Trump’s Iran options seemed vast with the US buildup but are fast narrowing
Trump’s Iran options seemed vast with the US buildup but are fast narrowing
President Donald Trump has maintained an open stance on Iran’s nuclear program, but recent developments suggest his choices are tightening. The third round of Geneva discussions concluded with an agreement for another technical meeting in Vienna, leaving the White House to determine whether renewed diplomacy can produce outcomes or if a more aggressive stance is required. This decision hinges on whether the administration is willing to accept a negotiated resolution or escalate to a forceful intervention.
Militarily, the U.S. has made a strong show of strength. The buildup of air and naval forces in the region marks the largest deployment since Iraq’s 2003 invasion. Refueling operations and A-10 ground-attack aircraft are stationed near civilian airports in Israel and Crete, sending a clear message to Tehran. The visibility of these assets aims to reinforce Trump’s determination, despite his limited patience for prolonged talks. However, this display does not guarantee immediate success.
“You can see them always trying to rebuild elements of” their nuclear program, stated U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He suggested Iran is not currently enriching uranium, yet remains focused on restoring key components of its efforts.
The U.S. has prioritized diplomacy, a choice that reflects the failures of past airstrikes. Despite Trump’s claim that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated” in 2025, the country has continued to advance its capabilities. The administration’s current approach relies on a verified agreement that ensures Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and agrees to civilian inspections. However, Iran’s history of delaying negotiations complicates this path.
Trump’s strategy may gain leverage by creating uncertainty. The “armada” of forces deployed could pressure Iran into quicker concessions, potentially leading to a deal. The 2015 Obama-era agreement offers a framework for inspections, making it a useful reference for negotiators. Steve Witkoff, the U.S. envoy, has been praised for his ability to streamline this process, though past criticism for his handling of Ukraine talks remains relevant.
The administration’s red lines remain ambiguous. Does Washington demand an end to all nuclear enrichment, or is it content with restricted levels for medical use? Trump’s State of the Union address did not explicitly call for a halt to enrichment, indicating flexibility. Additionally, the U.S. must decide whether to include missile range limits or curb Iran’s regional proxies. The fall of the Assad regime in late 2024 and recent Israeli military actions have weakened Iran’s influence, but the extent of these changes is unclear.
Despite the military presence, the U.S. lacks the resources for an extended campaign. Pentagon leaks reveal concerns about munitions and carrier maintenance, suggesting Trump’s options are more constrained than they appear. A prolonged military offensive risks entangling the U.S. in a conflict akin to Iraq, especially with troops entering the region without sufficient support. This scenario poses a significant political risk, even for a leader who feels omnipotent.
Trump’s more feasible military options resemble short, targeted actions. These strikes could disrupt Iran’s nuclear progress without committing to a full-scale invasion. However, the balance between deterrence and conflict remains delicate, and the ultimate goal—whether a diplomatic accord or a military breakthrough—depends on Iran’s response to the pressure applied.
