U.S. Military Intervention in Iran: Scenarios and Implications

Policy Paper by Dr. Mohamad Kawas

Progress Center for Policies

⸻

Executive Summary
• President Donald Trump’s threats of military intervention in support of protesters stand in contrast to the approach of the Obama administration, which deliberately refrained from taking a position on Iran’s 2009 “Green Movement” protests.
• A U.S. military intervention could draw Israel into direct involvement, prompting regional states to adopt a more cautious stance toward military options.
• Such threats fall within the framework of Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy, aimed at forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table on U.S. terms.
• Military intervention could embarrass and halt the protest movement, while also triggering broader regional military escalation.

⸻

Introduction

Following repeated threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to intervene militarily in Iran should Tehran kill protesters, and amid reports of military options being prepared and presented, assessments diverge regarding the likelihood of a U.S. strike and its potential repercussions. These include its impact on the momentum of protests and the resilience of the Iranian regime. This paper examines these possibilities through two parallel lenses: the immediate context related to street protests, and the broader context of U.S.–Iranian confrontation.

⸻

Trump’s Threats and the Washington Debate

In late December 2025, widespread protests erupted across Iran, initially driven by economic grievances following the collapse of the Iranian currency (the rial, which lost approximately 80 percent of its value). The protests soon evolved into an anti-regime movement demanding radical change. According to reports, demonstrations spread to more than 200 locations across 24 provinces. Opposition media sources claimed over 2,000 deaths, while other reports on 12 January 2026 placed the death toll at around 150.

Within this context, Donald Trump voiced support for the protesters, warning Iran against killing demonstrators and stating that the United States was “ready to help,” while hinting at possible military intervention. This scenario raised questions about the likelihood of U.S. military strikes in support of protests, particularly amid reports on 12 January 2026 of increased U.S. fighter jet activity near Iran.

The prospect of U.S. military intervention sparked extensive debate regarding its nature, objectives, consequences, and risks—especially the possibility of escalation into a wider conflict, as warned by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, who threatened retaliation against Israel and U.S. bases.

Key U.S. positions included:
1. Trump warning Iran after protests turned deadly, stating that the United States was “ready to intervene.”
2. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz issuing a statement supporting the Iranian people, blaming systemic repression and corruption, and calling for a military coup to overthrow the regime.
3. Trump pledging to “rescue” Iranian protesters and warning Tehran against killing peaceful demonstrators.
4. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stating that the administration had issued supportive statements and was prepared to help the Iranian people, contrasting this with Obama-era silence.
5. Trump revealing that Iran “wants to negotiate” and that preparations were underway for talks, without ruling out military strikes—recalling that June 2025 attacks occurred shortly before scheduled negotiations.

⸻

Washington’s Internal Debate and Restraints

Within the United States, debate continues over whether military intervention in Iran is feasible or dangerously reckless. This debate draws on Trump’s first-term “maximum pressure” policy, which included:
1. Withdrawal from the nuclear agreement.
2. Imposition of unprecedented economic sanctions.
3. The 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

Trump revived this approach in June 2025, when U.S. B-2 bombers struck nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. Reports indicate discussions of additional military options, as well as non-military measures such as cyber support for protesters, expanded internet access, and further sanctions.

The debate reflects several currents:
1. Support from Republican hawks such as Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, who view protests as a historic opportunity to topple the Iranian regime.
2. Opposition from the “America First” (MAGA) wing, led by figures like Tucker Carlson, warning against Iraq- and Afghanistan-like scenarios.
3. Analysts suggesting Trump’s threats are rhetorical escalation aimed at pressure rather than war.
4. Democratic opposition, including Senator Tim Kaine, rejecting strikes without congressional approval.
5. While Israel encourages U.S. confrontation with Iran, most regional states show little appetite for regime collapse, fearing regional chaos.

⸻

Indicators of Israeli Involvement

The debate is complicated by Israel’s potential role, given its partnership with the United States during the 12-day war against Iran in June 2025. Reports suggest Israel is on high alert following discussions between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israeli perspectives vary: while some view protests as an opportunity to weaken the regime, others emphasize caution. Indicators include:
1. U.S. endorsement, following Trump–Netanyahu summits, of Israel’s right to strike Iran if nuclear recovery reaches a critical stage.
2. Mossad issuing messages in Persian encouraging protesters.
3. Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon expressing solidarity with peaceful Iranian protesters.
4. Statements by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir supporting protesters.
5. Defense Minister Israel Katz discussing scenarios while senior officials urge silence.
6. Israeli intelligence assessments warning protests threaten regime stability.
7. Warnings of potential Iranian retaliation against regional targets.
8. Netanyahu publicly backing protesters.
9. Israeli media reports of remaining on the sidelines while allowing U.S. leadership.
10. Israel raising alert levels amid Iranian threats.

⸻

Impact of Strikes on the Regime and Protests

Experts debate the effects of military strikes on Iran’s protest movement:
1. Historically, foreign intervention has often unified Iranians behind the regime.
2. Strikes could reframe protests as resistance to foreign aggression.
3. While strikes might weaken repression capabilities, research suggests they often suppress protest movements.
4. With internet shutdowns and misinformation, intervention could fragment protests.
5. Strikes may halt protests rather than energize them.

Assessments of regime resilience include:
• Strikes could threaten regime stability following the damage of June 2025.
• Weakening the Revolutionary Guard could accelerate collapse if protests persist.
• Iranian retaliation risks wider regional war.
• Escalation could either strengthen the regime or hasten its downfall if responses fail.

⸻

Conclusions
• Trump’s threats represent a forceful stance granting protests international visibility.
• His approach differs sharply from the Obama administration’s restraint in 2009.
• There is no confirmed U.S. plan to overthrow the Iranian regime.
• Negotiation signals may be tactical deception, as in June 2025.
• U.S. intervention could draw Israel into direct military action.
• Strikes could weaken the regime or undermine protests.
• Threats may remain rhetorical tools of pressure.
• Despite Israeli encouragement, most regional states oppose regime collapse due to fears of regional instability.