Iran watches decades-old red lines vanish from view, but Trump still faces a huge risk
It's a big decision, but one where the outcomes get slowly better, either way, every day.
President Donald Trump has yet to determine whether to militarily involve the United States on Israel's side in its six-day old conflict with Iran. But there is only so much further that the fight can escalate. There is a very palpable – and growing – limit on what Tehran can do.
Israel has already crossed every red line imaginable in Iran's diplomatic lexicon. It has bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, killed so many military leaders the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is on its third commander in a week, and claimed air supremacy over the country. Short of killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and convincing the US to bomb the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, it is running out of taboos to break.
Iran, for its part, has launched barrages of ballistic missiles at Israel, terrifying civilians, causing some extensive damage, killing nearly 30 people and wounding hundreds more. Yet this is not the existential catastrophe many feared Tehran could unleash. Iran lost nearly 10 times as many civilians as Israel did in the opening 48 hours of the conflict, according to its ministry of health. Tehran is already having to temper its punches – the volleys of missiles it fires vacillating wildly night by night – as it struggles with a depleting inventory of the medium-range ballistic missiles that can hit Israel.
Daily, the list of targets Israel is steadily hitting – at will, largely unopposed – grows. And with that, Iran's ability to threaten the region shrinks. This must be key to Trump's impenetrable calculations. And it echoes lessons perhaps learned after his decision – unprecedented and rash as it seemed at the time – to kill the most prominent figure in Iran's military, Qassem Soleimani, in 2020.
At the time, the assassination, in response to rocket attacks that killed an American soldier in Iraq, seemed a fantastical 'gloves off' moment, in which Tehran's great military might could be unleashed. But that failed to transpire – Iran responded by hitting another American base, where the injuries were mostly concussion. It just did not have the muscle to risk an all-out war with the United States, and that was five years ago. Things have since got a lot worse for the Iranians.
Their main strategic ally, Russia, has come unstuck in an attritional three-year war of choice with Ukraine, meaning Tehran will likely have heard little back from Moscow if it asked for serious military support.
Iran's nearby proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Assad regime in Syria – have been removed as effective fighting forces. Hezbollah was undone in a staggeringly brief, brutal but effective Israeli campaign last fall, revealing the militant group to be a hollow threat wildly outdone by the superior technology and intelligence of its southern adversary. The Assad regime suddenly collapsed in December – following years of diplomatic isolation over its horrific abuses in a savage civil war – after Syria's northern neighbor, Turkey, helped rebels overwhelm Damascus.
Iran has found itself outmatched locally. It has known for years it cannot take on the US.
Those two facts considered, the risk of conflagration ebbs, and Trump's choices look easier. He could simply hit Fordow, and other relevant nuclear sites, in a single wave of stealth B-2 bomber strikes, inform the Iranians that the US seeks no further confrontation, and anticipate a muted, acceptable retaliation. Iran lacks the inventory to seriously bombard Israel, let alone another, better equipped adversary's military bases in the region.
Trump could continue to let the Israelis hit targets at will for weeks, while permitting European foreign ministers, who will meet their Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi in Geneva on Friday, to present Tehran with slowly worsening terms for a diplomatic settlement. Or Trump could do nothing, and permit Iran's broad powerlessness to come more clearly into view as its missile stocks dwindle.
But inaction might make Trump look weak and ponderous. Resolving the issue of Iran and the prospect of it developing nuclear weapons would be a much-needed foreign policy win for a White House mired in bratty spats with allies, a stop-start trade war with China, and erratic diplomacy with Moscow over Ukraine. Even Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said Israel was doing the Western world's 'dirty work' by taking out the Iranian nuclear threat. Barely anybody apart from Iranian hardliners thinks an Iranian nuclear bomb is a good idea.
The one remaining, huge risk Trump faces is that Iran, which has always insisted its program is peaceful, has a more advanced and secretive nuclear program than his bunker-busters can disable – perhaps now removed from Fordow or other publicly known sites after days of speculation they might be hit.
