- President Trump has not decided which path to take, according to a source.
- Tehran prepares for military confrontation: Iranian official.
- Israeli and Arab officials doubt that airstrikes alone could topple the Iranian government.
U.S. President Donald Trump is considering options against Iran, including targeted strikes against security forces and leaders to inspire protesters, multiple sources said, even as Israeli and Arab officials said air power alone would not topple religious leaders.
Two U.S. sources close to the discussions said Trump wanted to create conditions for “regime change” after a nationwide protest movement earlier this month.
To do so, it was exploring options to strike commanders and institutions that Washington holds responsible for the violence, to give protesters confidence that they could invade government and security buildings, they said.
One of the U.S. sources said options discussed by Trump aides also included a much larger strike intended to have a lasting impact, possibly against ballistic missiles that can reach U.S. allies in the Middle East or their nuclear enrichment programs.
The other US source said Trump had not yet made a final decision on the course of action, including whether or not to take the military route.
The arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier and warships in the Middle East this week has expanded Trump’s capabilities to potentially take military action, after repeatedly threatening to intervene in the face of Iranian repression.
Four Arab officials, three Western diplomats and a senior Western source whose governments were briefed on the discussions said they feared that instead of bringing people into the streets, such strikes could weaken the movement.
Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran program at the Middle East Institute, said that without large-scale military defections, Iran’s protests remained “heroic but outdated.”
Sources for this story requested anonymity to discuss sensitive issues. Iran’s Foreign Ministry, the U.S. Department of Defense and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. The Israeli prime minister’s office declined to comment.
Trump on Wednesday urged Iran to come to the negotiating table and reach a nuclear weapons deal, warning that any future U.S. attack would be more serious than a June bombing campaign against three nuclear sites. He described the ships in the region as an “armada” sailing towards Iran.
A senior Iranian official said Reuters that Iran was “preparing for a military confrontation, while using diplomatic channels.” However, Washington is not showing openness to diplomacy, the official said.
Iran, which says its nuclear program is civilian, is ready for dialogue “based on respect and mutual interests” but would defend itself “like never before” if pushed, the Iranian mission to the United Nations said Wednesday in a message on X.
Trump has not publicly detailed what he is looking for in any deal. His administration’s previous negotiating points included banning Iran from independently enriching uranium and restricting long-range ballistic missiles and Tehran’s network of armed proxies in the Middle East.
Limits of air power
A senior Israeli official with direct knowledge of planning between Israel and the United States said Reuters that Israel does not believe airstrikes alone can topple the Islamic Republic, if that is Washington’s goal.
“If you want to overthrow the regime, you have to put troops on the ground,” he said, emphasizing that even if the United States killed supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran would have “a new leader who would replace him.”
Only a combination of external pressure and organized domestic opposition could change Iran’s political trajectory, the official said.
The Israeli official said Iran’s leaders had been weakened by the unrest but remained firmly in charge despite the deep economic crisis that sparked the protests.
Several U.S. intelligence reports reached a similar conclusion, that the conditions that led to the protests were still in place, weakening the government but without major fractures, two people familiar with the matter said.
The Western source said she believed Trump’s goal appeared to be to engineer a change in leadership, rather than “overthrowing the regime,” an outcome that would be similar to that in Venezuela, where U.S. intervention replaced the president without an overall change of government.
Khamenei retains control but is less visible
At 86, Khamenei has retreated from daily governance, reduced his public appearances and is likely residing in safe locations after Israeli strikes last year decimated many of Iran’s top military leaders, regional officials said.
Day-to-day management has been entrusted to figures aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including senior advisor Ali Larijani, they said. The powerful guards dominate Iran’s security network and much of the economy.
However, Khamenei retains final authority over war, succession and nuclear strategy – meaning political change is very difficult until he leaves the scene, they said. Iran’s Foreign Ministry did not respond to questions about Khamenei.
In Washington and Jerusalem, some officials have argued that a transition in Iran could break the nuclear standoff and possibly open the door to more cooperative relations with the West, two Western diplomats said.
But, they warn, there is no clear successor to Khamenei. In this vacuum, Arab officials and diplomats have said they believe the IRGC could take over, strengthening hardliners, worsening the nuclear standoff and regional tensions.
Any successor perceived to be under foreign pressure would be rejected and could strengthen, not weaken, the IRGC, the official said.
Across the region, from the Gulf to Turkey, officials say they favor containment over collapse — not out of sympathy for Tehran, but out of fear that unrest within a country of 90 million could spark instability far beyond Iran’s borders.
A fractured Iran could descend into civil war, as happened after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, two Western diplomats have warned, triggering an influx of refugees and disrupting oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a global energy bottleneck.
The most serious risk, analyst Vatanka warns, is fragmentation into “early stage Syria,” with rival units and provinces fighting over territory and resources.
Regional blowback
Gulf states — longtime U.S. allies and hosts of major U.S. bases — fear they will be prime targets for Iranian retaliation, which could include Iranian missiles or drone attacks from Tehran-aligned Houthis in Yemen.
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Egypt have lobbied Washington against a strike on Iran. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that Riyadh would not allow its airspace or territory to be used for military actions against Tehran.
“The United States can pull the trigger,” said one of the Arab sources, “but it will not suffer the consequences. We will.”
Mohannad Hajj-Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center said the U.S. deployments suggest planning has shifted from a single strike to something more sustained, driven by Washington and Jerusalem’s belief that Iran could rebuild its missile capabilities and eventually weaponize its enriched uranium.
The most likely outcome is a “brutal erosion – elite defections, economic paralysis, contested succession – that will weaken the system until it breaks,” analyst Vatanka said.
