What USA, Israel Plan to do with Iran

What USA Wants To Do?

“We’re watching Iran,” US President Donald Trump told reporters on Thursday as he returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We have a big flotilla going in that direction, and we’ll see what happens.” For the past week, a US carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln has proceeded west from the South China Sea to the Persian Gulf near Iran. 

Earlier this month, as anti-regime protests in Iran spread and reports of Iranian security forces killing demonstrators emerged, Trump pledged that the United States would “come to their rescue.” Is the arrival of US naval forces near Iran a prelude to a strike on the regime? For answers, we turned to Nate Swanson, who was the director for Iran at the National Security Council in the Biden White House and a member of the Trump administration’s Iran negotiating team:-

1. What are Trump’s options in Iran?

We are in unprecedented territory. Prior to Operation Midnight Hammer in June, the United States had never directly attacked Iran. The United States spent years developing the technology and expertise necessary to successfully carry out an operation against Iran’s nuclear program. Initiating strikes to protect protesters is an entirely different set of targets and objectives that are likely being developed in real time.

As the USS Abraham Lincoln enters the region, Trump likely has a range of options that fall into following broad categories. 

1. Symbolic strikes: This could include strikes on conventional targets, such as Iran’s nuclear or missile program. While these strikes would do little to tangibly help the protesters, it will ensure that nobody can accuse the president of drawing “red lines” and then ignoring them.

2. Strikes targeting the security apparatus: Trump likely has intelligence on a range of facilities and personnel connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, law enforcement forces, and the paramilitary Basij militia that may be connected to the crackdown on the protest movement. Cyberattacks against the security apparatus also fall into this category. These strikes might provide a measure of revenge and consolation to the protesters, but it’s unclear what impact this would have in preventing the regime from cracking down. Iran has more than a million individuals in its security apparatus. A one-off strike is unlikely to change the regime’s calculus about killing protesters. A sustained campaign against security personnel is plausible, but it would require a durable commitment that the Trump administration has thus far avoided in its use of military force.  

3. Economic targets: During confrontations between Iran and Israel over the past year, there was speculation that Israel might attack Iranian economic targets. This could include oil export terminals, such as Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, as well as critical natural gas infrastructure. Such an operation would be risky and could impact energy markets, but it would also get the attention of a government that is teetering on the brink of economic collapse.  

4. The supreme leader: Many protesters in Iran and observers outside of the country are clamouring for a strike that removes Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While it’s unclear whether such a strike is feasible (much less advisable), it would be a game changer. Iran’s supreme leader is the highest political and religious authority inside Iran. There has only been one prior succession in the history of the Islamic Republic, and there is no consensus successor for Khamenei. Removing him creates an unprecedented power vacuum, and it is impossible to predict what comes next.   

5. Non-kinetic options: There are numerous tangible non-kinetic options that the United States can take. Former US Deputy Special Envoy for Iran Abram Paley and I offered our own suggestions for supporting protesters, including pausing non-protest-related policy initiatives. Realistically, none would likely be decisive or would change the trajectory of the current protests. They are geared toward the next round of protests and ensuring protesters have the tools to make their own decisions about Iran’s future.

Would a US strike help Iranian protesters?

USA strike will have a major impact, but it’s impossible to predict, because the success of a strike would best be measured on the impact it has on both the protesters’ and the regime’s psyche. Maybe a strike will provide such a significant morale boost to the protesters that they decide to keep protesting to the point that regime fissures emerge, defections ensue, and the Iranian regime collapses. An alternative is that the Iranian regime kills more of its own people. This scenario has parallels to Hungary in 1956 and Kurdish Iraq in 1991, where the United States called for the people to rise up, but had limited resources to offer, and the protesters were brutally crushed. 

In all strike scenarios, the administration will need to consider and articulate a vision for what comes next. The regime might fall and a pro-Western democracy could emerge, but an equally plausible scenario is that an even more hardline government emerges, one that is even more eager to develop nuclear weapons and utilize its missile arsenal. This concern is partially why several Gulf nations have advocated against striking Iran. 

