Developments in the Iranian crisis have exposed a complex dilemma facing US President Donald Trump, as prospects for a diplomatic solution diminish and high-risk military scenarios escalate, following a bloody crackdown carried out by Iranian authorities against widespread domestic protests.
According to an analysis published by CNN, protests that erupted in several Iranian cities over recent weeks ended with an unprecedented campaign of repression ordered by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The crackdown reportedly resulted in thousands of deaths, placing Washington before a difficult test between intervention and limiting its response to political condemnation.
Although Trump issued public messages of support for Iranian protesters at the outset of the crisis, the United States did not move militarily at the time. American sources attributed this decision to the limited US military deployment in the Middle East during that phase.
Three options, all fraught with risk
Amid this deadlock, the CNN analysis outlines three potential paths facing Trump, none of which promise quick or stable outcomes.
First. Strangling the Iranian economy
The least direct military option involves tightening economic pressure through an effective blockade targeting Iranian oil exports, the regime’s primary source of foreign currency.
Despite Iranian oil exports being subject to US sanctions for years, Tehran continues to export close to two million barrels per day through indirect means, benefiting from smuggling networks and unofficial shipping channels.
CNN noted that Iran’s economy is already suffering from a sharp collapse, with the rial hitting record lows. This could make economic pressure more painful and potentially reignite new waves of protest.
However, past experiences, from Venezuela to Iran itself, show that targeted regimes rarely capitulate. Instead, they often resort to indirect escalation through regional proxies, potentially drawing the United States into intermittent confrontations that are difficult to control.
Second. Limited strikes for deterrence
The second option centres on carrying out limited military strikes against Iranian security institutions implicated in internal repression, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij forces, without seeking to overthrow the regime.
This scenario recalls the US strike on Syria in 2017, when Trump responded to the use of chemical weapons with a symbolic attack intended to deter rather than bring about regime change.
CNN cautions, however, that Iran is not Syria. Tehran possesses missile capabilities and a regional influence network that would enable retaliation, whether by targeting US bases in the region or striking Israel. Such responses could quickly push the situation into a broader escalation that would be difficult to contain.
Third. Targeting the leadership
The most dangerous option involves direct strikes against Iran’s leadership, in an attempt to trigger political change from within, similar to previous operations against leaders Washington has regarded as direct adversaries.
This path carries a high degree of uncertainty. Even if strikes were successful, the United States lacks internal communication channels within Iran that could guarantee an orderly transfer of power. The regime also retains near-total control over weapons and security institutions.
CNN noted that targeting the Supreme Leader could open the door to complex regional and religious repercussions, particularly in Iraq and other countries with Shia communities that view Khamenei as a religious authority. This could threaten a new wave of instability in an already fragile region.
A shifting military equation in the region
The analysis added that the military equation now appears different. The United States has reinforced its military presence in the Middle East in recent days, with additional naval and air assets arriving. Trump himself described this build up as an overwhelming force ready to intervene if necessary.
Yet a central question remains within Washington’s decision-making circles. What is the objective of this force?
The analysis noted that the protests have already been crushed, the Iranian regime has shown no indication of changing its behaviour, and US demands remain volatile and poorly defined.
The analysis added that Trump reiterated this week that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a red line, while other US officials spoke of broader conditions, including curbing Iran’s ballistic missile programme and halting its support for armed groups in the region.
By contrast, public American discussion of the fate of Iranian protesters has receded, aside from limited references to Iranian pledges to halt executions. According to CNN, this reflects a state of strategic confusion within the administration.
Diplomatic paralysis
This ambiguity, alongside tightened European sanctions and the European Union’s designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation in January, has rendered the prospects of a political settlement nearly nonexistent.
CNN argues that even if Iran were to accept negotiations in principle, it would demand a high price in the form of sweeping economic sanctions relief. This appears unacceptable in Washington and lacks European backing in the aftermath of the recent bloody repression.
A decision nearing the point of no return
According to the analysis, the scale and nature of the forces recently deployed by Washington suggest that military action has become closer than ever, even if its final form has not yet been determined.
CNN concludes that Trump faces nothing but bad options. Yet hesitation itself may prove a costly decision at a moment that could later be recorded as one of the most consequential chapters in his political legacy, not only within the United States, but across the Middle East as a whole.
