President Donald Trump indicated Tuesday he is considering a military response to ongoing unrest in Iran, stating “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” to Iranian protesters. This comes amid reports of widespread violence, with senior government and security sources telling Iran International that at least 12,000 people have been killed in Iran – the largest instance of killings in the country’s recent history – largely during an internet shutdown on January 8-9.
Potential Responses and Their Limitations
Experts suggest any U.S. military intervention would likely offer only a temporary reprieve from the violence. Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Washington Institute, both believe limited strikes could punish Tehran, but would be unlikely to halt the bloodshed without a sustained, broader campaign.
Rayburn drew a parallel to the 2017 U.S. response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria. “We did airstrikes… We did not follow that up with a maximum pressure campaign or a political campaign,” he said, noting that Assad subsequently used chemical weapons again a year later. He emphasized, “We can’t do this just by one-off military strikes. They have the impact, but we have to have a campaign and we have to use all the tools at our disposal.”
Satloff expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of a single strike, stating, “A strike sounds like something that you do and then you’re done and that you can then turn to whatever next international problem is on your agenda.” He characterized the current situation as a critical test for the Trump administration, asking whether the president’s actions will “bring an end to the carnage.”
Shifting Reports and Alternative Strategies
On Wednesday, President Trump stated he had been informed that the killings in Iran had stopped and that Tehran would not execute protesters. However, Satloff cautioned against accepting this claim at face value. “If indeed the killing has stopped… terrific,” he said, “But if the killing continues tomorrow, the day after, then that tweet will mean nothing and the president will know it.”
Both Rayburn and Satloff highlighted options beyond military force. Satloff suggested focusing on disrupting the Iranian security apparatus by “shutting down their communications,” while Rayburn advocated for fully reinstating a “maximum pressure” campaign on the Iranian regime, arguing that Iran is currently “in an even more brittle state” than during Trump’s first term.
Potential Military Action: A Cautious Approach
Should military action prove unavoidable, Satloff suggested targeting “very specifically the barracks and the facilities of the IRGC and the Basij,” while stressing the importance of avoiding civilian casualties to maintain U.S. credibility. The U.S. previously launched airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in June during a conflict between Iran and Israel.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted President Trump’s comments about Iran?
President Trump’s comments were prompted by ongoing protests in Iran and reports of significant violence against protesters, with at least 12,000 people killed according to senior government and security sources.
What did experts say about the effectiveness of a limited military strike?
Joel Rayburn and Robert Satloff both believe a limited military strike may briefly punish Iran, but is unlikely to stop the violence unless it is part of a broader, sustained campaign.
What alternatives to military action were discussed?
Experts discussed options such as disrupting Iranian communications, fully implementing a “maximum pressure” economic campaign, and focusing on targeted sanctions.
Given the complex situation and differing perspectives, what role will sustained pressure – beyond any immediate response – play in shaping the future of the unrest in Iran?
