Why is Donald Trump more tempted now than ever to attack Iran? The difficult dilemmas of the US president

US President Donald Trump appears to be developing a taste for the use of military force, as in his first year back in the White House he ordered a military operation to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and struck targets in Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Nigeria, plus drug-trafficking vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean. But a military intervention in Iran would be of a completely different scope, according to an extensive analysis by CNN.

The military strikes ordered by Trump since he returned to the White House on January 25, 2025 are just one reason why his threats to punish Iran for its bloody crackdown on protests in the country and to permanently halt Tehran's nuclear program are credible.

Negotiations between officials from Washington and Tehran begin in Oman on Friday. Trump will likely pay close attention to both those talks and his domestic standing in the United States, with his approval rating among Americans falling below 40 percent in an election year in which November's congressional elections will decide how much power he can wield for the rest of his term, CNN notes.

Trump believes that, externally, his unpredictability widens his negotiating room. But in the context of a new crisis with Iran, it is becoming increasingly difficult to see how he could come away with the kind of clear, quick and easy victory he wants.

According to CNN, the president is convinced that the clerics who rule Iran want to reach a “deal” to avoid the possibility of war with the United States. He has concentrated a significant naval force in the region and has military options capable of delivering a devastating blow.

This build-up added firmness to tough diplomacy.

And the Iranians may no longer be able to count on Trump to back down because of concerns that a military intervention would hurt his administration domestically in the US. In the last year of his first presidential term, he made the bold decision to assassinate Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq. In the first year of his second term, Trump sent US stealth bombers on a daring mission around the world to pulverize Iran's nuclear sites.

Trump has also become more involved in Iran's domestic politics than any other US president of the 21st century, warning the clerical regime of retaliation for continuing attacks on its own citizens after last month's brutal crackdown that killed thousands.

In short, Trump has invested a huge capital of personal and geopolitical prestige in the latest showdown of wills with the leaders in Tehran.

Why Iran is more vulnerable now than ever

Trump may be tempted to force a rare opportunity where Iran has never been weaker in its 45-year confrontation with the United States:

• The future of the Islamic Republic is shadowed by a succession crisis that is eroding its aura of permanence. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, having reached an advanced age, cannot continue indefinitely;
• His crisis of political legitimacy has never been deeper. Desperation and hopelessness drove protesters to the streets amid food and water shortages and suffocating economic conditions;
• And Iran's regional “proxy” forces—including Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which once offered a form of insurance against external attack—have been devastated by wars with Israel.

These three factors create a logical justification for US military action against Iran. There may be no better time for Washington to topple a regime that has shaped its Middle East policy, threatened its allies and killed scores of Americans, both through terrorist attacks and militias during the Iraq war.

The window of opportunity may not last long. And if Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu don't act now, they may regret the lost opportunity for years to come.

The temptation to defeat one of America's fiercest enemies

If Trump were to pull off one thing that eluded Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden, defeating one of America's bitterest enemies, he would earn himself an indisputable place in history. Given the current president's obsession with his political legacy, this must be an extremely tempting prospect.

In an administration where constraints on presidential action have been removed, it could all come down to Trump's instincts.

“The most important deliberations are going on inside President Trump's mind,” Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace, told CNN in an interview earlier this week.

“I think if we look at his own precedents, he rolled the dice with Iran in 2018 — he pulled out of the nuclear deal. In 2020 he assassinated Iran's top military commander, Qasem Soleimani. And of course, last June, he bombed their nuclear sites, and he thinks all those decisions were justified, and now Iran is weaker than it was in the past because it has no air defenses,” he added.

Sadjadpour continued: “I think this context, combined with the fact that the Iranian leadership continues to challenge it and the reality that there is no grand geopolitical bargain to be made — there is no moment of Nixon-in-Chinawhere you get a big deal and normalize relations — and if he already said he destroyed Iran's nuclear program last June, it's not clear to me how getting a new nuclear deal could be the outcome he's after here.”

The risks of US military action incomparably greater than in Venezuela

CNN notes, however, that a plan that will materialize with military strikes would involve huge risks, both in execution and in the uncertain political consequences it would generate.

