Trump’s threatened strikes to compel Iran deal risk backfiring

President Donald Trump said he is considering limited military strikes to pressure Iran into signing a new nuclear deal, but bombing the country may have the opposite effect, risking a new destabilizing conflict in the Middle East.

The Pentagon has orchestrated a massive deployment to the region that includes two aircraft carriers, fighter jets and refueling planes, giving Trump the option to launch limited, or extended, operations against Iran.

Yet Trump and other administration officials have given conflicting public accounts of what they actually want from a new deal with Tehran. And Iran experts argue that bombing the country in the middle of negotiations might derail a deal, and could prompt a deadly cycle of retaliation.

Hormuz Warning Shot, US Warship Buildup - Mounting Iran Risks

Tehran would likely suspend participation in talks if the US launched a strike, according to a senior government official in the region, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations.

“He’s not going to get a diplomatic agreement out of the Iranians if he attacks them again,” said Barbara Slavin, a fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington. The military threats alone — even if the US doesn’t ultimately act on them — “is going to make them less willing to make a deal.”

While Trump has given a deadline of between 10 and 15 days, it also remains unclear what a new round of airstrikes — limited or otherwise — would actually achieve.

Israel and the US bombed the country’s nuclear sites and air defenses extensively in June, with the president saying at the time that “key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

The US and Israel could target Iran’s ballistic missiles, but the danger there is Tehran could be spurred to fire them off at US or allied targets before it loses them, according to Slavin.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — whose administration has recently waged wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and bombed targets in Syria and Iran — has pushed repeatedly for US airstrikes on Iran over the years. He recently traveled to Washington to argue for more comprehensive demands in the ongoing diplomatic talks between the White House and Tehran.

Asked during a Friday news conference about what his message would be to the Iranian people, Trump said: “They better negotiate a fair deal. They better negotiate.”

While Trump has shown a preference for quick military operations — including brief bombing campaigns in Yemen, Syria and Nigeria, as well as the special operations raid that captured Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro in January — an attack on Iran could prompt a retaliation that pulls the US into a more prolonged conflict.

Historically, Tehran has not acted in line with US assumptions and limited strike campaigns don’t always unfold as envisioned, said Becca Wasser, the defense lead at Bloomberg Economics.

“Air and missile strikes are incredibly attractive to senior leaders because they can be done from afar and ostensibly can achieve quick wins,” she said, adding that limited campaigns often turn into “long, costly endeavors.”

The shifting US rationale for talks — and strikes — makes deciphering US intent even more difficult. Trump’s initial threat of airstrikes came in support of protests in Iran in December and January that the regime since has violently suppressed, killing thousands.

And while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called for concessions on Iran’s ballistic missile program, support for militant groups such as Yemen’s Houthis and treatment of protesters to be included for a deal to be “meaningful,” Iranian officials have pushed back against a broader deal.

Trump now seems to be pushing for a limited nuclear deal, despite in his first term repudiating the 2015 Iran deal negotiated during the Obama administration — a withdrawal that may make big, upfront concessions from Tehran even less likely.

Of course, it’s unclear whether Trump will order strikes, or is simply pressuring Tehran. The very public massing of US forces in the region — with transponders enabled on military aircraft — is likely an intentional signal, said a former US official familiar with US Central Command planning.

A preemptive strike by the US could target Iran’s anti-ship missile batteries, the person said, which would remove a key capability and minimize the risk of harming civilians due to locations far from population centers.

Iran was weakened by previous airstrikes and recently faced its most serious unrest in decades. But the country remains capable of striking back at the US. Iranian retaliation likely could include the use of short-to-medium-range ballistic missiles, which could target US bases in the region, as well as the activation of its regional proxies, according to the former US official.

“Right now, they’re trying to buy time, and they’re trying to make concessions that are symbolic rather than real,” said Dennis Ross, President Bill Clinton’s envoy to the Middle East, now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“The Iranians are signaling there will be a long war, knowing Trump doesn’t want a long war. Trump is telling the regime it will pay a price it hasn’t before,” he added. “Neither side wants a war.”