The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran presents a complex challenge for US President Donald Trump. While such confrontations typically raise the specter of wider regional war and increased risk for Washington, a counter-intuitive shift is emerging: Iran’s capacity to respond forcefully appears to be significantly diminishing, potentially making Trump’s decision-making process less fraught than it might seem.
Decades-old “red lines” that once defined the limits of acceptable action against Iran have seemingly vanished. Israel has undertaken aggressive measures, including:
Targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Eliminating numerous top military commanders – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly saw three commanders fall in a single week.
Asserting air supremacy over Iranian airspace.
Short of the highly improbable acts of assassinating Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or convincing the US to bomb key sites like the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, Israel seems to be running out of major taboos to break.
Tehran’s Limited Response
Iran has retaliated with barrages of ballistic missiles aimed at Israel, causing terror, damage, and casualties. However, this response has not reached the level of existential threat many feared Tehran could unleash. According to Iran’s own health ministry, the country suffered nearly ten times the civilian losses Israel did in the conflict’s initial 48 hours.
Crucially, Iran is struggling with a depleting inventory of the medium-range ballistic missiles needed to reach Israel. The inconsistency in the scale of their nightly volleys highlights this constraint. As Israel continues to strike targets with relative impunity daily, Iran’s overall ability to project power and threaten the region is noticeably shrinking.
Trump’s Calculus and Options
This observed weakening of Iran likely plays a central role in President Trump’s considerations. His decision-making, often characterized by a distinct, at times unpredictable, style dubbed “whiplash leadership” or “government by chaos,” may view this scenario differently than traditional foreign policy analysis. This approach, less bound by conventional strategic constraints, might see opportunity where others see only risk.
This backdrop exists as a recent national poll revealed nearly three-quarters of American voters perceive Iran as posing a “real threat” to US national security. While this perception is strongest among Republicans, majorities of Democrats and Independents also share this view, underscoring a broad public concern that aligns with addressing the Iranian challenge. However, Americans are more divided on the outcome of Israeli strikes, with a majority (59%) believing they make the world more dangerous, adding a layer of public caution to potential US involvement.
Against this complex backdrop, Trump’s options appear to be narrowing down to paths that might carry less perceived* risk for him:
- Decisive Military Strike: The US could conduct targeted strikes on Fordow or other vital nuclear sites using advanced assets like stealth B-2 bombers. This could be presented to Iran as a limited action with no desire for further confrontation, anticipating a muted response given Iran’s diminished state. This echoes lessons perhaps learned from the 2020 strike that killed Qassem Soleimani; despite initial fears, Iran’s retaliation proved limited, revealing its reluctance or inability to risk an all-out war with the US even then.
- Continued Israeli Pressure & Diplomacy: Allow Israel to continue its campaign of attrition, steadily degrading Iran’s capabilities. Meanwhile, diplomatic channels could be pursued (like European foreign ministers meeting with Iranian counterparts), presenting Iran with increasingly unfavorable terms for a settlement as its position weakens.
- Inaction: Simply let Iran’s powerlessness become more evident as its military stocks dwindle. While potentially making Trump appear hesitant, it relies on the strategic reality of Iran’s decline.
A decisive move, particularly addressing Iran’s nuclear program, could offer a significant foreign policy win for an administration seeking such successes. Many Western allies, including figures like Germany’s chancellor who suggested Israel was doing the “dirty work” of tackling the nuclear threat, would welcome a resolution. Few outside Iranian hardliners see an Iranian nuclear weapon as a positive development.
Lingering Risks and Unknowns
Despite Iran’s apparent weakening, significant risks remain. The primary concern is whether Iran possesses a more advanced or clandestine nuclear weapons program than anticipated, potentially hidden from known sites and impervious to standard “bunker-buster” munitions. This fear aligns with some reported Israeli intelligence assessments that may have spurred their recent campaign.
Another perspective suggests that if Iran were truly capable and committed to racing for a nuclear bomb, the extreme pressure, direct threats to its leadership, and attacks on its capital’s skies might have already triggered that decision. What more would need to happen?
The “known unknowns” – elements we know are uncertain but can analyze – largely point to an Iran too weakened for meaningful, large-scale retaliation against the US or Israel. This suggests any choice Trump makes is likely to be met with a muted or manageable response, pushing Tehran towards seeking a diplomatic resolution to secure the survival of its government and military structures.
While “unknown unknowns” (things we don’t even know we don’t know) could theoretically abound, they are overshadowed by the clear intent of neither the US nor Israel to occupy Iran. As Iran watches its long-standing red lines dissolve, its diminishing capacity to strike back significantly seems to be lowering the perceived risk barrier for President Trump’s future decisions.
