From Protest Crackdown to Military Threat: A Rapid Shift in U.S. Policy

Just weeks ago, President Trump appeared to retreat from a hardline stance regarding Iran’s brutal suppression of widespread protests. Despite reports detailing horrific casualties – estimates ranging from 3,000 to 6,000, and potentially far exceeding that figure according to some sources – the president signaled satisfaction that the killings had ceased and that planned executions had been halted. Intervention to aid the protesters was deemed too late, the movement effectively crushed.

However, the rationale for a potential military confrontation has dramatically shifted. President Trump is now publicly demanding Iran negotiate a deal guaranteeing “no nuclear weapons,” a longstanding demand amplified by the regime’s perceived weakness. The New York Times reports that U.S. officials have presented Iran with three core demands: a permanent cessation of all uranium enrichment and the dismantling of existing stockpiles, limitations on its ballistic missile program, and an end to support for regional proxy groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

This approach echoes the build-up to the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, where the administration initially presented shifting justifications – from “narcoterrorism” to recovering U.S. oil assets – before ultimately taking action. As Ali Vaez, Iran director at the International Crisis Group, observed, “This seems to be a military intervention in search of an objective.”

The Nuclear Question: Assessing Iran’s Capabilities

While the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program remains unresolved, there’s no definitive evidence suggesting significant progress toward acquiring nuclear weapons since the U.S.-led bombing campaign last June. President Trump confidently claimed that operation “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, a statement the administration itself later tempered, describing the program as “significantly degraded.” The general consensus is that the strikes, targeting key facilities and personnel, seriously hampered Iran’s progress but did not eliminate it entirely. A recent analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies supports this assessment.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been denied access to the Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan nuclear facilities bombed in June. Critically, the IAEA cannot currently verify the location and condition of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. Estimates suggest Iran possesses approximately 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity – a short technical step from the 90 percent purity required for weaponization. While Iran is not believed to be actively building nuclear weapons, the extent of Israeli intelligence penetration within Iran’s power structures suggests caution.

However, Iran’s ballistic missile program presents a more immediate threat to U.S. allies in the region. Despite limited progress in reconstituting its nuclear capabilities, Iran has demonstrably focused on expanding its missile arsenal. Nicole Grajewski of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently detailed a “concerted campaign” to rebuild and expand ballistic missile capabilities, confirmed by satellite imagery. A U.S. special operations team intercepted a shipment of Chinese missile components destined for Iran in December, further fueling concerns.

Proxy Networks and Regional Instability

Iran’s “axis of resistance” – its network of armed proxy groups throughout the Middle East – suffered setbacks following Israeli attacks in the wake of the October 7th attacks, particularly impacting Hezbollah. However, these groups haven’t been entirely dismantled. The Houthis in Yemen, who emerged as a surprisingly potent force during the recent conflict, have warned they will resume attacks on shipping in the Red Sea should strikes occur in Iran. Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Iraqi Shiite militant group, has vowed “total war.”

The Risks of Retaliation and Limited Resources

Iranian retaliation following the June strikes was limited and largely performative, involving missile launches against Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar with advance warning given to Qatari authorities, allowing for successful interception. However, the current situation is different. Amidst recent military setbacks, economic hardship, and widespread protests, the Iranian regime appears more vulnerable than ever. Grajewski suggests, “They may be reading this as an existential fight… They may be more escalatory and not as rational as they were during the 12-day war.”

Iranian officials have reportedly contacted Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Turkey, warning that U.S. bases in those countries could be targeted. These nations have publicly stated they will not participate in any potential strikes.

President Trump’s confidence in the use of military force appears bolstered by the successes in Iran and Venezuela. However, the U.S. military faces logistical constraints. Approximately one-third of U.S. aircraft carriers are deployed at any given time. The repositioning of the USS Gerald Ford left the Middle East without a nearby carrier strike group, potentially limiting options during the earlier period of unrest. The U.S. Naval Institute News Fleet Tracker provides detailed information on current deployments.

Furthermore, recent conflicts have depleted U.S. stockpiles of critical interceptor missiles. The U.S. used roughly a quarter of its THAAD interceptors during the June conflict, and Israel is facing shortages of its Arrow interceptors. Replenishing these supplies is a challenge, particularly with ongoing demands from Ukraine. A recent CSIS analysis highlights the critical importance of air defenses in modern warfare.

What do you believe is the most significant risk associated with a potential U.S. strike on Iran? And how might regional actors respond to such an action?

Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S.-Iran Crisis