Donald Trump is considering a surgical strike on Iran, followed by a larger attack. Top negotiators plan to meet in Geneva on Thursday for last-minute talks on a new proposal that could create a situation where two US aircraft carrier strike groups are concentrated within striking distance of Iran.
President Trump has told advisers that if diplomacy or some initial targeted U.S. strike does not result in Iran giving in to his demand to abandon its nuclear program, he will consider a much larger strike in the coming months to remove that country's leaders from power, the New York Times reported, citing people with knowledge of internal discussions within the administration.
Negotiators from the United States and Iran will meet in Geneva on Thursday to negotiate what appears to be a final step to avoid military conflict. But Trump is weighing America's options if negotiations fail.
Although no final decision has been made, advisers say Trump is leaning toward launching a first strike in the coming days to demonstrate to Iran's leaders that they must be willing to agree to give up their ability to develop nuclear weapons. US attack targets under consideration range from the headquarters of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to the country's nuclear facilities and ballistic missile program.
If those steps fail to persuade Tehran to comply with his demands, Trump told advisers, he would leave open the possibility of a military strike later this year to help overthrow Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The New York Times commented: Even within the government there are doubts that this goal can only be achieved with the help of air strikes. And behind the scenes, both sides are considering a new proposal that could lead to military conflict: a very limited nuclear enrichment program that Iran could pursue solely for research and medical treatment purposes.
It's unclear whether either side would agree, the New York Times noted. But the offer came at the last minute as two aircraft carrier strike groups and dozens of fighters, bombers and tankers converged within striking distance of Iran.
Trump discussed plans to attack Iran in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday. The meeting was attended by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Cain; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
During the meeting, Trump pressed generals Kaine and Ratcliffe to weigh in on Iran's broader strategy, but neither official was inclined to commit to a specific policy position. General Kane talked about what the military could do from an operational standpoint, while Ratcliffe chose to discuss the current situation on the ground and the possible outcomes of planned operations.
During discussions about the operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in January, General Kaine told Trump that the likelihood of success was very high. But General Kaine was unable to offer similar assurances to Trump during the Iran discussion, largely because it is a much more difficult target.
Vance, who had long called for greater restraint in foreign military actions, did not object to the attack, but at the meeting he closely interrogated General Kane and Ratcliffe. He pressed them to share their views on their options and wanted to continue discussing the risks and difficulties of attacking Iran, the New York Times wrote.
The United States has previously considered options including deploying special operations teams on the ground that could launch strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear or missile sites. This includes uranium production and enrichment activities deep below the surface, beyond the range of conventional US munitions.
But any such raid would be extremely dangerous, as special operations forces would have to stay on the ground longer than necessary to carry out a raid to capture Maduro, the New York Times commented. Some US officials said the commando raid plan is currently being delayed.
U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force officials also expressed concern that a prolonged war with Iran, or simply preparations for such a conflict, could impact the combat readiness of Navy ships, shortfalls in Patriot missile defenses and overcrowding of transport and surveillance aircraft.
The White House declined to comment on Trump's decision. “The media can continue to speculate about the President's thinking all they want, but only President Trump knows what he may or may not do,” White House press secretary Anne Kelly said in a statement.
Even before the Iranians presented their final proposal — officials said they expected it to be submitted to the Trump administration on Monday or Tuesday — both sides appeared to have hardened their stances. Presidential envoy Steve Witkoff said on Fox News that Trump's “clear direction” to him and Jared Kushner, his fellow negotiator and the president's son-in-law, was that the only acceptable outcome of the deal was for Iran to move to “no uranium enrichment.”
But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi reiterated in an interview on CBS's “Face the Nation” on Sunday that his country is not ready to give up its right to produce nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The decision on whether the United States will strike targets in Iran — with the apparent goal of further weakening Ayatollah Khamenei's power — appears to depend on whether the two sides can agree on a nuclear compromise that Washington and Tehran can consider a complete victory.
Such a proposal is being discussed by both the Trump administration and Iran's leadership. Some officials said it came from Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities.
Under this proposal, Iran would be allowed to produce very small amounts of nuclear fuel for medical purposes. Iran has been producing medical isotopes for years at the Tehran Research Reactor, built nearly 60 years ago outside the capital, which, in one of the strange twists of modern nuclear history, was first supplied by the United States to the pro-American Shah of Iran.
If it adapts, Iran could claim that it is still enriching uranium. And Trump could make the case that Iran is closing all the facilities that allow it to build weapons — most of which remain open and operating at a low level under a 2015 agreement between Iran and the Obama administration. Trump withdrew from that deal in 2018, prompting the Iranians to eventually ban inspectors from producing bomb-grade uranium and setting the stage for the current crisis, The New York Times recalls.
But it remains unclear whether the Iranians are willing to reduce their now massive commercial nuclear program, on which they have spent billions of dollars, to a small effort of such a limited scale. And it's also unclear whether Trump would allow limits on nuclear production for cancer research and other medical purposes, given his public statements about “not getting rich.”
Speaking from Tehran, Araqchi did not directly address the proposal. But he said: “I believe there is still a good chance to find a diplomatic solution,” adding: “So there is no need for a military build-up, and a military build-up cannot help that and cannot put pressure on us.”
In fact, pressure is key to these negotiations, The New York Times notes. What Trump called the “massive army” the United States has amassed in the seas around Iran is the largest military force the country has amassed in the region since preparing to invade Iraq nearly 23 years ago. Two aircraft carrier battle groups, dozens of fighter jets, bombers, tankers and missile defense batteries have arrived in the area, an even bigger show of gunboat diplomacy than the violent kidnapping of President Maduro from Venezuela in early January.
The second aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Ford, was south of Italy in the Mediterranean on Sunday and will soon arrive off the coast of Israel, military officials said.
Complicating the final decision on military strikes, Arab leaders are calling on their counterparts in Washington to complain about comments by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. In an interview with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson that aired Friday, Huckabee argued that Israel has rights to much of the Middle East, sparking outrage from Arab diplomats in countries that the United States hopes will support an American attack on Iran or at least not publicly oppose it.
Administration officials are unclear what their goals are in the confrontation with Iran, a country of more than 90 million people. While Trump has often said Iran would never be able to build weapons, Rubio and other aides have made several other arguments for military action: protecting protesters, thousands of whom were killed by Iran's military last month, destroying an arsenal of missiles that Iran could use to attack Israel and ending Tehran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah. But American military action could also spark a nationalist reaction even among Iranians seeking an end to Ayatollah Khamenei's rule, the New York Times said.
And European officials attending the recent Munich Security Conference said they doubted military pressure would force Iran's leaders to abandon a program that has become a symbol of resistance to the United States.
