February 2, 2026

SHARE |

Trump Mulls a Wide Array of Iran Options, Including Diplomacy

Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP

In the aftermath of a major nationwide uprising in Iran in early January, President Trump is considering options that range from a broad military campaign aimed at toppling Iran’s regime to a negotiated settlement that resolves nearly all the major outstanding U.S.-Iran issues. Press reports indicate U.S. deliberations are vacillating among the different options, but there is no question that the U.S. is massing a significant force, including a Carrier Strike Group (CSG), within range of Iran. Global and regional leaders assess that assembling a large U.S. force indicates a clear U.S. intent to attack. But others note the deployments, even if no assault is ordered, serve as a psychological warfare tool to compel Iran to accede to broad U.S. demands for a bilateral accord. Numerous media claims that a U.S. attack on Iran is imminent have proved inaccurate to date, and it is not known whether or when Trump might decide on a particular course of action.

The U.S. buildup has widened divisions in both the U.S. and Iranian political structures. Some senior U.S. officials argue that Trump must proceed to fulfill his public promises — issued at the height of the demonstrations — to punish Iran’s regime for killing more than 5,000 protesters to retain its grip on power. Some sources quote much higher figures, well into the tens of thousands, and add that Iran reneged on its pledges to Trump not to execute arrested protesters. Some Trump officials, reportedly including Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff, echo the views of regional leaders that the U.S. should take advantage of Iran’s weakness to extract Iranian concessions never thought possible.

In Tehran, divisions have hardened between senior leaders who argue that the uprising requires reform and accommodation, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his close associates, who argue that flexibility will only lead Trump and the domestic opposition to escalate their demands further. Overruling moderate leaders such as President Masoud Pezeshkian, regime hardliners have refused to offer any economic or political reforms and have continued to deploy large numbers of heavily armed security personnel in the major cities. Addressing the external dimension, Iranian leaders have rejected Trump's reported ultimatum that Iran can avoid U.S. military action by agreeing to dismantle its nuclear program and its missile arsenal; end its support to its Axis of Resistance coalition partners; and cease executions of dissidents. Global officials suggest Trump’s demands amount to a “surrender” that would never be accepted by Tehran, suggesting Trump has no intent of forging a bilateral deal.

Although it categorically rejects Trump’s maximalist demands, Tehran has sought to forestall a U.S. attack by stating a willingness to engage with Washington. On Friday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said at a press conference with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, in Istanbul, "If negotiations are fair and equitable, Iran is ready to participate in such talks." Iranian and U.S. officials assert publicly that no U.S.-Iran meetings are currently underway or scheduled. However, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, said Saturday, days after talks in Moscow, that: "Contrary to the artificial atmosphere created by the media war, the framework for negotiations is taking shape and making progress." Following that comment, Trump told journalists, “Iran is talking seriously to us, and we’ll see what happens.” Still, U.S. officials, speaking on background, expressed significant pessimism that Iran would offer the concessions needed to de-escalate tensions.

Tehran’s outreach has been supported by regional leaders, who are concerned about the implications of the U.S.-Iran conflict for their countries. Regional leaders, including those in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt, have intensified their mediation efforts between Washington and Tehran as the size of the U.S. force in the region grows. These governments have argued to U.S. leaders that military action against Iran would trigger a regional conflagration without accomplishing any broad U.S. strategic objectives. Seeking to engage with Iran, Saudi, Qatari, and UAE leaders said publicly they would deny permission for U.S. forces to use their bases to strike Iran, although experts assess these leaders would, in the end, quietly support U.S. action. Qatar and Oman attempted to sway the U.S. and Iran to agree to a non-aggression pact, but the effort failed to gain traction, according to the Wall Street Journal. On Saturday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani made a brief visit to Tehran, reportedly to deliver a message from the Trump team.

The Qatar Prime Minister’s trip followed Trump team meetings last week with two regional delegations that took opposing positions. During his official meetings in Washington, Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman (KBS), the brother of de facto Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), reportedly expressed Riyadh’s concerns that U.S. military action would likely be inconclusive and spark regional warfare. However, he reportedly also expressed Saudi support for the Trump team’s inclination to strike, telling Washington think-tank experts: "At this point, if this (U.S. military action) doesn't happen, it will only embolden the regime," according to sources at the meeting. Separately, Israeli military intelligence chief Gen. Shlomi Binder briefed U.S. officials on Israel’s intelligence capabilities inside Iran and expressed Israel's support for “decapitation” strikes on Iranian leaders, including Khamenei.

Even as they welcome the diplomacy, U.S. officials continue to expand the military options available to Trump. U.S. officials note the U.S. force in the region — which Trump termed a “massive armada” — is now substantial, and still growing. U.S. military leaders continue to add the air and missile defenses needed to counter Iran’s threatened retaliation. Explaining the Trump team's evaluation of the military complexities of a large strike campaign against Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday that Iran has thousands of short-range ballistic missiles and drones arrayed against U.S. ships and the Arab Gulf states bases that host U.S. and allied forces. Some defense experts question whether U.S. and allied air defenses will be sufficient to defend against Iranian missile and drone swarms.

Trying to deter the U.S. campaign, Tehran has amplified the concerns by threatening to attack U.S. troops based in the Gulf states as well as Israel if Trump orders military action. Supreme Leader Khamenei, at a public event on Sunday, stated: “Americans must realize that if they ignite a war, this time it will not be a limited war, but a regional war.” The Iranian threats — echoed by Iran’s Axis of Resistance partners such as the Houthis in Yemen, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia groups — also play on Trump’s known hesitancy to embroil the United States in a “quagmire” in the Middle East, with no clear off-ramps.

The continued news flow about the wide variety of options under consideration reflects the widespread doubts that outside forces can bring about dramatic political change. Several reports, quoting unnamed senior U.S. officials, note that Trump’s advisors have warned that even an extensive U.S. air and missile campaign against high-value Iranian targets and security institutions — unless accompanied by broad U.S. ground action inside Iran — would not guarantee the collapse of the regime. The regional and internal doubts about the wisdom of a broad air campaign against Iran’s regime have prompted consideration of options less likely to trigger regional warfare. Lower-risk options reportedly under consideration include a plan to blockade Iran’s use of its shadow fleet of sanctioned tankers to export its oil. That option seems similar to a tactic used to pressure Venezuela's leader, Nicolas Maduro, to step down. Other proposals reportedly include deploying U.S. Special Operations forces to raid and destroy nuclear and missile sites in Iran. Any U.S. ground force action inside Iran is considered a high-risk violation of Iranian sovereignty, but limiting the target set to Iranian strategic programs might not provoke as fierce an Iranian retaliation as would attacks designed to kill Iran’s senior leaders.

U.S. allies in Europe and the region, while questioning the value of military action, have nonetheless sought to punish Iran’s regime for its massive use of force against protesters. On Thursday, following a shift by France, the European Union joined the U.S. and Canada in declaring the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, said that EU foreign ministers unanimously agreed on the designation, adding: “Any regime that kills thousands of its own people is working toward its own demise…This will put them on the same footing with al-Qaeda, Hamas, Daesh (Islamic State)…If you act as a terrorist, you should also be treated as a terrorist.” The 27-nation bloc simultaneously sanctioned 15 Iranian officials, including top IRGC commanders, for the violent crackdown. The regime’s use of force also convinced Saudi Arabia to issue a similar declaration last week, despite its three years of outreach to Tehran and its efforts to sway Trump from using force against Iran.