Massive demonstrations continue unabated across Iran, as untold thousands demand an end to the terror-ridden Islamist regime that has driven the once-prosperous country into the ditch. Ayatollah Khameini and the ruling mullahs have responded by imprisoning and murdering thousands in cold blood and shutting down access to the outside world. Khameini has reportedly retreated to a bunker, reminiscent of Adolf Hitler in his final days.
But through it all, the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism remains in place, at least for now. After protests rocked Iran in late December and were met with a violent crackdown by the regime, President Donald Trump said the United States is “locked and loaded,” promising Iranians that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” and encouraging Iranians to “TAKE OVER” regime institutions. He stated that the United States would “come to their rescue” and later vowed that “if they start killing people like they have in the past, we will get involved. We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts.”
Temporary But Not Enduring Success
It seems that the president’s threats did lead the regime to reverse course on public hangings, with Trump claiming that 800 protesters were spared the noose. But Iranian security forces continue to arrest and gun down protesters at will. And some who were buoyed by Trump’s promises, expecting the president to take swift and decisive action, are starting to feel betrayed. An anonymous Iranian woman told The Washington Post, “I kept thinking about how helpless we are that we have to pray for another country to attack us for our salvation and freedom. But today, more than anything, anger is surging through me. I feel like Trump has backtracked again and traded the lives of Iran’s youth.”
Many questions remain about President Trump’s intentions. Did he overpromise and underdeliver? Did he offer false hope to desperate Iranians counting on the president to be as aggressive as he was in the daring capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro? Did reliable allies, led by Israel, disabuse him of the notion that American intervention would assure the fall of the regime? Or is he just biding his time, waiting to strike when the iron gets red-hot?
One thing seems certain. Despite being exhorted by the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and other GOP hawks to take decisive military action, the last thing Trump wants is another war. His previous employments of the military — decimating Iran’s nuclear facilities, taking out Maduro, bombing sites in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen — have all been targeted strikes, one and done, quick in and quick out. But when it comes to Iran, a consensus appears to have formed that such a limited strategy will not get the job done.
Is Toppling Theocracy in Iran a Bridge Too Far?
The success of Trump’s targeted military strikes to date tends to obscure just how difficult it would be to overthrow a heavily embedded regime with substantial military assets that has been in power for half a century. As Israeli analyst Daniel Citrinowicz told Vox, “There is no credible path to achieving a decisive strategic outcome through a limited, short-duration campaign. A short, sharp, low-risk operation wouldn’t do much to weaken the regime or help the opposition. A long, costly campaign would raise the risk of blowback and would probably get little public support in the US.” Indeed, public opinion in a midterm election year must be factored in, and according to the latest poll conducted by Quinnipiac, an unsurprising 70% of voters oppose military action in Iran.
Given that painful history and the area’s perpetual volatility, the president may well be loath to do anything that could trigger another ground war. Trump has made promises that come up just short of a red line, and he is now, to some degree, boxed in by his own vows. But it is safe to presume that, in the end, Trump would rather absorb criticism for being overly cautious at the expense of freedom in Iran than being reckless at the cost of American lives.
