With his large-scale attack on Iran, Donald Trump has seized a decisive moment for his legacy, displaying his willingness to use the raw military power of the United States. But in doing so, he is also taking the biggest gamble in foreign policy of his presidency, a risky bet full of uncertainties.
Trump has allied with Israel to plunge into war against Iran, and after a day of airstrikes, he announced on Saturday that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had been killed. This major success for the operation, however, leaves many questions about the future of the Islamic Republic.
Even as the crisis unfolded on Saturday, Trump provided little explanation to the American public about what could become the most significant US military campaign since Afghanistan and Iraq.
He has abandoned his preference for quick and limited operations, like last month’s lightning raid in Venezuela, in favor of what experts warn could be a longer conflict with Iran, risking escalating into a regional conflagration affecting the oil-rich Middle East.
The president, who arrived at the White House last year promising to “avoid stupid wars,” has set a daunting goal of regime change in Tehran, promoting the idea that airstrikes could provoke a popular uprising to overthrow Iranian leaders.
This is an outcome that air power alone has never directly achieved in other conflicts without the involvement of ground forces, and most analysts consider it unlikely in Iran this time.
Although the death of Khamenei, if confirmed by Iran, would deal a major blow to the country he has led since 1989, it would not necessarily mean the end of the entrenched clerical power in Iran, nor the influence of the Revolutionary Guards over the population.
Most Americans will wake up on Saturday morning wondering why we are at war with Iran, what the objective is, and why American bases in the Middle East are under attack,” said Daniel Shapiro, a former high-ranking Pentagon official and US ambassador to Israel, now at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.
Trump’s focus on Iran stands out as the most striking example of the dominance of foreign policy, including the increased use of military force, at the forefront of his agenda during the first 13 months of his second term, often overshadowing domestic issues like the cost of living, a more important priority for most Americans according to polls.
His own advisors have been urging him in private for weeks to focus more on the economic concerns of voters, pointing out the political risks as the November mid-term elections approach, where Trump’s Republican Party could lose one or two chambers of Congress.
The brief video released by Trump before dawn on his Truth Social platform, announcing what the Pentagon dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” provided only broad reasons for going to war now with a country the US has been at odds with for decades without fully engaging in total confrontation until now.
He claimed to want to eliminate what he called the Iranian ballistic threat – a threat that most experts deem non-existent for the United States – and offer Iranians the chance to overthrow their leaders.
Trump stated that to achieve his goals, US forces would destroy much of the Iranian military apparatus and prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran denies its nuclear program has military purposes.
DASHED DIPLOMATIC HOPES
Trump’s sudden recourse to force, mobilizing significant US military assets prepositioned in the region in recent weeks, seemed certain to close the door to diplomacy with Iran for now. The nuclear negotiations in Geneva on Thursday did not lead to a breakthrough.
Some of Trump’s aides had already suggested that he could bomb Tehran to force them back to the negotiating table and obtain significant concessions.
Instead, Iran responded by firing missiles at Israel and several Arab Gulf states, oil-producing countries hosting American bases.
Trump’s emphasis in his video on the urgency of the Iranian ballistic and nuclear threat echoes President George W. Bush’s rationale for the war against Iraq in 2003, which was later revealed to be based on flawed intelligence and false claims.
Trump’s assertion in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that Iran would soon have a missile capable of reaching the US has not been confirmed by US intelligence reports, according to sources familiar with the assessments, and experts also doubt recent claims by his advisors about Tehran’s ability to accelerate its nuclear program.
With Saturday’s strikes, Trump, who initially threatened to strike Iran in January in support of protesters suppressed in the streets, has also dispelled any doubts that he is now targeting regime change in Tehran.
But analysts doubt that Trump, who has ruled out any deployment of US ground troops, has a strategy capable of toppling the long-standing clerical government in Iran, resilient in the face of crushing sanctions and periodic mass protests.
The first wave of strikes primarily targeted Iranian leaders, including Khamenei, a staunch opponent of the West who ruled with an iron fist.
As rumors of the Supreme Leader’s death spread, Trump tweeted that “Khamenei, one of the most evil individuals in history, has died.” He attributed the location of Khamenei and other slain officials to the performance of intelligence and tracking systems, and urged other officials to either accept immunity or face death.
No immediate confirmation was provided by Tehran, where Iranian agencies had previously claimed that Khamenei was “firm and determined to command on the ground.”
The Israeli military named at least seven senior officials and commanders killed.
Analysts have warned that the elimination of top leaders could inadvertently result in chaos in a country of 93 million people, or lead to an even harsher and more uncompromising military government towards the West and oppressive towards its people.
“He wants to change the government,” says Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington. “But it’s difficult to change a government from the air. It’s difficult to change the minds of Iranians through airstrikes.”
Tyson Barker, a former senior US official now at the Atlantic Council, also believes it is unlikely that Trump’s call for the Iranian people to revolt will succeed.
“They really expose these poor Iranians by telling them, ‘Rise up and overthrow your government. We support you,'” says Barker.
APPETITE FOR MILITARY RISK
Trump’s appetite for military operations abroad has increased since the start of his second term.
He may have been encouraged by the US bombing of major Iranian nuclear facilities in June and the lightning raid that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January, giving the US considerable influence over the OPEC member’s vast oil reserves.
Trump may have found himself trapped by his own threats of military action against Iran, while maintaining a massive naval force that he could not sustain indefinitely in the region.
Analysts see Iran as a much tougher and better-armed adversary than Venezuela, although its air defenses and ballistic capabilities were seriously degraded during joint American-Israeli strikes in June.
But Mark Dubowitz, director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a non-profit research institute considered pro-Israeli and hawkish on Iran, believes Tehran is in such a weakened state that it is worth it for Trump to take these risks to curb its nuclear capabilities.
Whether the Iranian government falls or not, he believes that the severe weakening of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programs could be a victory for Trump.