Finally, it seems highly unlikely that US troops would be deployed on the ground in Iran. This means a political transition in Iran won’t happen because US soldiers liberate Iran or because an outside force intervenes. Instead, it will have to be a change driven by Iranians.  

What to expect from the Iranian regime?

The USS Abraham Lincoln in theatre serves two functions. First it allows the United States to more easily to defend against any retaliation from Iran, thus providing greater optionality for a strike. It also provides a psychological advantage. Iran knows that any actions it takes in response to a US action could be met with a further escalation from US forces.  

This dynamic will likely deter Iran from doing anything overly escalatory. The Iranian regime will likely calibrate its response to be proportional (in its estimation) to that of any US action. For example, if the United States hits Iran with symbolic strikes, Iran will likely do something symbolic as well. Iran’s attack against US forces in Qatar in June is a useful example of what a response could look like. This scenario allows both sides to claim victory and de-escalate.   

Alternatively, in regard to a strike on Khamenei, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated earlier this month that “an attack on the great leader of our country is tantamount to a full-scale war with the Iranian nation.” What this would look like is impossible to predict, but the United States is at least now better prepared to respond to such a scenario.

What Israel Wants To Do?

There are several reasons why Israel undertook its 12-day military campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) in June this year.

1. According to the Mossad, “Iran can achieve a nuclear weapon in 15 days.” This came after Netanyahu’s earlier warning that stated Iran could produce a weapon “within a few months, less than a year.”  No Israeli leader could live with these timelines.

2. The IRI’s extensive missile production capabilities. According to the IDF Chief of Staff General Eyal Zamir, Iran currently has 2,500 ground-to-ground missiles. Owing to its expanding production capacity, this number will reach 8,000 in two years. These missiles were fired in significant numbers at Israeli cities during the recent war, and the two previous attacks that Iran undertook in April and October 2024. Additionally, such missiles have been supplied for free to Iran’s proxies, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis.

3. Destabilise the IRI leadership by attacking important symbols of power of the ruling regime. These included Tehran’s infamous Evin prison and the widely unpopular Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) facilities. It seems that Israel hoped that such attacks, and the IRI’s inability to challenge Israel’s military superiority, would weaken the deterrence image of the regime at home and encourage protests. This, however, did not materialise. Most Iranians were too busy escaping from major cities, taking refuge, or trying to survive economically.

4. Israel’s main options will be to observe and prepare. To observe Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and to see if Iran’s rulers decide to rebuild them. Special focus by Israeli intelligence is likely to be placed on the IRI’s nuclear sites, especially Iran’s main enrichment sites at Fordo and Natanz. The nuclear site at Isfahan is also expected to be another centre of focus as, according to reports, this is where the IRI developed the capability to convert enriched uranium into solid metal form, a required step to make a nuclear weapon. Despite it being assessed that this facility was destroyed, Israel will be keeping a close eye on it to ensure that it is not rebuilt.

The IRI’s missile building program will also continue to be the focus of Israel’s intelligence gathering. While there were varying reports about the accuracy rate of Iran’s missile strikes during the recent war, those that got through were found to be precise and able to cause significant damage. Israel will also continue to observe the IRI’s missile launchers as they play a crucial part in the IRI’s missile capabilities.

While Israeli intelligence focuses on Iran’s missile and nuclear program, all branches of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) will prepare for the next round of fighting. Any sign that Iran is rebuilding its nuclear and missile program would likely push Israeli decision makers to order the next major attack against targets in Iran.

Israel launched the 12-day war against the IRI with Trump’s full knowledge and permission. Any future attack would also need the consent of the Trump administration. If Trump does sanction such an attack by Israel, the duration of the war will also depend on him. Similar to the 12 Day War, Israel must adhere to his wishes to bring the war to an end.

 Trump’s extraordinary impact on Israel’s Iran policies, especially regarding any decision to attack again, is based on several important factors. First, Trump’s decision to attack numerous Iranian nuclear sites during the 12 Day War is significant. Some assessments have questioned the real effectiveness of the US attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites.

However, the Israeli government considers its ability to get the Trump administration to join the war against the IRI a considerable accomplishment. It is unlikely that the Netanyahu government will want to sacrifice this achievement by angering Trump. Netanyahu’s strategy regarding the current Gaza war depends greatly on Trump’s support. The consequences of this war could greatly impact his chances of re-election.

