While American President Donald Trump sends a message to Iranian protesters that „help is on the way,” the reality on the ground shows that Washington has few tools capable of decisively influencing developments in Iran, and any use of force would involve major risks and unpredictable costs.
An analysis published by The Guardian indicates that the US options are limited both by the lack of prior military deployment and by the risk of regional escalation, without any guarantee that such action would assist the protest movement or weaken the regime in Tehran.
Without military deployment, without real options
According to the analysis, Trump has talked about a possible military intervention without any prior military deployment taking place. Furthermore, in recent months, the United States has reduced its military presence in the region, further limiting the available options.
The Guardian highlights that the US has not had any aircraft carriers deployed in the Middle East since October, following nearly continuous presence for two years after Hamas's attack on Israel.
Airstrikes with others' bases and the risk of reprisals
In these conditions, any airstrike or missile attack would need to originate from American or allied bases in the Middle East.
The analysis points out that Washington would require the approval of states such as Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, or Saudi Arabia, while also needing to defend them against potential Iranian reprisals.
Even without the direct use of these bases, "Iranian leaders have threatened to strike American bases and ships in the event of an attack on the country."
Iran is weakened, but not disarmed
Although Iran's military capabilities were affected in the 12-day war with Israel, The Guardian notes that Tehran is not devoid of means to respond. "Iran is estimated to have approximately 2,000 heavy ballistic missiles," capable of evading American and Israeli anti-aircraft defense systems if launched in large numbers.
The main launch sites remain hidden in mountains, and the reconstruction of military infrastructure is ongoing.
What could actually be targeted by the US?
Another major issue is target identification. Protests and violent repression are occurring throughout Iran, with a high risk of civilian casualties.
The analysis warns that hitting targets is not always precise; some objectives may be misidentified, and civilian casualties in urban areas would pose an obvious risk. Moreover, it is not clear that such strikes would have a real effect on the ground.
Furthermore, the Tehran regime could turn a US attack into a factor for internal mobilization, invoking the long history of US interventions dating back to the CIA-organized coup in 1953.
Despite popular discontent, the Iranian regime does not appear fragile or weak, having already survived sustained Israeli attacks.
Experts' warning: "There are no red lines"
"There is clearly a government, an army, and coherent security services in Iran," believes Roxane Farmanfarmaian, an associate researcher at the Royal United Services Institute think tank.
She adds that "The government shows that there are no red lines: it will secure its borders and streets, and the extraordinarily large number of body bags shows the determination to do so."
An attempt to eliminate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is considered a theoretical scenario but extremely dangerous. Killing the leader of another country would be a stunning escalation, raise numerous legal issues, and invite a sustained military response, notes The Guardian.
Moreover, such an action would not guarantee a regime change, which has remained intact even after the elimination of dozens of Iranian military leaders following Israeli attacks.
Alternatives: cyber, Internet, and Starlink
In the absence of clear military options, other alternatives are being considered, such as cyber attacks or supporting access to the Internet.
However, Ciaran Martin, former director of the UK's National Cyber Security Centre, warns that "it is hard to see what could work" and that disrupting services like electricity "would likely affect civilians more."
The idea of providing access to Starlink is not truly considered "a cyber operation" and is insufficient to stop the violence.
The analysis concludes that the expectations created by Trump's message - "help is on the way" - may not be supported by the reality on the ground. What can be achieved through American military intervention may not live up to the promise made by the White House leader, warns The Guardian.
G.P