January 23, 2026

SHARE |

Trump Could Still Decide to Strike Iran

AP Photo/Luca Bruno

The uprising in Iran that began on December 28 and escalated into the most significant threat to the regime since its founding in 1979 threatens to engulf the region in new conflict. The potential for the unrest to trigger external intervention expanded as global human rights and intelligence organizations were able to confirm, despite a regime blackout of the Internet, that Iran’s leaders were again using massive violence in order to retain their grip on power. The government’s use of coercive violence, despite its assertions that the Iranian people have a right to peacefully protest, prompted President Trump to publicly promise the U.S. would intervene to stop the government from killing protesters. While President Trump now appears to have backtracked, likely under pressure from regional leaders and cognizant that air strikes alone would be insufficient to implode the regime, military assets continue to be moved into the region, indicating kinetic action may still happen. The Iranian government believes it has effectively quelled the protests, with Iran's prosecutor general Mohammad Movahedi stating: "The sedition is now over." The Trump administration's potential plans for Iran, however, may not be over, and could be gearing up in the near future.

Underpinning Trump’s threat is an assessment that the regime has been sufficiently weakened by the defeat of its regional allies, its economic deterioration, and the U.S. and Israeli strikes on its strategic facilities in June, that a modest application of U.S. force against regime targets might push the regime out of power. At their peak on January 8, the protests had spread to hundreds of localities spanning all of Iran’s 31 provinces and featured an unprecedented degree of protester violence against security forces and regime facilities. U.S. Iran policy historically has focused not on “regime change,” but on reducing the geostrategic threat posed by Iran’s missile and nuclear program and its ability to project power in the region through its network of non-state actors. But U.S. leaders have consistently assessed that a collapse of the Islamic Republic, if it were to occur, would contribute significantly to regional stability. But post-conflict settings are always complex, and regime decapitation could lead to a long and simmering insurgency from hardliners and others who view the end of the regime as existential.

Even as protests began to subside early last week at the hands of the government crackdown, the unfolding scale of the regime’s violence triggered pleas by Iranian activists and some U.S. and regional officials for Trump to follow through on his pledge to intervene. Iranian leaders unleashed willing security forces, centered on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to fire on demonstrators at will. Iran also deployed fighters from its non-state coalition partners, Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), to help put down the unrest. Iran’s leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sought to justify the use of force by claiming the protesters were “terrorists” acting on behalf of outside powers, particularly the U.S. and Israel.

Last week, and despite exhorting protesters to “Keep protesting– Take over your Institutions,” Trump appeared to draw back from initiating military action in support of the protesters. He told journalists that Iranian officials had informed the U.S. that executions of at least one protester would not proceed. U.S. officials did proceed with the imposition of additional sanctions on Iranians accused of ordering the killing of protesters. Among those sanctioned was Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme Council for National Security, whom Washington accused of coordinating the crackdown and calling for force against protesters. Four regional commanders of Iran’s Law Enforcement Forces and Revolutionary Guard were sanctioned for their roles in the crackdown in Lorestan and Fars provinces. Trump’s team also instituted a 25 percent tariff on the products of any country that continued to conduct trade with Iran — a measure intended to dissuade China from continuing to buy Iranian oil.

Trump’s pause on military action was widely attributed not to Iranian compliance, but to doubts within the U.S. government and among key U.S. regional allies about the risks and effects of military action. In reported internal deliberations, Trump told his national security team that he wanted any potential U.S. military action to deliver a swift and decisive blow to the regime and not spark a sustained war that dragged on for weeks or months, according to several sources familiar with the administration discussions. As such, Trump’s aides reportedly assessed that the regime would not quickly collapse after an American military strike. Experts have long argued that air or missile strikes would not cause the regime to collapse, and achieving that outcome would require the introduction of U.S. ground forces. Deploying ground forces in Iran has been repeatedly ruled out by U.S. leaders and, many argue, would require authorization from the U.S. Congress — an authorization not likely forthcoming. U.S. officials also judged that the U.S. did not have all the assets in the region it would need to guard against what was expected to be an aggressive Iranian response, a concern also shared by Israel.

Several key U.S. partners in the region — all of which carry significant weight with Trump and his team — expanded on and amplified the concerns expressed by U.S. national security officials. The New York Times reported Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump to “postpone” striking Iran. Netanyahu reportedly supports U.S. action against Iran’s regime in principle, but Israeli officials argued they needed time to position their missile defense assets to counter Iranian retaliation against Israel. Iranian officials had warned they would strike not only U.S. bases in the region but Israel as well, if Trump launched an attack on Iran. Reports also suggested that Netanyahu would prefer a full-throated U.S. attack, rather than pinprick decapitation strikes aimed at leading Iranian officials from the government, military, and intelligence services.

Separately, senior officials from key U.S. Arab allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Egypt coordinated their efforts to persuade Trump to cancel, not merely postpone, a strike. One Saudi official told journalists on background that the four countries “led a long, frantic, diplomatic last-minute effort to convince President Trump to give Iran a chance to show good intentions…We told Washington that an attack on Iran would open the way for a series of grave blowbacks in the region.” The leaders of the Arab Gulf states, in particular, feared that Iran would implement its threats against military and energy facilities in their countries in the event of a U.S. strike. Iran launched a largely symbolic strike on Al-Udeid Air Base in Doha following the U.S. Operation Midnight Hammer attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Qatari leaders are said to be concerned that Iran, which possesses thousands of short-range ballistic missiles, would not necessarily provide advanced warning to Qatar as it did then. A U.S. strike would also increase the potential for the Gulf states to become caught in the resulting crossfire between Iran and Israel. The Arab leaders further argued that a collapse of the regime in Iran might bring to power an unpredictable or aggressive successor government or produce a “failed state” within easy reach of the Gulf states. Weapons caches could easily be captured by terrorist groups, as occurred after the fall of Gaddafi in Libya. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose leadership has often echoed Israel’s advocacy of extensive military action to counter Iran and its regional allies, reportedly was not involved in the diplomacy.

Trump’s comment on Saturday to Politico that “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran,” indicates he is still contemplating taking action. Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and General Abolfazl Shekarchi, continue to threaten the U.S. with an unrestrained response if intervention occurs. On Tuesday, Araghchi published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, warning that Iran would not show the same restraint it had in 2025. In a NewsNation interview, Trump warned against the threats made against him: “I have very firm instructions — anything happens, they’re going to wipe them off the face of this earth.” Trump has demonstrated that he loathes being antagonized by other world leaders, and he often goes to great lengths to demonstrate his resolve in the face of heated rhetoric and direct threats against him or the United States.

In order to provide Trump with the option to act if he decides to do so, as well as to deter Iran from using further violence against protesters, U.S. military officials are deploying additional weaponry and defensive equipment to the region, including sending the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group on its one-week journey from Asia to the Middle East. To guard against expected Iranian retaliation, the Pentagon is also dispatching more air defense equipment, including interceptor missiles, to better protect bases in the region, particularly Al-Udeid Air Base.