Such fears seem to fit with the Israeli intelligence assessments they claim expedited their recent campaign. But they would also seem to clash with the idea that further strikes can end any Iranian ambition for an atomic bomb indefinitely.
Secondly, one might argue that, by now, with its Supreme Leader directly threatened and capital's skies wide open, Iran would have decided to race for nuclear weapons already, if it could. What else would Iran need to have happen to it?
The 'known unknowns' – the things we know we do not know, as Donald Rumsfeld would have put it before Iran's neighbor, Iraq, was invaded by the US in 2003 – are plentiful. And they more or less point in a direction where Iran is weakened, and whatever choice Trump makes is met with a muted or manageable response from Tehran, which will soon need a diplomatic solution to ensure the survival of what remains of its government and military.
The 'unknown unknowns' are what mired the US in Iraq. They probably abound, although by definition we don't know what they are. But they are overshadowed by the simple fact that neither Israel nor the US intends to occupy Iran. And Iran is increasingly too weak to strike back meaningfully, as it watches its decades-old red lines vanish fast from view.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Erdogan vows to boost Turkey's missile production as Israel-Iran war escalates
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — As the war between Israel and Iran escalates, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said he plans to strengthen the country's deterrence capabilities so that no country would dare attack it. Erdogan announced plans this week to step up Turkey's production of medium- and long-range missiles. Erdogan discussed the Iran-Israel war with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in a telephone call on Friday. He told Merz that the Iranian nuclear issue can only be resolved through negotiations, according to Erdogan's office. Despite Turkey's tense relations with Israel, analysts and officials don't see an immediate threat of the conflict spreading into NATO-member Turkey. Still, some see the move by Erdogan as a sign that the Israel-Iran war could trigger a new arms race in the region, with countries not directly involved in the fray ramping up their military efforts to preempt future conflicts. Ahmet Kasim Han, a professor of international relations at Istanbul's Beykoz University, said that Turkey was reacting to what he described as an unraveling world order. 'The Turkish government is drifting toward what is the name of the game in the Middle East right now: an escalation of an arms race,' he said. Israel and the U.S. have set a high standard in aerial warfare, creating a technological gap that Turkey and others are eager to close, Han said. Erdogan said following a Cabinet meeting on Monday that 'we are making production plans to bring our medium- and long-range missile stockpiles to a level that ensures deterrence, in light of recent developments." 'God willing, in the not-too-distant future, we will reach a defense capacity that is so strong that no one will even dare to act tough toward us," Erdogan said. In an separate address days later, the Turkish leader highlighted Turkey's progress in its domestically developed defense industry, that includes drones, fighter jets, armored vehicles and navy vessels, but stressed that continued effort was needed to ensure full deterrence. 'Although Turkey has a very large army — the second largest in NATO — its air power, its air defense is relatively weaker,' said Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, a Turkey analyst at the German Marshall Fund think tank. The ongoing conflict has reinforced the importance of air superiority, including missiles and missile defense systems, prompting 'countries in the region, including Turkey to strengthen its air power,' he said. Since the start of the conflict, Erdogan has been scrambling to end the hostilities. He has held a flurry of phone calls with leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, offering to act as a 'facilitator' for the resumption of negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. There are deep concerns in Turkey that a prolonged conflict will cause energy disruptions and lead to refugee movement from Iran, with which it shares a 560 kilometer-long (348 mile) border. Turkey relies heavily on energy imports, including from Iran, and rising oil prices due to the conflict could aggravate inflation and further strain its troubled economy. Turkey has strongly criticized Israel's actions, saying Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself against Israel's attacks, which came as nuclear negotiations were ongoing. Once close allies, Turkey and Israel have grown deeply estranged, especially after the start of the war in Gaza in 2023, with Erdogan becoming one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fiercest critics. Relations further deteriorated following the fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, as Israel grew increasingly wary of expanding Turkish influence in Syria. Earlier this year, Turkey and Israel however, established a 'de-escalation mechanism' aimed at preventing conflict between their troops in Syria. The move came after Syria's Foreign Ministry said that Israeli jets had struck a Syrian air base that Turkey reportedly hoped to use. Israel hasn't commented on Turkey's announcement that it plans to ramp up missile production, but Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar responded to Erdogan's criticisms of Israel over its attack on Iran in an X post on Wednesday. He accused Erdogan of having 'imperialist ambitions' and of having 'set a record in suppressing the freedoms and rights of his citizens, as well as his country's opposition.' Erdogan's nationalist ally, Devlet Bahceli, suggested that Turkey was a potential target for Israel, accusing the country of strategically 'encircling' Turkey with its military actions. He didn't elaborate. Analysts say, however, that such statements were for 'domestic consumption' to garner support amid growing anti-Israel sentiment in Turkey. 