It remains unclear what course US President Donald Trump will take toward Iran. However, analysts suggest the likelihood of limited military strikes rather than a wide-scale operation, aimed at deepening pressure on the Iranian government while keeping political costs for Washington relatively low.
Trump has escalated his rhetoric in recent days and sent a message to Iranian protesters, urging them to continue demonstrations and seize state institutions, stating that support was on its way.
In response, Iran submitted a letter to the United Nations holding the United States and Israel directly responsible for the deaths of victims during the protests.
According to the Iranian human rights website Herana, the confirmed death toll reached 2,403 over 17 days of demonstrations. Tehran claims the protests involved systematic killings carried out by militias funded by Washington and Tel Aviv.
Iran has experienced multiple waves of protest over recent years. What stands out this time is the rapid escalation of the US position, which progressed to threats of military intervention in support of protesters after only two weeks, according to Professor of International Conflict Ibrahim Fraihat.
Fraihat said in the programme Ma Wara Al Khabar that Washington moved swiftly to establish red lines and issued a direct call for protesters to seize government institutions. This was accompanied by the deployment of a US military submarine to the region and Trump’s sustained focus on the crisis.
Intense US Pressure
Through this rapid and intense escalation, Trump has placed enormous pressure on Iran. Fraihat argues that Tehran has been pushed toward making concessions on its nuclear and missile programmes to avoid a direct military strike.
However, Trump’s final position remains uncertain. Fraihat noted that deliberations over launching a strike can continue up to minutes before execution.
Former US National Security Council adviser Mark Pfeifle did not differ substantially from this assessment. He believes the United States would carry out a surprise strike against Iran, but one that would not be extensive.
The Trump administration has issued statements, comments, and announced measures such as tariffs on parties dealing with Iran. These steps reinforce the likelihood of military action, according to Pfeifle, who also anticipated the use of cyber operations.
It is possible that the United States would target specific areas hosting key headquarters of the army, police, and the Revolutionary Guard, in an effort to limit civilian casualties and send a message to Tehran that its handling of the crisis carries consequences, according to the former adviser.
Pfeifle added that Washington is wary of a power vacuum should the Iranian system collapse suddenly, as the opposition lacks the organisation needed to govern the country. He stressed the difficulty of proposing a model of external administration for Iran similar to discussions surrounding Venezuela.
Israel would not be absent from any potential operation, particularly in intelligence, cyber activities, and the use of agents on the ground, as occurred during the previous war, according to Fraihat.
Tel Aviv, he said, has invested heavily in the current wave of Iranian protests and has not concealed its support, which he described as far more explicit than during previous large-scale protests.
Limited Cost
As the likelihood of a strike increases within a narrow time frame, Hamid Reza Gholam, director of the Roh Al Salam Foundation for Diplomatic Studies, believes any military attack on Iran would ultimately harm both the United States and Israel.
He argued that during the June war last year, neither Washington nor Tel Aviv achieved positive results, and they would not fare differently this time. Gholam asserted that Iran would respond in ways that would further destabilise the region.
He predicted that Iran would strike US bases and troops in the region with greater force than before, in a manner that could affect the Republican Party’s prospects in upcoming midterm elections.
By contrast, Fraihat believes the cost to the United States from any Iranian response would be limited, as Trump does not want a prolonged war with high costs. Pfeifle agreed, stating that Iran’s air defences and fortified nuclear facilities make it vulnerable to strikes, as demonstrated during the previous war.
