Trump Weighs Iran Strike: 25% Tariff Hits Amid Deadly Protests
Trump Weighs Iran Strike Just ten days ago, the US president warned that Washington was prepared to come to the “rescue” of Iranian protesters if the authorities turned violence against them. At the time, he said the United States was “locked and loaded and ready to go”.
Trump Weighs Iran Strike
Those remarks came before the scale of the crackdown in Iran became clear. Now, as reports of widespread violence and repression emerge despite an internet blackout, global attention has shifted to how Trump will respond.
“Nobody knows what President Trump is going to do except for President Trump,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The world can keep waiting and guessing.”
Senior national security officials are due to brief the president on Tuesday on a range of possible responses. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said he was considering “some very strong options”.
Buoyed by what he has described as a major success in Venezuela, where US forces captured Nicolás Maduro, the temptation to act decisively is clear. Trump has called that operation one of the most successful in US history.
Recent military actions have already shown Washington’s reach. Last summer, B-2 stealth bombers flew 30 hour missions from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to strike two of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear facilities with bunker busting munitions.
Whether the US opts for similar long range strikes or more targeted attacks against figures linked to the current repression, it is widely assumed that the Pentagon has an extensive list of potential targets. According to Pentagon officials cited by CBS News, options also include cyber operations and covert psychological campaigns aimed at disrupting Iran’s command and control systems.
One course of action appears unlikely. A scenario similar to the dramatic seizure of power in Caracas earlier this year is widely seen as implausible. Even weakened by recent Israeli and US strikes, Iran remains a hardened and experienced state. Removing a single individual is unlikely to bend the country to Washington’s will.
Trump himself has referenced the risks of direct intervention, recalling Jimmy Carter’s failed 1980 attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. Eight US servicemen were killed when aircraft collided in the eastern desert, an episode that badly damaged Carter’s presidency.
“I don’t know that he would have won the election,” Trump told the New York Times last week, “but he certainly had no chance after that disaster.”
More than four decades later, a deeper question shapes US planning. What is the Trump administration ultimately trying to achieve in Iran.
“It’s hard to tell exactly what course of action Trump is likely to take,” said Will Todman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “because we do not know what his full aim is here.”
Todman said Trump is more likely seeking to influence Tehran’s behaviour than to overthrow the regime outright. The risks of regime change, he argued, are immense. Possible objectives range from extracting concessions in nuclear talks, to halting the crackdown, to pushing limited reforms that could lead to sanctions relief.
Trump has claimed that elements within Iran’s leadership have quietly reached out, seeking to negotiate and keep channels open on the nuclear issue. Public rhetoric from Tehran, the White House says, does not reflect private messages being received.
Diplomacy, Leavitt said, remains “always the first option”. Officials speaking to the Wall Street Journal have suggested that JD Vance is among senior advisers urging the president to prioritise talks.
“The smartest thing for them to have done,” Vance said last week, “is to actually have a real negotiation with the United States about what we need to see when it comes to their nuclear program.”
Yet continued bloodshed risks making diplomacy appear weak. Todman warned that a lack of action could demoralise protesters on the streets.
With disturbing accounts continuing to surface, Trump has hinted he may act even before diplomatic efforts run their course. Some analysts argue that a limited strike could boost protesters’ morale while warning Tehran that escalation could follow.
“All Trump has to do is strike to cause panic inside the regime,” said Bilal Saab of Chatham House. Such an action, he said, could distract the authorities and embolden demonstrators.
Read More: Iranians in Northern Ireland Cut Off: “How Can You Survive Without Food?
But Saab cautioned that military action could also have the opposite effect. A strike might strengthen hardliners, rally public support around the government and stiffen resistance, especially if the action were symbolic or isolated.
The calculations are further complicated by Iran’s warnings that it would retaliate against any US attack. Despite recent damage, Iran retains a sizeable arsenal of ballistic missiles.
Across the region, Tehran’s network of allies has been weakened. Bashar al Assad is gone, and Hezbollah has been diminished. Yet the so called Axis of Resistance is not defunct. The Houthis in Yemen and Shiite militias in Iraq remain capable of striking back.
Among those urging decisive action is Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch. He has offered to lead a transition away from clerical rule.
“The president has a decision to make fairly soon,” Pahlavi told CBS News. “The best way to ensure fewer people are killed is to intervene sooner, so this regime finally collapses.”
It sounds straightforward. Inside the White House, officials know the reality is anything but.