'I don't think that Israel has any interest in attacking Turkey, or Turkey has any interest in a conflict with Israel,' Han said. Suzan Fraser, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe to give Iran message that US open to direct talks
By Francois Murphy, John Irish and Parisa Hafezi GENEVA (Reuters) -European foreign ministers will tell their Iranian counterpart on Friday that the U.S. is open to direct talks even as it considers joining Israeli strikes intended to smash Tehran's nuclear capacity, diplomats said before a meeting in Geneva. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi will be told that Iran must send a "clear signal," two diplomats told Reuters, with pressure mounting on Tehran to agree tough curbs on its nuclear programme to prevent the potential development of an atomic weapon. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke to several Western counterparts prior to the Geneva meeting, the diplomats said, indicating readiness to engage directly with Tehran. Washington did not confirm that, though broadcaster CNN quoted a U.S. official saying President Donald Trump supported diplomacy from allies that could bring Iran closer to a deal. Tehran, however, has repeatedly said it will not talk to the Trump government until Israeli attacks end. The ministers from Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, plus the European Union's foreign policy chief, were meeting separately prior to planned face-to-face talks with Araqchi. "The Iranians can't sit down with the Americans whereas we can," said a European diplomat. "We will tell them to come back to the table to discuss the nuclear issue before the worst-case scenario, while raising our concerns over its ballistic missiles, support to Russia and detention of our citizens." The Trump administration is demanding Iran stop uranium enrichment altogether, whereas the E3 have in past talks left it some scope to enrich for civil ends in exchange for extremely strict international inspections of its nuclear activities. On Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron shifted closer to Trump's position, saying that any new deal with Tehran needed to go towards zero enrichment. A senior Iranian official told Reuters Iran is ready to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment but said the prospect of zero enrichment would undoubtedly be rejected, especially while Israel was attacking Iran. IRAN DEMANDS END TO WAR The talks were due for mid-afternoon in Geneva, where an initial accord between Iran and world powers to curb its nuclear programme in return for sanctions lifting was struck in 2013 before a comprehensive deal in 2015. Separate talks between Iran and the U.S. collapsed when Israel launched what it called Operation Rising Lion against Iran's nuclear facilities and ballistic capabilities on June 12. "There is no room for negotiations with the U.S. until Israeli aggression stops," Araqchi was quoted as saying on Iranian state TV on Friday. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot spoke to Rubio on Thursday night, during which Rubio said Washington was ready for direct contact with the Iranians any time, according to a French diplomatic source. The main message Europeans will pass to Araqchi is that the U.S. has signalled readiness for direct talks, but that Iran must give a serious signal, the two European diplomats said, without defining what the signal should be. Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, has spoken to Araqchi several times since last week, sources say. While diplomats did not expect a breakthrough in Geneva, they said it was vital to engage with Iran because once the war stopped the nuclear issue would remain unresolved given that Tehran would still retain the scientific know-how. "Even now, if they have something to say, we will listen," Araqchi said of the Europeans. "We are not ashamed of defending our nation's rights and we are not avoiding anyone." German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said European powers had always been ready to talk provided Iran committed to not developing nuclear weapons. "Now it's Iran's move," he said. Trump has said he will decide within two weeks whether to join Israeli strikes.
Chicago Tribune
4 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Appeals court lets President Donald Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES — An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows,' the court wrote. 'The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,' Newsom said. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
