What are Trump’s objectives as he contemplates strikes on Iran?
Will he do it or not?
For weeks, Washington, Middle Eastern capitals and many countries beyond have been gripped by speculation that President Donald Trump would attack Iran — a move that many analysts and some advisers in Mr. Trump’s inner circle have warned could trigger a broader war.
At the same time, another question remains largely unanswered regarding the president’s potential recourse to military intervention against the Islamic Republic: why would he do it?
Why we wrote this
President Donald Trump’s brief mention of Iran in his State of the Union address is insufficient to explain how and why a strike against Iran, which risks provoking a broader conflict in the Middle East, would further U.S. interests.
Today, with indirect talks between the United States and Iran set to resume Thursday in Geneva, against the backdrop of the largest American armada assembled in the Middle East since the Iraq War, the answer to the question of “why” remains, at best, incomplete.
Mr. Trump’s recent comments on Iran and those of some of his advisers suggest four different goals that could motivate U.S. policy, according to many U.S.-Iran analysts. Chief among them is Iran’s nuclear program and the elimination of any possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Other goals considered by the president, the comments suggest, are the withdrawal of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capabilities; come to the aid of Iranian anti-regime protesters, as Mr. Trump promised in January; weaken Iran’s support for its regional proxies; and, finally, some form of regime change.
The president devoted only a few lines of his State of the Union address Tuesday to Iran, but he touched on some of these potential goals that underpin his next steps.
Majid Asgaripour/West Asia News Agency
“My preference is to resolve this problem through diplomacy,” Mr. Trump said, “but I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism to possess nuclear weapons. I cannot let that happen.”
Referring to what he expects from the ongoing negotiations, he said: “We have not heard the secret words: ‘We [Iran] we will never have a nuclear weapon.’”
Addressing other factors that could guide the administration’s deliberations, the president cited disdain for a regime “that has killed at least 32,000 protesters,” as well as a stockpile of missiles “that can threaten Europe and our overseas bases.” (Rights groups monitoring Iran’s recent unrest say the confirmed death toll so far is at least 7,000, which would make the crackdown the regime’s deadliest.)
Emboldened, but hesitant
For many critics and analysts, this does little to explain why the United States would risk a broader, unpredictable war in the Middle East.
In the absence of clear arguments about how an Iranian strike would further U.S. interests, some analysts say the president appears to be emboldened to take military action by what he has called recent successes. First, last June’s airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, then January’s special forces operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
“Trump is the casino guy on the rise. He just won a lot of money at the Venezuelan craps table, and he hasn’t forgotten his June winnings in Iran,” says Rosemary Kelanic, an expert on energy security and U.S. grand strategy at Defense Priorities, a Washington think tank advocating restraint in U.S. foreign policy.
“Now he’s back at the table,” she adds, “with a lot of chips and a few congressional hawks and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu whispers in his ear that Iran is weak and therefore this is an opportunity for him to think big.”
She says the lack of clarity about President Trump’s goals may make it harder to get the deal he says he prefers. “If the Iranians are unsure whether Trump really wants a deal, but suspect he might be intent on regime change, then there is no incentive for Iran to make concessions,” she says.
Others believe that the president appears to be leaning in favor of a limited military strike that goes beyond a symbolic signal but will not achieve complete regime change. Nuclear sites would be targeted again, but this time also missile infrastructure and government power centers, in order to convince the Iranians to take the negotiations seriously. Mr. Trump confirmed last week that he was indeed considering such an option.
“What President Trump has on the table appears to be a ‘decapitation strike’ that would be designed to target a range of important military infrastructure and Iran’s leadership so that the United States can begin negotiating in earnest in a new reality and with a new successor leadership,” said Arash Reisinezhad, a visiting assistant professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts.
“So what I see is a three-step strategy,” he said, adding: “the ongoing negotiations, then the decapitation strikes, then the return to serious negotiations” with a successor group of Iranian powers.
“Iran gets a vote”
Such an approach might be “more realistic than complete regime change,” says Dr. Reisinezhad, “but it would still be very risky – which is why Mr. Trump is hesitant.”
He said Iran could be expected to immediately retaliate against US interests in the region, including military bases, energy facilities and Israel.
Others agree that the “strike to negotiate” option is fraught with danger.
“The theory that a series of targeted strikes could lead to concessions from Iran is completely false,” says Dr. Kelanic. “Iran is getting a vote on this issue, and they have signaled in every way that they will respond harshly to any attack. If Trump opts for an attack,” she adds, “any deal will be rejected.”
Some analysts suspect that Mr. Trump’s main motivation lies in his assurances to the American public, as early as his 2016 presidential campaign, that he could strike a deal with Iran far better than President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal — from which he withdrew in 2018. Going to war with Iran would tarnish his image as a greater dealmaker than any previous president, they say.
For Dr. Reisinezhad, unpredictable military engagement with Iran also risks seriously harming the administration’s broader national security interests, as outlined in last month’s National Security Strategy.
“The United States, under this administration, has just said that its main priority should be Taiwan and the South China Sea, as well as the Western Hemisphere,” he says. “If the United States gets stuck in the Middle East and has to turn away from Asia,” he adds, “it will be good for China and for Russia. »
