The White House insists all options remain “on the table” regarding Iran, with the Islamic Republic convulsed by nationwide protests. President Donald Trump has threatened to intervene if Tehran’s leadership unleashes greater brutality on demonstrators.
Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have launched a diplomatic push since Tuesday to de-escalate tensions. The regional allies cautioned Washington that an attack on Tehran could trigger a cascade of volatile political and economic consequences across the Middle East.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with Trump on Wednesday to urge the president to forestall military action.
Trump on Friday confirmed he held off on an attack, but dismissed the notion that it was Arab and Israeli officials who persuaded him to do so.
“Nobody convinced me. I convinced myself,” he told reporters at the White House.
The protests, which began in late December powered by dissatisfaction with Iran’s ailing economy and more general dissent aimed at its theocratic government, have spread to all 31 Iranian provinces.
Earlier this month, the country’s attorney general declared that anyone protesting would be deemed “an enemy of god,” a charge that carries the death penalty under Iranian law.
Activists say the crackdown has left at least 2,600 people dead and as many as 18,000 detained, though these figures cannot be independently confirmed as a near-total internet blackout in Iran has stanched the flow of data.
Trump, in a Truth Social post on Tuesday, encouraged Iranians to continue protesting and “take over your institutions.”
“I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS,” he added. “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
Asked on Friday if help is still on the way, Trump said “we’re going to see.” Trump asserted that “he greatly respects” that Iran halted 800 scheduled executions.
Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. Middle East negotiator, says the key question is whether Trump’s rhetoric will be matched by action.
“It will create a huge gap between his words and his deeds if he doesn’t act,” Miller said in an interview with Military Times. “And into this gap will fall a lot of American credibility.”
Miller added that for Trump, as for most American presidents, one core set of calculations is vital when using military action: “The question is not only can we do it, but should we do it, what are the implications if we do it and do we have an exit ramp.”
“Trump doesn’t seem to follow that pattern in terms of using American military power,” he explained.
The Pentagon began dispatching a number of military assets to the Middle East this week, a U.S. official told Military Times, as the president continues to weigh “very strong options.”
It is not immediately clear what specific capabilities were being relocated.
The USS Abraham Lincoln, which had been conducting routine operations in the South China Sea, appears to have turned west on Thursday, according to satellite imagery, from where it would take nearly a week to reach the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.
The Nimitz-class nuclear powered aircraft carrier is equipped with F-35C and F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets.
The USS Gerald R. Ford and its assets were moved out of the Middle East in November for operations near Venezuela.
A clandestine raid reportedly carried out by the Army’s elite Delta Force to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their lair in Caracas involved more than 150 aircraft, according to Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
It would take about two weeks for the Ford Carrier Strike Group to move back within striking distance of Iran.
Trump still has firepower at his disposal in the region should he choose to authorize an imminent attack, however. This includes an Ohio-class submarine in CENTCOM’s area of responsibility.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of The Washington Institute’s Military and Security Studies Program, said he doesn’t expect a single U.S. strike would be enough to topple the Iranian regime — but argued a targeted attack could weaken its grip.
“Maybe [Trump] is trying for a knockout blow, which I think is an unrealistic quest,” Eisenstadt told Military Times. “But if he gives them a hard blow, he would make good on his word to avenge the blood that has been shed among the Iranian people by the regime.
“You can do cyberattacks or kinetic attacks where information is kept, because information is crucial to repression,” he continued. “So, you could destroy some of that stuff to make it harder for them to target the population. It also could be an opportunity for us to [dismantle] some of their opportunities to strike back. Hit the Navy so that in a future crisis, they don’t have time to disrupt maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf. … And hit the missiles.”
Tanya Noury is a reporter for Military Times and Defense News, with coverage focusing on the White House and Pentagon.
Read the full article here