A serious attempt to decapitate the Iranian regime or devastate the military capability of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitary militia would most likely require a multi-day air campaign.

Attempting to reduce Iran's ability to crush further protests would carry a high risk of civilian casualties, given that much of the repressive apparatus is located in civilian areas. Without the almost unimaginable prospect in the US of a major ground invasion, how effective could such an effort be, when the recent crackdown on the Iranian regime has been achieved through brutal, close-range street violence?

Iran, the cradle of ancient Persian civilization, is more compact and less riven by sectarian divisions than Iraq — which fragmented after the US invasion in 2003. But no one wants to test the impact of a power vacuum if the government falls, absent a clear path to a return to democracy.

And the short, violent military “lightning and thunder” strike that Trump prefers and does not conflict with the “no external quagmires” motto of his MAGA movement may not be enough to topple the clerical regime in Tehran.

And a longer military involvement, with uncertain consequences, would severely test Americans' confidence in their president. A war gone wrong could devastate the Republican Party in November's midterm elections amid growing fears it could suffer a crushing defeat.

A sense of hubris appears to have gripped the White House following the ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro last month. But major loss of American life in a war with Iran could effectively dry up all power and legitimacy of Trump's second term.

There have also been signals in recent weeks that America's Gulf allies – with whom Trump has close relations – fear the consequences of a US attack on Iran. Short-range missile strikes are possible. Tehran could try to cripple the regional energy infrastructure. And long-term instability could shake a region now in transition to lucrative new horizons such as artificial intelligence and tourism.

Some of Iran's neighbors also fear that the ensuing chaos would kill Ayatollah Khamenei, as the country has known nothing but iron rule for more than 40 years. Another possibility is that the clerical regime would be succeeded by an equally brutal but more secular regime – which would try to rebuild its regional threat.

Why diplomacy might not work for Trump either

All of these are arguments for stepping back from the brink.

But after weeks of threatening rhetoric from Trump, a decision not to strike Iran could erode the international credibility the president built up through attacks on nuclear sites last year and the spectacular raid in Venezuela.

“And doesn't he also have an obligation to the Iranian people, who dream of freedom?” CNN asks rhetorically in its analysis.

Trump's predecessors avoided encouraging a counter-revolution in Iran, fearing it would provide a pretext for an even more ferocious crackdown on demonstrators, perceived as US agents. Trump had no such qualms, and his promise that US aid “is on the way” to punish Tehran for its crackdown likely brought even more Iranians to the streets.

If the president backs down, Iran's leaders may become even more confident of inflicting horrific violence on their own citizens in the next uprising.

Given the complexity of the military equation, it is obvious why the administration has not completely shut down a diplomatic outlet. But it is hard to see what kind of deal the US president could offer Iran that the regime in Tehran would be willing to accept, and vice versa.

What the US wants to negotiate in Oman, and what Iran would be willing to offer

Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined US goals ahead of Oman talks.

“I'm not sure you can come to an agreement with these people, but we'll find out,” Rubio said. He said the administration wants to focus on Iran's nuclear program, but also Tehran's ballistic missile range, its financing of terrorist organizations and how it treats its population.

CNN previously reported that Iran is only interested in discussing its nuclear program, no matter what form it is in after last year's US strikes. This is hardly surprising, as an agreement that would limit its missile capability would erode its ability to deter future attacks by the US and Israel.

In exchange for curbs on uranium enrichment, Tehran would demand the lifting of sanctions — leaving Trump's team with the unpleasant choice of entering into the same kind of deal they criticized former President Barack Obama for, one that excluded ballistic missiles and effectively allowed Iran to build its regional power base.

One option for Trump would be to sign a rudimentary deal and present it as a big victory. That might appease war-weary American voters, but it would send a clear message of retreat to US adversaries and overshadow his global “strongman” aura.

Meanwhile, Tehran could do what it always does — test the limits of the deal and wait for another American president.

And the Iranian people, whom Trump vowed to help just weeks ago, would be stuck under the iron rule of a ruthless regime with all hope dashed.