The United States could be on the verge of launching a military action that would mark the most decisive moment in the nearly half-century confrontation with Iran.
However, there is little public information about a potential attack that could last a week, with unforeseeable consequences. But every day, Trump is being drawn closer to a fateful decision.
Sending the military to war is the grimmest duty of presidents. Assuming the highest office comes with the obligation to explain why force may be necessary. And unclear thinking could jeopardize the mission, as stated in a CNN analysis.
The military has informed the White House that it could be ready for an attack by the weekend, following the positioning of aerial and naval resources in the region. However, a source told the American television station that the president has weighed the arguments for and against the action and consulted advisers and allies on what to do regarding Iran.
In any case, the American president has not yet made a final decision, sources cited by CNN said.
Trump treads on thin ice
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to the pertinent question about why Trump might launch an attack on Iran's nuclear program, which he announced he had already completely destroyed last year in a bombing. "Well, there are many reasons and arguments he could invoke for an attack against Iran," Leavitt said, without providing details.
Leavitt suggested that Americans should simply trust the president. "He always thinks about what is in the best interest of the United States of America, our military, the American people," she said.
It would be a thin basis for launching a major war that could cost billions of dollars and an unknown number of American and Iranian lives and could trigger huge military and economic repercussions in the Middle East.
Moreover, the attack could further exacerbate Trump's already strong internal unpopularity in a midterm election year, as presented in the analysis outlining the arguments for and against an attack.
Why now might be the time to attack Iran
White House officials may not tell Americans why it might be time to go to war with Iran. But that doesn't mean there aren't strategic reasons to do so. Leavitt is right about this, notes the American TV station.
Ending the Cold War with Iran, which has haunted every American president since Jimmy Carter, would secure Trump an important place in history. And it could mark a major milestone in the thorny relationship with revolutionary Iran that began with the humiliation of Americans held hostage in 1979-1981 and has affected the confidence and global prestige of the USA.
Trump may never have a better opportunity to strike Iran.
It can be said that the Iranian regime has never been weaker. Its regional intermediaries, such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon - once an insurance policy against external attack - have been severely weakened by Israel.
The Iranian government faces its most serious internal crisis in history. It is shrouded in doubts about the revolutionary succession after the death of the Supreme Leader, 86-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The economy is in ruins. Desperation has recently driven people to the streets, amid a lack of food and water and difficult economic conditions. The repression that followed has resulted in the killing of thousands of people. Trump could thus fulfill his promise to the protesters that the US was "ready to defend them" by toppling the clerical regime.
Although Iran may not pose an immediate lethal threat to the US, it has killed dozens of Americans in terrorist attacks and through militias during the Iraq war.
Additionally, its leaders have long threatened to wipe Israel off the map - a threat that would become even more serious with nuclear weapons.
And a stable, democratic, and non-threatening Iran would fuel the emergence of a new Middle East, fueled by the growing global influence of US allies in the Gulf.
Moreover, Trump would, of course, be a hero to Iranians if he freed them from repression.
But there are many arguments for why Trump might be wise not to act, at least not now.
What are the risks
A serious attempt to either decapitate the Iranian regime or liquidate the military capacity of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitary militia would likely require a multi-day air campaign. This could lead to significant civilian casualties. It would increase the possibility of US combat deaths or the capture of American pilots, which could turn into a propaganda disaster.
Although some critics have highlighted Trump's promises not to wage new wars in the Middle East, a conflict in Iran probably would not lead to the type of massive ground invasion that turned Iraq into a quagmire. But, as in that war, the best day for the US might be when it launches its first salvo of "shock and awe."
Also, any attack against Iran's clerical leaders is unlikely to be as "clean" as the special forces mission that removed Maduro from Venezuela.
There is also the question of what would happen if the revolutionary government were to fall. Failure to anticipate what comes next has affected American efforts to change the regime in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
"My question ultimately is, if this drags on for weeks, what happens next?", said Colin Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center, on CNN. "Then you're dealing with a power vacuum, then you're dealing with the potential for insurgency. And, you know, there are a number of states and non-state actors that would seek to exploit that," she added.
Iran, the seat of ancient Persian civilization, is less affected by religious divisions than Iraq, which fragmented after the American invasion. But the loss of central authority could be devastating. And the lack of a coherent umbrella leadership for protesters or an organized internal opposition raises further questions about a smooth transition.
Any joint US and Israeli military action would certainly involve widespread attacks on Iranian installations and forces. But the American intelligence community still believes that the most likely candidate to fill a leadership void would be the hardline guard corps, sources cited by CNN said this week. Thus, removing the theocrats in Tehran could lead to an equally radical anti-US replacement.
Lastly, a longer and more complex military action in Iran than in Venezuela, with uncertain consequences, would increase political pressure on Trump domestically, amid multiple polls showing that the majority of Americans oppose a new war in the Middle East. It could also test Trump's bond with the MAGA movement, as he has spent the last 10 years assuring his electoral base that there will be no more quagmires where the US military will venture.
Although American officials have stated that forces will be positioned to attack Iran over the weekend, US action is not guaranteed. The beginning of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan could signal a delay. As well as Trump's annual State of the Union address, on Tuesday.
Trump values unpredictability, so Iran will be on high alert.
T.D.