Trump faces his options on Iran – from targeted attacks to possible regime overthrow

President Donald Trump faces one of the most important decisions of his second term as he orders the largest military buildup in the Middle East in 22 years.

If he decides to proceed with an attack on Iran, his options now range from more targeted strikes to sustained operations that could potentially last for weeks, according to people familiar with the matter. Some include plans to eliminate Tehran’s leaders. Many of them would be on a much larger scale than the hourly bombings that targeted Iranian nuclear facilities last summer, according to people familiar with the plans.

People familiar with the plans said the U.S. military could be ready as early as this weekend to strike Iran, but U.S. officials and regional diplomats with knowledge of diplomatic talks with Tehran do not expect the strikes to come so soon. Middle East envoy and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner — who has helped lead the U.S. negotiating team — is among a number of Trump advisers who hope they can reach a nuclear deal with Iran, according to a source familiar with his thinking.

US troops have not yet received a list of targets for possible strikes on Iran, a sign that Trump has not yet “pulled the trigger” to order any specific military operation, according to a source familiar with the planning. White House officials say he continues to favor a diplomatic solution.

However, many now say they see diminishing prospects for a deal that meets all of the president's demands.

Trump has not, so far, publicly laid out everything he hopes to achieve by launching a new war. Nor has he made any serious effort to win the support of the American public or members of Congress, who have been away from Washington this week as he weighs his options. And experts remain skeptical that Iran would make the concessions Trump has publicly demanded, such as giving up uranium enrichment entirely.

Trump has made vague demands for the Islamic Republic to agree to a deal, the terms of which remain unclear. He said Thursday morning in Washington that he would know “in the next 10 days or so” whether a deal was possible. Later, aboard Air Force One, he extended the deadline to 15 days.

"They can't continue to threaten the stability of the entire region and they have to make a deal, or if that doesn't happen - maybe you can understand if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, but bad things will happen if it doesn't happen," Trump said at the inaugural meeting of his Peace Board on Thursday.

Asked later what "bad things" could happen, Trump declined to elaborate.

"I won't talk to you about this," he said.

Trump, who promised as a candidate to avoid involvement in foreign wars, has been openly wary of approving an operation that lacks a decisive outcome and could put Americans at risk.

He has received a wealth of information on the possible options. They range in scale from attacks on nuclear or missile sites to attempts to overthrow government leaders and overthrow the regime. All options would address, at least in part, the threat of Iran launching military strikes against Israel or U.S. military bases in the region, as well as Iranian proxies that could potentially acquire a nuclear or dirty bomb.

Trump has signaled a desire for regime change in Iran, but there is little clarity within the administration about what might happen if the leadership in Tehran falls. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during congressional testimony last month that no one really knows who might replace Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei if he is toppled.

While Trump has yet to decide on a course of action, all the military assets needed to carry out a range of operations are in place, or will be in the coming days, the sources said. That includes the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world's most advanced aircraft carrier, which is expected to sail to the eastern Mediterranean by early next week.

At least part of the military preparations are intended to help protect American troops in the event that Iran either mounts a preemptive strike or retaliates for American attacks by firing drones or missiles at American bases.

However, the question remains whether any potential operation ordered by Trump would focus on overthrowing Iran's leadership, targeting its enrichment capabilities or destroying its ballistic missile program.

"President Trump has been clear that the Iranian regime must make a deal or it will be 'very traumatic' for the regime," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in a statement, adding that Trump showed he "means what he says" with the previous attacks.

Behind the scenes, even some of Trump's advisers are unclear about how to convey to the public why it might be necessary for the United States to potentially use military intervention in Iran. One source said administration officials were being deliberately vague about motives in public.

While Trump repeatedly claimed that US strikes last June “completely and completely destroyed” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, said on Thursday that “most of the material that Iran had accumulated by June of last year, despite the [American] bombings and attacks, is still there, in large quantities, where it was at the time of the attacks.”

“Some of them may be less accessible, but the material is still there. From a nonproliferation perspective, the material remains,” Grossi added. “That’s why there is so much interest – I would say urgency – in reaching an agreement that would prevent new military action in the region.”

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt spoke with astonishment about why an attack on Iran might be necessary.

"There are many reasons and arguments that one could present for an attack on Iran," Leavitt told reporters during a press conference, without providing details on what those reasons or arguments were.

She also did not say whether Trump planned to present his objectives or rationale for a mission to Iran during his State of the Union address next week, traditionally one of the largest annual television audiences for a commander in chief.

Two Trump advisers compared the current moment to both the decision to attack Iran last year and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January, noting that in each case Trump did not definitively decide on a course of action until shortly before giving the order, despite months of planning.

In both cases, CNN reported that Trump had debated for weeks whether to use military force. This week, Trump has privately argued both for and against military action and polled advisers and allies on the best course of action.

He has received mixed advice. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who made an emergency visit to the White House last week, has argued that Iran has never been weaker and that now is the time to extract concessions from Tehran or try to dismantle its missile program. Rubio plans to visit Israel late next week to brief Netanyahu on the talks with Iran, a State Department official told CNN on Wednesday.

Other key Trump allies, including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have argued for US intervention both publicly and privately.

There is no indication that Trump is preparing to ask Congress for approval for any operation in Iran. Two lawmakers — Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, and Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky — said Thursday they plan to try to force a vote next week on a resolution that would require authorization from Congress before Trump can order military force.

"It's not the final decision that Donald Trump has to make. The Constitution is very clear on this, he cannot engage American forces in hostilities without the authorization of Congress," another lawmaker, Democratic Representative Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, told CNN. "This authorization for the use of military force was not given by Congress."

“Coercive diplomacy against Iran is appropriate, against the financing of terrorist forces through proxy warfare, against the development of ballistic missiles, certainly, against their nuclear program,” he added. “What is not appropriate is for him to make a unilateral decision to attack Iran and potentially drag the United States into another perpetual war that the American public does not want.”

The Geopost