Trump Weighs Response to Iran Protests: Military Options & Risks

by Chief Editor

Following weeks of widespread protests in Iran, President Donald Trump initially voiced support for the demonstrators via social media, tweeting on January 13, “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING.” He added, “TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

Rising Tensions and Potential Responses

The president’s message was interpreted by some as a signal of potential military intervention. However, his tone shifted the following day, as he informed reporters that he had been told “the killing in Iran is stopping” and that “the executions won’t take place.”

The U.S. Navy has repositioned the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group from the Pacific Ocean to the Middle East, providing the president with a range of options – including cyberattacks, targeted bombings, expanded economic sanctions, or a blockade of Iranian shipping – should he choose to act.

Did You Know? The protests began on December 28, sparked by merchants in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar protesting the collapse of the Iranian rial and a 72% increase in food prices since January of the previous year.

The situation carries significant weight, impacting the lives of Iranian protesters and the stability of a region responsible for 30% of the world’s oil supply. The White House is navigating a complex landscape with implications for both allies and rivals.

A Unique Decision-Making Process

According to Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, “In this Trump White House, all the procedures built by Republican and Democratic White House administrations have been eliminated. This is Donald Trump’s show.”

Gerecht suggests that inaction would be the “worst scenario” for the president, but notes he retains considerable latitude. He identifies air or missile strikes against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps installations as the most likely military option, stating it “would shake the regime, and that in itself is helpful [to U.S. interests].”

Expert Insight: The current situation presents a high-stakes gamble for the U.S. While military intervention carries substantial risks, a perceived lack of response could be interpreted as a weakening of American resolve, potentially emboldening Iran and its allies.

However, Gerecht emphasizes that “Ultimately, change is coming from the inside and not from outside,” and acknowledges the regime’s increasingly brutal response to the unrest.

More than 2,600 people have reportedly been killed during the protests, according to Human Rights Activists News Agency, while the Iranian government estimates the toll to be closer to 300.

Neighboring Gulf states – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait – while having their own disagreements with Iran, appear content to observe the situation. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly reassured Iran that his country would not participate in any U.S.-led action.

Potential Outcomes and Domestic Debate

Analysts like Vali Nasr of the Center for Strategic and International Studies believe the protests represent a potential “endgame” for the Islamic Republic, even if the current uprising is suppressed. Nasr wrote that any crackdown will “create an unbridgeable chasm with the population.”

Within the U.S., opinions are divided. Some lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Tim Kaine, argue that any military strike would require congressional authorization. Senator Rand Paul cautioned that intervention could backfire, while Senator Lindsey Graham urged the president to use “all means necessary.”

Ray Takeyh, of the Council on Foreign Relations, suggests that Mr. Trump’s unpredictable nature could be an advantage, allowing him to claim de-escalation without appearing to lose face. “Trump is such an unusual politician; he’s not bound by the normal rules of politics,” Takeyh said.

As of Wednesday, Mr. Trump stated Washington would “watch and see,” and on Friday, he thanked the Iranian government for reportedly halting planned executions. Officials from Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have reportedly urged the U.S. to avoid military strikes, citing concerns about regional destabilization.

Takeyh concludes, “Mr. Trump can stop because he has already used force against both Iran and Venezuela, or he can bomb them this afternoon. Anything can happen. No one can say he’s against using force.”

Frequently Asked Questions

What prompted the current protests in Iran?

The protests began on December 28, when merchants in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar protested the collapse of the Iranian rial and a significant increase in food prices – a 72% rise since January of the previous year.

What options is President Trump considering in response to the unrest?

President Trump is considering a range of options, including cyberattacks, targeted bombings, economic sanctions, a blockade of Iranian shipping, or taking no action at all.

What is the potential impact of the protests on the Iranian regime?

The protests represent the greatest threat to the Iranian regime since it came to power in 1979, and some analysts believe they could lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic, even if the current uprising is suppressed.

What role do you believe international pressure should play in addressing the situation unfolding in Iran?

You may also like

Leave a Comment