Options and Scenarios in Light of Western Media and Think-Tank Analysis
Hamza Ali – Progress Center for Policies
Situation Assessment
⸻
Introduction
Following U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning to Iran that “time is running out” to reach a nuclear agreement, a series of notable military movements were recorded. These included a dense influx of aerial refueling aircraft to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, alongside the forward deployment of Search and Rescue (SAR) units—essential for recovering downed pilots—toward the east. A sharp rise was also observed in the activity of U.S. reconnaissance aircraft capable of tracking Iranian radar systems, intercepting communications, mapping force deployments, and operating airborne communications platforms that support SAR missions. Analysts have concluded that these indicators amount to a “near-certain sign that strikes are imminent.”
Against this tense backdrop, Western analysts and experts have begun assessing whether Trump is indeed moving toward military action against Iran—and if so, the nature, scope, and potential outcomes of such action.
⸻
I. Military Indicators and Available Options
Western analyses—most notably reporting by The Economist—point to a clear escalation in field-level military indicators. The U.S. aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has been repositioned toward the Sea of Oman, placing its air wing and escorting destroyers within operational range of potential strikes on Iran. Squadrons of F-15E fighter jets have also been deployed from bases in England, alongside reinforced air-defense assets in the region, including Patriot and THAAD systems, aerial refueling aircraft, and reconnaissance and airborne communications platforms.
These movements were reinforced by the visit of the commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM) to Israel—widely interpreted as a signal of possible operational coordination should a decision to escalate be taken.
According to this assessment, Trump has not yet made a final decision. However, Gulf officials told The Economist that a large-scale U.S. strike has become a serious possibility, potentially targeting Iran’s political leadership rather than limiting itself to nuclear or conventional military infrastructure.
In a separate analysis published on 26 January by The Guardian’s global affairs correspondent, Iran is reported to be preparing for a renewed U.S.–Israeli missile attack following the deployment of key assets from the Abraham Lincoln carrier group to the region.
The report argues that Washington—coordinating with the Israeli Air Force—possesses sufficient firepower to conduct an operation aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. It further suggests that such an operation would not primarily focus on Iran’s nuclear program—which suffered substantial damage during the twelve-day war in June 2025—but would instead concentrate on targeting Iran’s political leadership.
⸻
II. The Likely Nature of an Iranian Response
There is broad consensus among analysts that Iran would not treat any U.S. strike as a limited engagement. Unlike its previous, largely symbolic or calibrated responses, Tehran views any new strike as a full-scale war threatening regime survival.
Western estimates suggest that Iran could resort to:
• Large-scale missile strikes
• Pre-emptive attacks before launch platforms are neutralized
• Regional escalation through allied proxy forces
Such responses would significantly increase the risk of a prolonged conflict that extends well beyond initial tactical calculations.
⸻
III. Potential U.S. Scenarios
According to Western analysis, U.S. options fall into three main pathways:
1. A Limited Strike to Re-impose Red Lines
Intended to restore deterrence and demonstrate resolve while minimizing escalation risks. However, this option is unlikely to significantly alter the Iranian regime’s internal behavior or curb repression.
2. A Broader Campaign Against the IRGC and Basij
Targeting the regime’s core instruments of repression. Yet these forces rely less on fixed infrastructure that can be easily destroyed from the air, limiting the effectiveness of this approach.
3. “Decapitation” Strikes Against Senior Leadership
Including the possibility of targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei personally. While this scenario could cause temporary disruption, regional assessments suggest Iran has already reinforced succession mechanisms and leadership continuity, reducing the likelihood of rapid collapse.
Some analysts do not rule out a hybrid operation—combining limited leadership targeting with a subsequent accommodation involving a “downsized regime,” drawing parallels to the Venezuelan model.
⸻
IV. Regional and International Constraints
The Wall Street Journal has highlighted mounting political constraints, most notably Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s refusal to allow their territory or airspace to be used for any U.S. attack on Iran. While these constraints complicate operational planning, they do not preclude military action should Washington decide to proceed, given available alternatives such as:
• Long-range strategic bombers
• Cruise missiles launched from submarines
• Carrier-based aircraft operating in the Arabian Sea
Experts caution, however, that any campaign aimed at weakening or overthrowing the regime would require weeks or months, with high human and political costs.
⸻
V. The Limits of Military Decisiveness
A report by the European Council on Foreign Relations stresses that Iran—despite the damage it has sustained—remains a security-cohesive state with a high capacity for internal violence and a strong ideological readiness to frame any external intervention as a “sacred existential war.”
The report emphasizes that Iran:
• Has a population exceeding 90 million
• Covers an area four times the size of Iraq
• Is not comparable to prior intervention cases such as Libya, Bosnia, or Kosovo
This makes any prolonged military intervention highly risky, with limited prospects for achieving a “decisive victory.”
⸻
Conclusions and Overall Assessment
• Trump possesses multiple military options, but none offer a quick or decisive outcome.
• Limited strikes may temporarily reinforce deterrence but are insufficient to halt repression or fundamentally change regime behavior.
• Broader strikes or leadership targeting carry serious risks of regional escalation and a protracted conflict.
• Iran’s size, institutional cohesion, and readiness to escalate make the costs of military action high and its gains uncertain.
• Politically, Trump may find himself facing a war of attrition rather than a decisive victory that can be readily leveraged domestically.
