We’re currently teetering on the brink of war, which is nothing new for President Trump, who has launched military strikes in at least seven countries since returning to office 13 months ago and threatened military action against others, including Greenland. In all instances, Trump’s military strikes weren’t authorized by Congress or made clear to the public, and in some cases, the justification and objectives shifted after the fact. With Iran, Trump’s threats of military action have vacillated, starting with his stated commitment in January to Iranian protesters brutally targeted by the regime that “help is on the way.” When asked by reporters to clarify what he meant, Trump told us to “figure it out.”
One month later, we’re trying to “figure out” what’s motivating the largest deployment of U.S. military assets to the region since we began a war 23 years ago that lasted nearly nine years. Is this about standing with the Iranian protesters and people – and possibly bringing about regime change, which will require ground troops – or is it about “obliterating” Iran’s nuclear program, which Trump falsely claimed occurred in June? While badly damaged by U.S. and Israeli strikes last year, Iran still retains key elements of its nuclear program, as indicated by the fact that the U.S. just finished a second round of indirect nuclear negotiations with Iran this week.
According to the White House, “progress was made” at these negotiations, and according to Iran, “guiding principles” were agreed upon. This recent development raises the question – what about such “progress” would lead a U.S. president to send in “an armada” and order the largest military build-up in the region since the Iraq War? Is it a tactic to use as leverage in future nuclear negotiations, or are these negotiations a farce? The sheer scope of the current U.S. military deployment suggests that Trump is considering an imminent military strike to tie Iran’s hands, possibly in the very negotiations he’s trying to conduct with the existing regime.
Alternatively, Trump may be considering regime change in Iran, which goes well beyond – but must also include – removal of the Supreme Leader. For the last two months, widespread protests have demonstrated Iranians’ desire for change and rejection of social unrest and economic volatility brought about by the regime. Amid government-sanctioned blackouts to cut off the internet, millions of Iranians took to the streets across all 31 provinces – the largest uprising since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – with an estimated tens of thousands killed by the regime.
At this point, there are far more questions than answers on Iran, and the clock is ticking because the sheer size of this military deployment cannot be sustained for long. As the White House considers what comes next, it’s also vital that they consider Israel’s security and its ability to ensure Israel’s defense because any U.S. attack on Iran is likely to be met with Iranian retaliatory attacks.
Iran has a stockpile of ballistic missiles it could use against American and Israeli targets, and Israel is still recovering from exhausting its stockpile of interceptors in June. In January, Israel reportedly asked Trump to hold off any military action against Iran to improve air defense readiness. One month later, it remains unclear whether Israel is ready to defend against another onslaught of Iranian missiles – the fourth in the past two years.
Yesterday, JDCA convened an important conversation with three Middle East experts to discuss what comes next with Iran. Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Dana Stroul, and Middle East analyst and Iran expert Holly Dagres addressed these questions and more, and I encourage you to watch and share the event.
