Why any US move on Iran risks backfiring

Why any US move on Iran risks backfiring

• Trump considers military action in Iran amid violent crackdown on protests
• Analysts warn strikes may unify Iranians and strengthen the regime
• US remains open to diplomacy but keeps military options on the table

Did our AI summary help?

As protests spread across Iran and the government responds with force, US President Donald Trump is weighing whether to intervene, raising the prospect of another US military action abroad. But advisers and analysts warn that Iran presents a far more complex and risky challenge than recent operations elsewhere, with no clear guarantee that either military or diplomatic pressure would achieve Washington’s stated goals, the Financial Times reported.

A crackdown that draws Washington’s attention

Nationwide demonstrations that erupted in Iran in late December have been met with a violent crackdown. Activist groups estimate that more than 500 people, including members of the security forces, have been killed, while thousands more have been detained. Trump has said the US would consider “very strong options” if Iran continues to kill peaceful protesters, and the White House has confirmed that these options include air strikes.

What military action could look like

Former officials and military experts say potential US targets could include Iranian military installations, Revolutionary Guards infrastructure, command and control centres, and weapons depots used by the government and allied militias. Some suggest that attacks could even extend to senior Iranian leaders. During Trump’s first term, the US killed Qassem Soleimani, and the president has previously claimed he could also target Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Yet there is deep scepticism about whether such action would produce the desired outcome. Analysts warn that military strikes could reinforce Tehran’s narrative that unrest is being fuelled by foreign enemies, particularly the US and Israel, and could end up strengthening the regime rather than weakening it.

The risk of unifying a divided country

Despite Iran’s deep political divisions, external military pressure has in the past prompted a rally-around-the-flag effect. When Israel launched a brief war against Iran in June, which the US later joined, many Iranians temporarily unified in the face of foreign attack. Former defence officials caution that a similar response could follow any new US intervention.

Identifying targets that would encourage defections within Iran’s security apparatus or reduce the regime’s ability to suppress protests is also seen as extremely difficult. Protecting protesters through military action, one former official said, is not a realistic or achievable objective.

Tehran’s response: repression, not retreat

Iran’s leadership has responded to protests and US threats not with compromise but with increased violence and internet shutdowns. Senior figures around Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei have long believed that conceding under pressure only invites further aggression, reinforcing their instinct to resist rather than yield.

Trump has previously claimed that US strikes during the June conflict “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, he has since warned that a new campaign could be launched if Tehran attempts to rebuild its nuclear programme, a position strongly encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Political constraints in Washington

Despite his rhetoric, Trump faces limits at home. His political base remains wary of long-term military entanglements, and advisers say the administration prefers short, decisive actions rather than open-ended commitments. The recent US operation that led to the capture of Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro has prompted speculation about similar options for Iran, but officials stress that Iran’s geography, military strength and lack of easy access make such operations far more complicated.

The US has also reduced its military presence in parts of the Gulf and Mediterranean, redeploying assets to other regions, further narrowing operational flexibility.

Escalation risks remain high

Iran has warned it would retaliate against US assets in the region if attacked, while Trump has vowed an overwhelming response in return. Former officials warn that this dynamic could quickly spiral into a broader confrontation.

While Trump does not always follow through on his threats, analysts say he has done so often enough to keep adversaries guessing. That uncertainty, they argue, has become a central feature of his foreign policy.

Diplomacy back on the table, for now

After Trump suggested that Iran’s leadership had reached out privately to negotiate, the White House indicated a renewed openness to diplomacy. Officials said the messages conveyed behind closed doors differed markedly from Iran’s public stance and were worth exploring. At the same time, they emphasised that all options remain available and that the president remains willing to use military force if he believes it necessary.