In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump offered the most significant explanation yet for why the U.S. is amassing military resources around Iran, stating that his goal is to ensure Tehran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.
However, he failed to provide a complete picture of his strategic objective in threatening war with Tehran, notes CNN.
"They want to make a deal, but I haven't heard those secret words: We will never have a nuclear weapon," Trump said, in a relatively short section on Iran in his speech. He reiterated that he would prefer to pursue diplomacy.
The White House has not specified its objectives in the form of specific demands, red lines, or a turning point that could trigger a series of airstrikes.
So, what does Trump demand and what is he willing to offer in return?
When John Miller, former deputy director of U.S. national intelligence services, currently a CNN analyst, posed this question to a former colleague from the American intelligence community, he said: Trump is not asking Iran to give up anything it currently possesses, and instead is willing to offer Iran nearly everything it does not have.
What Trump wants from Iran and what he offers
Miller explains this strange position in three steps:
First, Trump demands that the Iranian regime does not rebuild an ambitious nuclear weapons program it was close to achieving. When Israel and the U.S. claimed they destroyed key uranium enrichment centers last June, Iran's vision for a nuclear weapons program became nearly unattainable.
Second, U.S. intelligence services have long suspected Iran of developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program, which, if completed, would pose a threat far beyond the Middle East. Iran's ICBM program would provide platforms to carry nuclear warheads worldwide, according to U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimates. This development must be stopped.
Third, Iran has worked for years through its elite body, the Revolutionary Guards, to recruit, train, and supply a network of terrorist and insurgent groups it calls the "Axis of Resistance." This includes the massive terrorist network Hezbollah, heavily impacted by Israeli attacks and assassinations during the Hamas conflict, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran should commit to not rebuilding this destroyed network.
At first glance, for the American president, nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile programs, as well as Iran's now shattered allies, are things the Tehran regime does not currently possess.
If Iran were to agree not to reactivate these threats, Trump and his negotiators have stated that harsh economic sanctions would be lifted, Iran's pariah status would disappear, and growth opportunities would emerge in ways that would benefit the regime and the Iranian people.
The stick and the carrot for Iranians
Even on Tuesday, the country's Foreign Minister explicitly stated that Tehran is not seeking a nuclear bomb. And spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei accused the former White House of conducting a "disinformation" campaign against his country.
Many doubt the sincerity of Iranians when they deny pursuing nuclear weapons. In the past, Tehran has enriched uranium to levels close to producing military-grade materials.
Ultimately, Trump's objectives are not known. The fleet of warships heading towards Iran from all directions represents the stick. And the "carrot" is how life in the new Iran could look.
The "Mole Day" with stealth bombers
However, what about regime change? Miller believes this is not necessarily a priority for the White House. He uses the example of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. President Trump removed him from office by taking him out of bed and throwing him into a Brooklyn jail. It was an obstacle removed.
But did Maduro's removal truly change the regime? Maduro's Vice President, Delcy Rodríguez, is still there with the rest of his cabinet, filled with the same corrupt hardliners of the PSUV party. Maduro loyalists have capitulated without a whimper to the same American demands Maduro rejected. They are now doing business with American oil and isolating Cuba and China.
In the case of Iran, whether it will be the Supreme Leader who makes this deal, or whoever remains standing after the smoke of potential military strikes clears, it is not clear that the Trump administration has a preference for choosing a new regime. Regime change or attempts to impose democracy is a tactic that has failed at a high cost in blood, not only paid by America.
In both his first term (Abraham Accords) and his second (the agreement with Israel, Peace Council, etc.), Trump has focused heavily on a radical reset in the Middle East.
The prospect of a weakened Iran being allowed over time to rebuild its arsenal programs and terrorist networks only creates the recurring need for more attacks. This story becomes the "Mole Day" with stealth bombers. Any agreement with Iran should include a verification process to ensure that funds generated by a revitalized American economy do not end up financing weapons or terrorist groups.
With Iran, you don't know anything for sure until you investigate
For Iran, the cost-benefit analysis seems to make the choice obvious. Returning to the global economy as a major player seems like a clear decision, but an intelligence analyst would call this perspective "mirror imaging" - the trap of assuming that your adversary would think through a problem the same way you would.
The Iranian regime was built through revolution and the rejection of external influence, especially Western influence. The ayatollahs have been extremely independent, at great cost to their own economy and the Iranian people.
In a region where nations and leaders measure their worth by the wealth that commands respect and the weapons that inspire fear, Iran has consistently chosen to build arsenals over prosperity. Now could be the right time to test this.
After extensive protests, despite violent repression and a collapsing economy, a weakened regime may bend more to the "American enemy" than ever before, if only for its own survival.
It is clear that the United States cannot afford to leave so many military assets in one place for long without any results, and a moment of decision is approaching for both Trump and Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.
Doing nothing does not seem to be an option, concludes the CNN analyst.