Lack of a clear Iran plan could suck US into a long conflict:‘Where does this go?’ | US-Israel war on Iran

Donald Trump is under pressure to explain his vision for Iran amid ongoing attacks on the country and reports of the first American casualties since unprovoked military strikes by the United States and Israel.

Trump’s critics are demanding that the White House provide more clarity on what happens next. Opponents and analysts say the lack of a clear plan so far threatens to drag the United States into the kind of protracted conflict that Trump has repeatedly vowed to avoid.

“If the administration has a game plan, frankly, it hasn’t announced it yet,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow and Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

“He will have to move towards a larger political project, which includes not only the military part but also a deeper discussion within his administration about what kind of regime change he might bring about.

“So it won’t be a four-day, four-week, or even four-month campaign. It could be something much longer.”

Trump, who has repeatedly condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a mistake, has been criticized for not publicly considering the idea of ​​launching new attacks on Iranian facilities after claiming to have “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear facilities in a series of attacks last June.

His brief remarks on Iran in last week’s State of the Union address touched on threats from Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles but made no mention of regime change. He also stated that he would prefer to resolve issues regarding Iran’s alleged military threat through diplomacy.

Democrats have expressed fears that the decision to attack Iran could be open-ended without a clearly defined target.

“Where is all this going?” House Intelligence Committee Senior Democrat Jim Himes he told NPR. “We can bomb Iran along with the Israelis for a long time, but for what purpose?

“Is regime change the intention? Because there aren’t many examples of regime change being effected through bombing or, frankly, of American military forces actually effecting regime change in a satisfactory way.”

Vananka warned that there was little prospect of regime change unless the regime collapsed “under its own weight” in the face of popular opposition or the US “knocking its shoes off”; Vananka suggested that this option should be implemented using intelligence units instead of soldiers.

“A clever way [of implementing the latter option] intelligence will be managed by people the CIA has in the field [that] It was revealed to them who the senior leaders in hiding were, where they were hiding, when they were hiding.

“Use the same assets to start creating new political dynamics in the regime and essentially get people to accept that this regime is gone, it’s not coming back the same way. Essentially, we have experienced a kind of political transformation in this direction. “It requires a lot of investment, and it’s not even clear that the United States can achieve it.”

Steven Cash, a former CIA operations officer and now president of Steady State, an organization of retired U.S. national security officials, called the lack of a “what next” plan “very troubling” and suggested that Trump may be less interested in regime change in Iran than in creating the conditions to interfere with the upcoming U.S. midterm elections.

“One of the things we learned from the Korean war, from the cold war, from Vietnam, and certainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, is that it’s not enough to start the war, you have to have a plan to end the war,” he said.

While it was confirmed that the theocracy’s most powerful political figure and top cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been killed – along with many other senior regime figures – Trump said those left behind were willing to talk.

“They want to talk and I agreed to talk, so I will talk to them,” he told the Atlantic. “They should have done it sooner. They should have given what was very practical and easy earlier. They waited too long.”

But that may not be easy amid attacks on Iran and Tehran’s retaliation in the Middle East.

Trump said most of those who participated in earlier negotiations were killed. “A lot of those people are gone. Some of the people we were dealing with are gone because it was a big deal. They could have made a deal. They should have done it sooner.”

The comments supported Vatanka’s view that the president “has no plans for regime change” but instead seeks a “weakened regime that does not harm anyone.”

Vatanka said, “If he wants regime change, there are many opposition figures he can bring to the White House and say, ‘This man will be the next ruling leader of Iran.'” “He doesn’t do that, which makes us think, maybe he still thinks [make a deal with] the same regime.”

But Iran’s retaliation could thwart that notion, forcing Trump to take a tougher line to avoid appearing weak.

Three US soldiers were reportedly killed and five others were injured when Iran retaliated with its own wave of attacks on Sunday.

Trump gave clear support for “regime change” in his video message announcing the attacks on Saturday, but gave little hint of what that should look like beyond calling on the Iranian people to take action.

“You have asked for America’s help for years” in question. “Now you have a president who gives you what you want. Let’s see how you react. Now is the time to act. Don’t let it pass.”

Various videos posted on social media The photo, taken on Saturday, purportedly depicts crowds of people celebrating Khamenei’s death in towns and cities across Iran. In at least one, relatives of a protester killed in recent anti-regime demonstrations are seen dancing with joy next to the deceased’s grave. The Guardian has not verified the footage.