The United States appears to be on the verge of military action, which could constitute the most decisive moment in its almost fifty-year confrontation with Iran.
However, there is little public discussion about the nature of an attack that could last for weeks and have unpredictable consequences.
Senior national security officials have not issued any full press statement, reports Telegrafi.
US President Donald Trump has made almost no attempt to explain the reasons for such an action or why soldiers might be forced to risk their lives.
Likewise, the White House is giving no public indication of what might happen in Iran if the clerical regime falls, a scenario that could have major consequences in the Middle East.
"The president has not made the final decision in any case," sources told CNN.
Every day, even as his slow diplomatic efforts to make progress fail, the American leader is inching closer to a decisive moment. The military has told the White House it could be ready to launch an attack by the weekend, after mobilizing air and naval assets.
However, a source said the president has privately considered positions for and against the action and has asked his advisers and allies what he should do.
Given the roles and the great risk to American personnel, the lack of a clear public rationale for any conflict with Iran seems surprising.
This lack of information was also evident during the White House press briefing, ironically before the Peace Board meeting. Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt was asked why Trump might launch an attack on Iran's nuclear program, which he insists he had already completely destroyed with bombings around the world last year.
"Well, there are many reasons and arguments that could be cited for an attack on Iran," Leavitt said, without providing any specific details.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
President Trump's explanations focus only on repeated warnings that Iran will face consequences if it does not reach a "deal" with the United States. Last week, he said that regime change in Tehran could be the "best thing" that could happen.
Ordering the military into battle is the most difficult task for a president. Taking on this high responsibility comes with the obligation to explain why the use of force may be necessary. A vague idea can jeopardize the mission.
Leavitt suggested that Americans should simply trust the president. “He always thinks about what is in the best interest of the United States, of our military, of the American people,” she said.
This is a very thin 'line' for starting a major war, which could cost billions of dollars, the lives of unknown American and Iranian soldiers, and which could cause major military and economic consequences in the Middle East.
It could also exacerbate Trump's already high unpopularity at home in a midterm election year. Encouraged, the 79-year-old appreciates his tolerance for risk.
Trump would be loath to draw comparisons to the 2003 Iraq war, given its disastrous consequences for the United States and the world. Before that war began, the administration of President George W. Bush launched a lengthy propaganda campaign to convince the public and Congress to support the invasion—a campaign that was later vigorously challenged and which ended with Congressional approval, creating the legal basis for the conflict.
If Trump continues to be dishonest with the American people and Congress and then instigates military action, he will follow a similar trend to previous terms – exposing himself politically if the attacks fail or have serious consequences.
Trump also appears to have been inspired by the fall of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a recent operation, which officials said did not result in the loss of a single American soldier, presenting it as a spectacular success with no American casualties.
Another factor that may have changed his tolerance for risk is the previous experience of his first term, when the US killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq, without sparking a wider regional conflict, as some analysts had warned.
In recent weeks, the American leader’s strategy toward Iran seems to mirror his tactics in Venezuela, where he amassed a massive naval force and demanded compromise. This is 21st-century diplomacy backed by aircraft carrier groups and cruise missiles.
Trump risks creating a situation from which it will be difficult to emerge with credibility intact if his repeated assertions that Iran wants a “deal” prove to be incorrect.
The kind of deal the 79-year-old could offer Iran could be unacceptable to the clerical regime, whose top priority is to stay in power. On the other hand, a deal Tehran could offer Trump might never be accepted, because the president doesn't want to discuss Iran's ballistic missiles or its regional network of proxies, which he sees as red lines.
Any compromise by Iran on its already seriously damaged nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief would be unacceptable to Trump. He cannot afford politically to imitate the Obama administration's nuclear deal, which he rejected. Moreover, lifting sanctions could help the regime survive and remain in power.
The New York Times cites Iranian sources as saying that Iran is willing to halt uranium enrichment for three to five years in exchange for sanctions relief. However, Dennis Ross, the former US envoy for Middle East peace, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that this is a largely symbolic compromise.
"It's quite difficult to see them enriching uranium while Trump is still in power. And what they're asking for is the lifting of economic sanctions, which is a way to give them some protection," Ross declared.
Why now might be the time for an attack on Iran
The White House may not be explaining to Americans why it might be time for a war with Iran. But that doesn't mean there aren't strategic reasons for such action. In that regard, Leavitt is right.
