Has War Become Iran’s Only Option?

It remains unclear whether US President Donald Trump will order a new military action against Iran, or what the scale of such a strike might be if it occurs. What appears increasingly certain, according to analysts, is that Iranian decision makers now see no option but war, after negotiations have effectively been reduced to a call for surrender.

Over recent hours, the level of escalation in military, political, and media terms has reached a point where discussion has shifted away from whether a US strike will take place, toward when it might occur and what form it would take.

As US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, along with the commander of US Central Command, Brad Cooper, arrived in Tel Aviv, Israeli and Western media reported an unprecedented US strategic military buildup across the region.

Former US State Department official Thomas Warrick argued, however, that such a buildup does not necessarily mean war is inevitable, particularly if Tehran were to ease its crackdown on protesters and halt executions.

Speaking on the programme Masar al Ahdaath, Warrick said the arrival of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln raised the level of US deterrence, but stressed that the final decision rests solely with Donald Trump.

Trump Is Capable of Anything

Warrick said Trump’s final decision remains impossible to predict, not ruling out the possibility that the US president could opt for the most extreme course, including targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as he previously authorised the killing of Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force.

According to Warrick, Trump ultimately wants to force Iran back to the negotiating table, and may reverse course in the coming days if Tehran changes its approach toward protesters.

However, the notion that the United States would go to war in defence of Iranian protesters cannot be taken seriously, said international conflict scholar Ibrahim Fraihat, pointing to Trump’s full support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

In practical terms, Fraihat said, Trump is attempting to dismantle Iran’s missile programme at Israel’s urging, having previously targeted its nuclear programme under similar pressure.

No Clear Objective

Fraihat also argued that Trump is unlikely to strike Iran in exchange for concessions from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Gaza, as his foreign policy decisions are driven primarily by economic gains.

From Venezuela to Gaza and Greenland, Trump has consistently pursued material returns, which Iran does not offer. Fraihat believes Trump seeks concessions by threatening force rather than using it, while acknowledging that his behaviour remains fundamentally unpredictable.

From Israel’s perspective, however, a strike on Iran is inevitable, regardless of US participation, according to Israeli affairs expert Muhannad Mustafa.

Mustafa said Netanyahu’s recent advice to delay a strike was not due to Israel’s lack of defensive readiness, but rather because Israel seeks a strategic blow that would bring down the Iranian regime, not merely a limited tactical attack.

The extensive US military buildup, he added, was itself a consequence of that delay. Netanyahu, according to Mustafa, intends to strike Iran within the current year but prefers to frame the action as part of a broader US Iranian war.

Iran, he said, remains an obstacle to the new US Israeli regional project, prompting Netanyahu to insist on regime change even if it leads to widespread chaos. Fraihat concurred, stating that Trump’s sole gain from a potential strike would be the expansion of the Abraham Accords.

War as the Only Remaining Choice

In Tehran, these threats are being treated with full seriousness. According to regional affairs researcher Talal Atrissi, there is no longer meaningful internal disagreement, as the prevailing belief is that war has become the only available option after the United States turned negotiations into an instrument of submission rather than compromise.

Atrissi said the key question is no longer whether a strike will occur, but what Washington’s objective would be. He noted that Trump has spoken of destroying Iran’s nuclear programme, while acknowledging that regime change cannot be achieved from the air and that a ground intervention would be extremely difficult for a president seeking a rapid war he can portray as a decisive success.

Atrissi did not deny that Iran’s regional influence has declined or that its allies have suffered major blows over the past two years. He argued, however, that Iran has rebuilt its capabilities, addressed key vulnerabilities, and retains the capacity to inflict significant harm on Israel.

Fraihat agreed, stating that Iran currently does not threaten US interests in the region following the weakening of Hamas and Hezbollah, and the agreement reached between Trump and Ansar Allah.

Israel, however, is not satisfied with this level of neutralisation. It seeks to dismantle what it describes as the Iranian axis in its entirety, viewing Iran as a strategic threat even if it no longer considers it an existential one, according to Mustafa.