President Donald Trump warned Iran on Jan. 2 that if it moved to crush ongoing protests violently, the United States would respond militarily. These protests are motivated by fury over collapsing living standards. Since Jan. 2, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei‘s regime has only escalated its violent repression.
Although he would be wise to do so in a limited fashion, Trump must now respond militarily. A cyberattack or the imposition of new sanctions on the Iranian regime would not be sufficient responses alone. Trump is also right to rule out negotiations until Iran stops killing its people. Khamenei and the hard-liner faction associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps want to buy time to end the protesters’ challenge. Again, Trump must respond militarily. Failing to do so would relinquish the valuable political capital Trump has earned by his recent seizure of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Put simply, no foreign leader can currently afford to take Trump’s threats as silly rants akin to some of his social media posts. Trump must enforce this red line and the credibility of future red lines.
What might military strikes entail?
The Department of War’s Middle East-focused Central Command, or CENTCOM, has various operational plans that it constantly refines in relation to Iran. As with the U.S. military’s other regional commands, CENTCOM develops various plans for other contingencies across the Middle East. And while these plans are classified, it is possible to roughly surmise their content. The options presented are likely to fall into three broad brackets: major strikes, limited strikes, or select option strikes.
The select option strike options would entail actions against specific Iranian regime headquarters, regime-enabling facilities (such as energy production or export facilities), military capabilities, or personnel. Trump might elect to pursue one of these options in order to send a specific message to the regime. Perhaps strikes against military and security service leaders responsible for the protest crackdown. Trump might alternatively choose an option that weakened the regime’s stockpile of weapons and munitions. Regardless, select options are what they sound like: options tailored to narrower objectives.
The limited military options would likely entail strikes against military and security force facilities being used to organize and support the protest crackdown. They might be combined with cyberattacks to complicate the crackdown by disrupting the regime’s command and control apparatus. The intent of limited strikes would be to impose a cost on the regime that balanced the interest in deterring further bloodletting alongside mitigated risk of undesired escalation. This escalation concern is important for U.S. interests due to the costs that escalation would carry for U.S. military readiness and munitions stockpiles.
The major military options would entail strikes designed to fundamentally weaken the regime. These would include strikes against military and security facilities and personnel across Iran, cyberattacks designed to cripple the regime’s command and control apparatus, and the destruction of key elements of Iran’s energy sector. Strikes against Iran’s Kharg Island energy terminal would cause immediate and catastrophic damage to Iran’s energy export economy, for example. The regime would quickly lose most of its ability to generate foreign capital and struggle greatly to pay off the security forces.
It is understandable why Trump might choose a major strike option. Iran’s deep ideological animus toward the U.S. and associated support for terrorism against the U.S. and allies such as Israel, Jordan, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia has blighted the Middle East for nearly 50 years. Iran has the blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands. If a series of major strikes might bring down the regime at this moment, where it is already greatly imperiled, why not try?
The problem with this assumption is that without a seismic shift of the security forces toward alignment with protesters, it is hard to see how a major strike will alter the balance of power in favor of the protesters. Absent the flipped support of the security forces, the protesters will still face legions of theologically motivated thugs who have both the weapons and the determination to crush them. A major U.S. strike would risk driving the already paranoid Khamenei into an irrational response. If Khamenei truly believes his theological project is on the line, he may order his forces to launch terrorist attacks against the West, to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, and to fire off his ballistic and other missiles across the Middle East. Iran also has a competent offensive cyber capability it could employ against U.S. civilian interests.
Employing these options, Khamenei might hope to secure Trump’s suspended support for the protesters in return for some kind of uncertain agreement on other matters, such as his nuclear program. He may simply launch massive retaliation of a kind he did not pursue following last year’s attacks on his nuclear program in the desperate belief that he has run out of options. But we cannot assume rational leadership from a geriatric cleric who is facing an unprecedented domestic and foreign onslaught against his ordained mission from God.
UK FACES A $38 BILLION TEST OF ITS DEFENSE BUDGET SERIOUSNESS
The key, then, is for Trump to act promptly but in a measured manner. If Trump starts with limited strikes, there is nothing to stop him launching a larger attack if Khamenei fails to call back his thugs. But conducting a massive air campaign against Iran cannot be assumed as a simple pathway toward ending the Iranian regime.
Such a course of action will carry significant risks to U.S. interests in the Middle East and to U.S. military readiness more broadly. And without security force support, revolutions very rarely succeed.