Trump's obsession with naming buildings after himself and building new ones - like the planned White House ballroom - shows that he is increasingly focused on his legacy.
Ending a cold, often heated, war with Iran that has haunted every American president since Jimmy Carter would secure him a special place in history. Such a success could also mark the historic culmination of the distancing from revolutionary Iran that began with the fall of the Americans held captive in 1979–1981, damaging the United States’ self-confidence and global reputation.
Trump will probably never have a better chance. The Iranian regime has probably never been weaker. Iran’s regional proxies, such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon – which once acted as its shield against external attacks – have been hit hard by Israel.
The Iranian government is facing the most serious internal crisis in its history. Uncertain about its revolutionary legacy after the death of 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, economically crippled and embroiled in protests over food and water shortages, the regime is facing a serious threat to its stability. Desperation has brought thousands of protesters onto the streets, and Trump could make good on his promise to them that the United States is “ready” to protect them by toppling the clerical regime.
Although Iran may not pose a direct lethal threat to the United States, it has killed dozens of Americans through terrorist and militia attacks during the Iraq war. Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map—a threat that would become even more serious if Iran were to possess nuclear weapons. A stable, democratic, and nonthreatening Iran could foster the emergence of a new Middle East, supported by the growing influence of American allies in the Gulf.
In this scenario, Trump would be seen as a hero by Iranians if he could free them from repression.
Why an attack on Iran would be so dangerous
Photo: Donald Trump / Reuters telegrafi.com
But there are many reasons why it is wise to think twice before taking such action.
A serious attempt to weaken the Iranian regime — for example to remove its leaders or to destroy the military capabilities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and paramilitary militia Basij — would require an intensive air campaign that could last for days and lead to significant civilian casualties. The potential conflict would also raise the risk that American combat forces would lose troops or pilots, turning into a propaganda victory for U.S. adversaries.
While some critics have cited Trump's vows not to start new wars in the Middle East, a conflict with Iran would probably not involve a massive ground invasion like the one in Iraq. But even if it were simply an air offensive, the day the first missiles are fired would potentially be the worst day for the United States, jeopardizing much broader strategic and diplomatic issues.
It is also unclear whether any attack on Iranian clerical leaders would be as “clean” and effective as the operation that toppled Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela — an example that Trump often cites as a success without American losses.
There is also the big problem of what might happen if the Iranian revolutionary government falls. The experience of past conflicts — such as America’s regime change efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — shows that failure to anticipate the “days after” can be a powerful warning.
“My question is, after all that’s been said and done, if this goes on for weeks, what happens next?” Colin Clarke, executive director of the Sufan Center, told Isa Soares on CNN International. “Then you’re dealing with a power vacuum… then you’re dealing with the potential for insurgency. And there are a lot of states and non-state actors that would try to exploit that.”
Iran — home to an ancient Persian civilization — is less sectarian than Iraq was before its collapse, but the loss of central authority in Tehran could be devastating. The country could face a power vacuum, internal struggles for influence, or attempts by various ethnic and regional groups for autonomy or independence, which could lead to widespread civil conflict in the country.
Although Iran has a strong state identity and tradition, the lack of clear leadership for the protesters or an organized opposition raises further questions about the possibility of a smooth transition. Without a clear post-regime plan, the country could fall into a prolonged period of political and social uncertainty, which would have consequences not only for Iran but also for broader stability in the Middle East.
Any joint US-Israeli military action would undoubtedly involve widespread attacks on Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facilities and forces. But sources told CNN this week that the US intelligence community still believes the most likely candidate to fill the leadership void would be a hardline Guardsman. That means the overthrow of the theocrats in Tehran could lead to an equally radical and anti-American replacement.
A longer and more complex military action in Iran than the one in Venezuela, with uncertain consequences, would increase political pressure on Trump at home. Multiple polls show that a majority of Americans oppose another war in the Middle East. Such a conflict could also test Trump’s connection to the MAGA movement, as he has pledged for the past decade that the United States would stay out of foreign affairs.
While officials said U.S. forces would be positioned for a strike on Iran over the weekend, such action is not guaranteed. The start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan could mean a postponement, as could Trump's annual State of the Union address on Tuesday. The American leader appears to value the unpredictable, leaving Iran on full alert.
However, if Iran does not accept the terms that Trump has yet to fully explain to the public, delaying action will not solve the biggest dilemmas of his second term. /Telegraph/
