who have called on Trump to pursue diplomacy first.

“The smartest thing for them to do was to have a real negotiation with the United States about what we need to see regarding their nuclear program,” Vance told reporters last Thursday.

But if a bloody crackdown continues across Iran, diplomacy risks looking like weakness.

“If it’s not enough, it will demoralize the protesters,” Todman said.

Perhaps with that in mind, and with the chilling accounts coming out of Iran despite the internet blackout, the president said he may feel compelled to act before diplomatic channels are discovered.

Some believe a limited strike could help encourage protesters and warn the regime that worse is to come.

“All Trump has to do is shoot to cause panic within the regime,” said Bilal Saab, an associate researcher in Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Program.

“A US attack could embolden protesters and distract the regime,” he added.

However, Saab said military intervention could also backfire.

“This could harden the regime’s resolve and its still broad support base across the country. A rally around the flag would not be shocking,” he said. “This is more likely if the strike is symbolic or a one-off.”

This is a complex set of calculations for the President, made worse by the knowledge that Iran is threatening to respond to any American attack.

Despite the damage caused by Israeli and American attacks, Iran still has a significant ballistic missile arsenal.

Across the Middle East, Iran’s allies and proxies may be gone – such as former President Bashar al-Assad of Syria – or weakened, as in the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon, but the “Axis of Resistance” is not yet a spent force.

Houthis in Yemen and Shiite militias in Iraq still have the capability of action.

Among the voices urging President Trump to act boldly is the man who has offered to lead Iran away from clerical rule.

“The President has a decision to make very soon,” Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last ruler, told CBS News.

“The best way to ensure fewer people are killed in Iran is to intervene earlier,” he said. “So this regime would eventually collapse and put an end to all the problems we face.”

It sounded simple. Officials in the White House will know that this is not the case at all.

With additional reporting from Kayla Epstein