Washington, Feb 24 (UNI) US President Donald Trump has reportedly grown increasingly frustrated over the limitations of military leverage, which the country holds against Iran, according to his aides.
Speaking to CBS News on condition of anonymity, Trumps aides told him that unlike Washington’s previous targeted operations against countries – the most recent of which involved the kidnapping and ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro – no such option exists for Iran, making it virtually impossible to conclude any attack against Tehran’s assets with a singular, decisive blow.
Instead, even the use of limited strikes risks opening the door to a far wider and larger confrontation with Tehran, one that could potentially draw the US into an all-out war against Iran, and a broader protracted war in West Asia, which is already battered with war and instability.
President Trump, in a social media post, refuted any reports that General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “is against us going to War with Iran.”
As per him, Caine “would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won.”
Trump further commented that the Gen “has not spoken of not doing Iran, or even the fake limited strikes that I have been reading about, he only knows one thing, how to WIN and, if he is told to do so, he will be leading the pack.”
A senior military official told CBS News that military planners are providing unbiased advice, with the White House referring the outlet to the POTUS’ social media post.
In private meetings, Caine has advised Trump that a sustained military campaign against Iran was unwise as it could carry significant repercussions, including joint retaliation from Tehran and its proxies against both the US and its allies, and worse, spiral into a long, drawn-out military engagement requiring considerable troops and resources, especially at a time when the US economy is not doing that well.
Over the weekend, special envoy Steve Witkoff told Lara Trump in an interview on Fox News that Trump is “curious” about why the Iranians “haven’t capitulated”.
“Why, under this sort of pressure, with the amount of sea power, naval power that we have over there, why they haven’t come to us and said, ‘We profess that we don’t want to be – we don’t want a weapon. So, here’s what we’re prepared to do.’ And yet, it’s hard to sort of get them to that place,” Witkoff said.
At the heart of the President’s impatience is a desire for a forceful action that would reset the diplomatic table. He has pressed advisers for options that would deliver a punishing strike – one substantial enough, in his view, to compel Iranian leaders to return to negotiations under more favourable terms for Washington. However, military planners have cautioned that such an outcome cannot be guaranteed.
In recent weeks, the US has greatly expanded its military posturing across the region, with its largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, along with an entire strike force expected to position themselves within range of Iranian territory, joining the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group and other aircraft squadrons stationed at bases throughout the Persian Gulf.
Additionally, Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence systems have been reinforced to protect US troops and regional allies from potential Iranian retaliation.
According to officials from the Pentagon, the deployments are defensive and designed to deter escalation, yet the scale and tempo of the build-up underscore that any strike in Iran would almost certainly trigger a strong response whether it be through missile attacks, imposing an all-out blockade in the Strait of Hormuz or using proxy forces operating in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere to continuously harass US security personnel.
The unfolding of meetings inside the White House on Iran reflect a clash between political-strategic objectives and military realities, for while Trump seeks to showcase a dramatic show of force to negotiate from a position of strength, senior commanders have emphasised that wars almost rarely ever unfold according to plan, with even the most carefully calibrated, calculated strikes, capable of producing unpredictable consequences, leaving nothing certain.