The Israeli government considers its ability to get the Trump administration to join the war against the IRI a considerable accomplishment. It is unlikely that the Netanyahu government will want to sacrifice this achievement by angering Trump. 

Second, Israel is currently renegotiating the 10-year military assistance MOU, signed under Obama. The current MOU “provides Israel with $3.3 billion in foreign military financing and $500 million for missile defence programs annually, for a grand total of $38 billion.” It ends in 2028. Success at these negotiations is vital for Israel’s future security.

Angering Trump is not an option for any Israeli Prime Minister or government, as getting his agreement for a new MOU will be more crucial for Israel than before, as the Gaza war has been economically very costly. By the end of May this year, it was estimated that the war cost Israel at least $40 billion (142 billion shekels). It is expected that Israel’s planned occupation of Gaza will cost another $50 billion, thus pushing Israel’s budget deficit to 6-7%. US military and financial assistance, especially regarding missile defence capabilities and technology, will be more important than ever.

Meanwhile, it is quite possible that the Iranian leadership will do its utmost not to provide Israel with an excuse to attack again. At least in the immediate future, it may refrain from rebuilding its missile and nuclear programs. There are other reasons the Iranian leadership may undertake such a strategy.

Currently, the European signatories of the Iran nuclear deal, namely France, the UK and Germany (also referred to as the E3), are accusing the IRI of violating the 2015 nuclear agreement. This is because Iran is violating key aspects of the JCPOA, including enriching uranium at 60%, a level that is far higher than allowed under the nuclear deal.

As Iran refused to address these issues and restart cooperation with the IAEA, the E3 triggered a mechanism that lead to a snapback of all UNSC-mandated sanctions. The possibility existed but the IRI didn’t exit the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and dash towards a bomb. However, after the recent costly war against Israel and Iran’s dire economic circumstances, it is quite likely that the IRI will work towards a diplomatic solution.

Currently, Iran is facing an unprecedented electricity and water shortage crisis. They are crippling Iran’s economy and making the population more furious. The recent huge protest against economic crisis that led to deaths of over 3500 people. These protests were fuelled by USA’s CIA and Israel’s Mossad and former Price of Iran Reza Shah Pehlawi also tried hard to incite violence.

If there were any rallying around the flag sentiment that was created in Iran after Israel’s attack, the ongoing water and electricity crisis is quickly evaporating it. In a special message broadcast to the people of Iran, the Israeli PM called on them to overthrow their rulers because of their inability to manage the various crises, including water. For now, it is unlikely that such a message leads to protests. However, the IRI leadership could face serious domestic instability if the water crisis continues.

Despite claiming victory against Israel, the IRI leadership is aware of the brewing crisis at home and the possibility of renewed attacks by Israel. It may wish to avoid new steps that could provoke Israel. The pressure being applied by the E3 and the threat of the snapback sanctions could further push the IRI towards reducing tensions. This could translate into reaching an agreement with the EU to return to the nuclear deal, while suspending the rebuilding of Iran’s nuclear and missile program.

The reappointment of ‘Ali Larijani as the supreme leader Khamenei’s representative at the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) could be a sign attesting to this scenario. Larijani is known to be a moderate figure who has backed negotiations with the US. While the possibility of another major Israeli military operation against the IRI exists, it is not a foregone conclusion.

The next 48 hours are very crucial as a huge USA armada is heading towards Iran. Aircraft carriers, USS Abraham Lincon and USS George Bush as well as 12 SSGNs and SSNs and over 500 jets are lining up for an attack n Iran from Jordan, Cyprus and other nations in the next 48 hours. As a counter IRI has declared that its troops are ready with finger on trigger and over 3000 missiles ready to take out USA bases in Middle East as well as take out Israeli bases. As Russia and China have declared to be firmly behind Iran and providing more and more military support to Iran so that it can stand up to bullying by the USA and Israel.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed and hope that this confrontation between Iran backed by Russia and China on one side and USA and Israel on other doesn’t turn into a disastrous World War 3. If indeed that happens then it will a very dangerous situation for India overall as well its growing economy.