Trump threatens another military attack on Iran

Amid domestic protests in Iran, the Trump administration is threatening U.S. attacks on the country.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, U.S. action could take the form of military strikes, increased sanctions, or the use of secret cyberweapons.

“The military is looking at it, and we’re looking at some very strong options,” Trump told reporters earlier this week.

“Airstrikes would be one of the many, many options that are on the table for the commander-in-chief,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News. “He’s made it quite clear he certainly doesn’t want to see people being killed in the streets of Tehran, and unfortunately, that’s something we’re seeing right now.”

In addition to this saber-rattling, President Trump has announced further economic pressure on Iran, imposing a 25% tariff on any country that does business with its government.

Trump’s moves were praised by pro-Israel groups in the United States, including AIPAC.

“Thank you [President Trump] for defending American values and increasing pressure on the anti-American Islamist regime in Iran,” tweeted the lobbying group. “The Iranian people are courageously risking their lives for freedom and deserve U.S. support.”

Despite his rhetoric, Trump also indicated the administration would meet with Iran’s leadership, but implied action would be taken before that time.

“The meeting is being set up, but we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting. But a meeting is being set up. Iran called, they want to negotiate,” he claimed.

Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump in Florida and called on the United States to back another set of strikes on Iran. In a press conference after the meeting, Trump expressed support for the potential attacks.

“I hope they’re not trying to build up again, because if they are, we’re going to have no choice but very quickly, to eradicate that build up,” Trump told reporters, referring to the alleged expansion of Iran’s ballistic missile program.

“We’ll knock them down,” he added. “We’ll knock the hell out of them.”

On a Jewish Insider podcast, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren said Israel had no need to strike Iran if the United States decided to attack.

“With the United States threatening to intervene, what would we have to gain from this?,” asked Oren. “Other than providing a pretext for the Iranians to strike back at us. I think we’re operating responsibly, prudently.”

Congressional hawks are calling on Trump to take decisive action to oust Iran’s leadership.

“I..think that if Iran starts back in terms of developing a nuclear weapon or substantially tries to increase the number of missiles that they have, I think the president should hit them, and I believe he will,” said Senator John Kennedy (R-LA).

“President Trump has made it clear that he means what he says,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR). “The Iranian regime should be on notice, and the United States stands by ready to help the brave people of Iran yearning for freedom.”

“Donald Trump says the best way to make Iran great again is for the protesters to win, and the regime to come down. How do you do that?” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News. “Whatever action we’re going to take, Mr. President, needs to embolden the protesters and scare the hell out of the regime.”

“If I were you, Mr. President, I would kill the leadership that are killing the people. You’ve got to end this,” he added.

In a post on the Responsible Statecraft website, Quincy Institute co-founder and Executive Vice President Trita Parsi, writes that Trump’s likely instincts are to stay out.

“Trump is more likely to explore a deal — either with Tehran directly or with elements inside the existing power structure — rather than gamble on regime collapse. His approach would be consistent with Venezuela, where he sought leverage over a weakened government without triggering total state breakdown,” writes Parsi. “Channels for such engagement reportedly exist and appear to be active. At the same time, internal pressure on Khamenei to relax certain long-standing non-nuclear red lines is growing as the regime confronts simultaneous internal and external crises.”

“Israel, of course, is operating on a different calculus altogether, with interests that diverge not only from Trump’s but also from those of the opposition figures it supports,” he added.

The protests in Iran began in late December, when Tehran merchants closed their shops in response to the devaluation of the Iranian rial. Monitoring groups report that an internet blackout has been in place for over 100 hours.

An Iranian official told Reuters that about 2,000 have been killed in the protests.

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!” declared Trump in a January 13 Truth Social post. “Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!”

Addressing the Israeli cabinet, Netanyahu said he was “closely monitoring what is happening in Iran” and praised the protesters.

“We all hope the Persian people will soon be freed from the yoke of tyranny, and when that day arrives, Israel and Iran will go back to being faithful partners in building a future of prosperity and peace for both nations,” he told his fellow lawmakers.

In an article in The New Republic, Nancy Okail, president of the Center for International Policy, and Sina Toossi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, argue that U.S. intervention would do little to help the people of Iran.

“In a world where international law has been weakened and civilian protection treated as conditional, Trump offers war as a substitute for politics. U.S. military intervention in Iran would accelerate that erosion, reinforcing the lesson that when institutions fail and diplomacy collapses, military force fills the vacuum,” they write. “That message is likely to empower the most coercive actors worldwide, exacerbate instability, and further hollow out an international order that once aspired to constrain both domestic repression and war.”