Donald Trump doesn’t get it. On February 21, Steve Witkoff, his envoy to the Middle East and elsewhere, told Fox News that the president could not understand why Iran had not “surrendered” to America’s demands over its nuclear program, given the expanding American military presence that now looms over the Islamic Republic. The latest addition to that force lifted off over Israel’s Mediterranean coast on February 19 at an altitude of 31,000 feet, clearly visible in the afternoon sun. The E-3 AWACS aircraft were on their way to a Saudi air base where American forces are stationed. Their mission will be to coordinate multiple sorties in complex air operations over Iran, in the event of war. America has built a massive military presence in the Middle East, its largest overseas military presence in more than two decades, with more than a third of all available US naval ships now in the region. Its presence means that Trump has a range of options if he decides to attack Iran.
He has ordered strikes on Iran before. In June, he sent seven B-2 stealth bombers, flying 18 hours from Missouri, to drop bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities. But if he ordered another attack, the range of targets would certainly be far more expansive, and the consequences uncertain.
A second aircraft carrier is scheduled to arrive in the region within days. Thus, America will have amassed a force of about 200 combat aircraft along with a supporting fleet of AWAC command and control aircraft, aircraft carriers, and electronic warfare and rescue aircraft. It also has warships capable of launching hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles. America has also strengthened its missile defense forces in the region, by deploying THAAD and Patriot interceptor missile batteries, and squadrons of F-15E fighters equipped with guided missiles, capable of shooting down Iranian drones. “The abundance of assets that America now has in theater clearly reflects the intent that this will not be just a one-time sortie, but an ongoing air campaign, with repeat missions and presence in Iranian airspace,” says Eden Atias, a former Israeli Air Force general.
Talks between American and Iranian negotiators are expected to continue in Geneva on February 26. The President has repeatedly expressed his desire to reach a diplomatic solution to the confrontation with Iran. But as Mr. Witkoff explained, despite the pressure imposed by the US military threat, it has proven “difficult” to convince the Iranians to say: “We admit we don’t want weapons, so here’s what we’re willing to do.” Maintaining the current level of military preparedness is very expensive, and at some point threatens to leave other areas exposed.
If Trump runs out of patience and decides to attack, his generals will consider a range of options. They may hope to bomb Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and those close to him. Trump may be hoping for an outcome similar to the one we saw in Venezuela, where another figure in the Iranian leadership, more willing to make deals and in America more generally, will take charge. Many in the region believe that secret negotiations aimed at reaching such an outcome are already underway. But given the anger within Iran following the massacre of protesters last month, Iranians may view the inauguration of another member of the current regime as a betrayal by America after Trump promised to help the protesters.
America could also target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regime’s military arm, which participated in the bloody suppression of the protests. This could include striking the local headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or targeting its leadership, which has so far shown no signs of breaking with the regime. It can also attempt to destroy other military targets, including the regular army. America may decide to attack Iranian ballistic missile bases that threaten American bases in the region, as well as its allies. It may also focus some attention back on Iran’s remaining nuclear sites. A military operation can hit all five types of targets. Even a limited strike against the IRGC could be coupled with a major effort to preempt and limit Iran’s ability to launch retaliatory attacks.
Iran is certainly considering its limited options as well. Its air force is small and consists mainly of dilapidated American aircraft purchased more than half a century ago, when the Shah ruled. Instead of air power that could pose any real threat, Iran has built a massive force of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and long-range drones. It was able to fire a barrage of missiles at Israel throughout the 12-day war last June, despite the Israeli Air Force gaining air superiority over Iran and carrying out hundreds of unhindered strikes.
Iran’s choice of targets will also be determined based on the regime’s understanding of events. It is possible that Iran will fire again at Israel, although this means dragging another enemy of Iran into the new war. It could also target US bases across the region, particularly Gulf states, as it did in Qatar last summer. “In previous rounds, it was clear that they were [strikes] “It will be short and limited, and all sides were looking for a way out,” says a senior Israeli officer. Iran’s leaders may be operating under the same assumption this time – that any strike is a prelude to further negotiations. But the size of the forces deployed by the Americans and talk of regime change may lead them to believe they have nothing to lose if they launch everything they have in all directions. This may include urging its proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, to fire their own Iranian-supplied missiles.
All of this leaves Trump with a dilemma. It is unclear what he hopes to achieve with his huge arsenal. Talk about punishing the regime for slaughtering its citizens has calmed down. He mentioned regime change. But he also confirmed his desire to reach a nuclear agreement. Air strikes may fail to achieve any of these things. Limited agreements will do little to force Iran to make enough concessions on its nuclear program to allow Trump to claim victory. A sustained, large-scale attack aimed at regime change threatens to drag America into another protracted war in the Middle East, the consequences of which will be highly uncertain. Trump almost certainly does not want this kind of involvement. He may still hope that he can escalate the pressure enough, perhaps with somewhat limited strikes, for Iran’s already weakened leaders to surrender. But it is not at all clear whether such air strikes alone can bring about political change on the ground.
