President Donald Trump is confronting a monumental choice in his second term, having authorized the most substantial military deployment to the Middle East in over two decades.
Should he greenlight military action against Iran, his potential responses vary from precise attacks to prolonged campaigns that could span weeks, sources indicate. Among these options are strategies to neutralize Iran’s leadership. These operations would significantly surpass the scope of last summer’s brief air raid on Iranian nuclear sites, according to informed individuals.
Those aware of the strategic planning suggest the US military might be prepared to strike Iran by this weekend; however, American officials and regional diplomats engaged in discussions with Tehran anticipate no immediate military action. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East envoy, who has been instrumental in the US negotiating efforts, is reportedly one of several Trump advisors optimistic about securing a nuclear agreement with Iran.
As of now, American forces lack a target roster for potential Iranian strikes, indicating that Trump has not yet initiated any concrete military action, a planning source reveals. White House spokespersons affirm his continued preference for diplomatic avenues.
Nevertheless, many observers now perceive a dwindling likelihood of an accord that fully addresses the president’s demands.
To date, Trump has refrained from publicly detailing his full objectives for initiating a new conflict. He also hasn’t made substantial efforts to secure support from the American populace or from Congress members, who are currently absent from Washington while he deliberates his choices. Furthermore, specialists doubt Iran would agree to Trump’s public demands, such as completely halting uranium enrichment.
Trump has issued ambiguous warnings to the Islamic Republic, urging them to accept an agreement whose conditions are still undefined. He stated in Washington on Thursday morning that he would discern the feasibility of a deal “over the next probably 10 days.” Subsequently, while on Air Force One, he prolonged this timeframe to 15 days.
“They cannot persist in jeopardizing regional stability; they must finalize a deal. If that fails – perhaps you can comprehend if it doesn’t materialize, it doesn’t materialize – but dire consequences will follow if it doesn’t,” Trump declared at the inaugural session of his Board of Peace on Thursday.
When subsequently pressed about the nature of these “bad things,” Trump declined to provide further details.
“I won’t be discussing that with you,” he responded.
Trump, having pledged during his candidacy to steer clear of foreign entanglements, has openly expressed reservations about sanctioning an operation that might lack a clear resolution and endanger American lives.
He has been presented with extensive briefings outlining potential strategies. These vary widely in scope, from targeting nuclear or missile facilities to efforts aimed at removing government leaders and overthrowing the current regime. Each option is designed to partially mitigate the risk of Iran launching military attacks against Israel or US regional military installations, and to address the possibility of Iranian proxy groups acquiring nuclear or “dirty” bombs.
Trump has alluded to a preference for a change in Iran’s regime, yet within the administration, there’s scant understanding of the potential repercussions should Tehran’s leadership collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged in recent congressional testimony that the identity of a successor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, were he to be removed, remains unknown.
Since Trump has not yet committed to a specific plan, all necessary military assets for various operations are either already deployed or will be in place within days, according to sources. This includes the USS Gerald R. Ford, the planet’s most advanced aircraft carrier, anticipated to arrive in the Eastern Mediterranean by early next week.
A portion of this military escalation is explicitly designed to bolster the defense of US forces, whether against a preemptive Iranian assault or in response to US strikes with drones or missiles targeting American bases.
The unresolved question, however, is whether any potential military action authorized by Trump would aim to dismantle Iran’s leadership, target its uranium enrichment capacities, or neutralize its ballistic missile initiative.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated, “President Trump has made it clear that the Iranian regime must reach an agreement, or face ‘very traumatic’ consequences for the regime,” further noting that Trump’s past actions prove “he means what he says.”
Privately, some of Trump’s advisors are themselves unsure how to publicly justify a potential US military intervention in Iran. An anonymous source indicated that administration officials are deliberately maintaining ambiguity regarding their public rationales.
Despite Trump’s repeated assertions that last June’s US strikes “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated Thursday that “most of the material Iran had accumulated until June of last year, despite the [U.S.] bombings and attacks, remains present, in significant quantities, precisely where it was before the strikes.”
Grossi further elaborated, “While some of it might be less accessible, the material persists. From a non-proliferation perspective, the substance is still there.” He concluded, “This underscores the significant interest—I would even say urgency—in forging an agreement to avert further military conflict in the region.”
On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was evasive when questioned about the necessity of a strike against Iran.
“Numerous justifications and arguments could be presented for military action against Iran,” Leavitt informed reporters at a press briefing, but she did not specify these reasons or arguments.
She also declined to confirm if Trump intended to articulate his objectives or reasoning for an Iran operation during his upcoming State of the Union address, typically an event with one of the largest annual television viewerships for a president.
Two advisors to Trump drew parallels between the current situation and both the decision to strike Iran last year and the January capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, observing that in both instances, Trump only definitively settled on a course of action just prior to issuing the order, despite extensive prior planning.
CNN had previously reported that, in both scenarios, Trump wavered for weeks on whether to employ military force. This week, Trump has privately advocated for and against military intervention, seeking input from advisors and allies regarding the optimal path forward.
Trump has been given diverse counsel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who made an urgent visit to the White House last week, contended that Iran is at its weakest point, making it an opportune moment to either compel concessions from Tehran or endeavor to dismantle its missile program. A State Department official informed CNN on Wednesday that Rubio intends to travel to Israel late next week to brief Netanyahu on the ongoing Iran discussions.
Other key Trump supporters, such as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, have publicly and privately advocated for US intervention.
No signs suggest Trump is getting ready to seek congressional approval for any operation in Iran. On Thursday, two legislators—California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna and Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie—announced their intention to push for a vote next week on a resolution demanding congressional authorization before Trump can order military action.
“This is not Donald Trump’s ultimate decision to render. The Constitution is unequivocally clear on this: he cannot commit US forces to hostilities without congressional approval,” stated Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss on CNN. “That authorization for the use of military force has not been provided by Congress.”
He further elaborated, “Coercive diplomacy targeting Iran is fitting, particularly concerning their financing of proxy terror groups, their ballistic missile advancement, and naturally, their nuclear initiatives.” He emphasized, “However, it is inappropriate for him to unilaterally decide to strike Iran, thereby potentially entangling the United States in yet another perpetual conflict undesired by the American populace.”
Reporting for this article was also contributed by Kylie Atwood, Kasie Hunt, and Jennifer Hansler.