CNN quoted analysts as saying that any new US attack on Iran is unlikely to replicate the strikes that targeted three nuclear sites last summer. Trump is now threatening to attack Iran again in what he describes as solidarity with hundreds of thousands of Iranians who took to the streets against the regime in Tehran.
Last year, the administration of US President Donald Trump praised the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites as one of its greatest military successes, after US Air Force B-2 bombers dropped 14 of the largest bombs in the world.
Two Iranian nuclear facilities were struck without any casualties or losses among US aircraft, including dozens of fighter jets, refuelling aircraft, and support planes that helped carry out the mission.
Civilian harm risks alienating opponents
Analysts told CNN that any attack intended to support protesters would need to focus on a range of command centres and other targets linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, its Basij forces, and Iranian police. These bodies are the primary actors carrying out the violent crackdown against the opposition.
However, these command centres are located within populated areas, meaning there is a significant risk that US air strikes could kill civilians whom Trump claims to support, according to the analysts. Civilian deaths could prove counterproductive.
Analyst Carl Schuster, a former US Navy captain based in Hawaii, said, “Whatever the United States does must be extremely precise, without causing any casualties among those not affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard.”
He added, “Any attack that harms civilians, even unintentionally, risks alienating opponents who are united only by their hatred of the regime. Losses would make us a foreign force seeking to suppress and dominate Iran, not a liberating force.”
What could the United States target?
Peter Layton, a visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute in Australia, echoed warnings about potential civilian casualties, but said there is a wide range of targets available to Washington.
Layton added that Iran’s top leadership could be vulnerable first, likely indirectly, as Iran has learned from Israeli attacks last year that targeted and killed senior Iranian military figures and nuclear scientists.
Schuster said, “Iran’s leaders have realised the need to disperse and conceal what matters to them. We have shown that we can strike what we are able to find.”
Nonetheless, targeting the homes and offices of regime leaders would send a message, according to Layton, who said the “military value is minimal, but it is essentially theatre to show that something is being done for the protesters.” Analysts also suggested that Washington could target Iranian leaders financially.
Layton said, “The leadership and the Revolutionary Guard own a range of commercial companies and income generating projects across the country,” calling for attacks on facilities of financial importance to them personally and to their families.
He added that there are many such targets, citing Australian government estimates indicating that between one third and two thirds of Iran’s gross domestic product is controlled by the Revolutionary Guard. Layton said vulnerabilities could be identified within the list of the Guard’s institutions.
Schuster pointed to space between the Revolutionary Guard and Iran’s senior leadership, saying, “The aim is to make the Revolutionary Guard leadership and its bases care more about their own survival than the survival of the regime,” adding, “The Revolutionary Guard itself has never been suicidal.”
What weapons might be used to strike Iran?
Analysts said that while B-2 bombers spearheaded last summer’s US attack on nuclear sites, the diverse range of targets now under consideration may be better suited to other US weapons.
Schuster said, “Headquarters and regional bases of the Revolutionary Guard could be targeted with highly accurate cruise missiles such as Tomahawk,” which can be launched from US Navy submarines and surface ships far from Iranian shores, reducing the risk of US casualties.
The JASSM air to ground missile is another option. It carries a 1,000 pound penetrating warhead, has a range of 620 miles or 1,000 kilometres, and can also be launched from a variety of US Air Force aircraft at a distance from Iran’s coastline.
Analysts noted that drones could also be used. Layton said, “It is unlikely that we would see manned aircraft dropping short range munitions or free fall bombs, as that would likely be assessed as involving excessive risk.”
While the United States typically has an aircraft carrier in the Middle East, as of last Monday the nearest carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, was thousands of miles away in the South China Sea.
In the autumn, the Trump administration moved a carrier strike group, along with a large number of ships, aircraft, and thousands of troops, to the Caribbean as part of its pressure campaign against Venezuela’s leadership. Although some of these assets have gradually begun returning from the region, this has reduced the options available to military planners for immediate action against Iran.
This means any imminent air strikes would come from a network of air bases in the Gulf region or from more distant locations. During last summer’s stealth B-2 bomber raids, the aircraft flew nonstop from their base in the US state of Missouri to Iran, refuelling in mid air along the way. Any of the US Air Force aircraft mentioned above can also be refuelled in flight.
Analysts said that monitoring the movement of refuelling aircraft could be one indicator of an impending US move, as well as whether strike aircraft such as the B-1 bomber or F-15 fighters have been repositioned closer to Iran.
Trump’s preference for spectacle
Layton said that “whatever method the Trump administration chooses to strike Iran this time, it is expected to be dramatic.” He added, “The Trump administration is drawn to spectacle. That means eye catching events that attract media attention.”
He said he expects it to be swift, similar to last year’s single strike on nuclear facilities, noting that the administration “prefers short duration raids that involve minimal risk to US forces.”
One way of achieving this, he said, could be striking oil facilities in Gulf waters. “They are easier and represent the safest set of targets,” Layton said, adding, “This would cause economic damage to Iran over the medium to long term. There would be drama in the large columns of smoke, and it would be easy for international media to cover.”
