Trump Faces at Least Three Military Options on Iran, None Good

Last week, media reported that US President Donald Trump had postponed plans for a large-scale attack on Iran following a meeting with advisors at the White House. Domestic political pressure on him and the Republican Party due to rising economic costs is immense. Polls show nearly 70% of Americans oppose war.

Although Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserts that Iran's military is at its "weakest ever," Tehran still retains the capability to launch large-scale drone and missile attacks. Some intelligence reports indicate Iran has restored and increased production capacity for these weapons.

Meanwhile, the US has deployed additional aircraft and missile defense units to the region, preparing for operations against Iranian force concentrations. Two Marine Expeditionary Units and elements of the 82nd or 101st Airborne Divisions are currently stationed in the area. However, reports suggest that the US and Gulf allies have depleted stocks of defensive missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles, which could be a significant constraint.

Though Trump appears not to have made a final decision, he has several options to pursue.

Option One: Intensify airstrikes and missile attacks. One challenge of this strategy is that the list of viable military targets may be exhausted. Expanding the air campaign would mean striking civilian infrastructure, including energy production facilities, power grids, bridges, telephone and television networks. The expected outcomes are all negative: Trump would face war crime accusations; Iranians would unify and resent the US; Iran's retaliatory capability would not be significantly diminished, and they could target desalination plants and energy infrastructure in Gulf states. The result would be a humanitarian catastrophe, and oil prices could soar to $150-200 per barrel, triggering an international economic disaster.

Option Two: Launch a ground invasion. The forces currently deployed in the region are too small to achieve any realistic military objective. A Marine Expeditionary Unit comprises only about 2,500 marines, with just 800 infantry, possessing very limited ground operation capabilities. Airborne units deploy with only a few days' worth of ammunition, food, and batteries. Retired US Army General Barry McCaffrey points out that even 150,000 troops might not suffice to control the Strait of Hormuz along Iran's coast. Attacking Kharg Island would require a long and hazardous journey from west of the Strait of Hormuz, inviting heavy US casualties.

Option Three: Use nuclear weapons, at least one demonstrative strike. This would open a catastrophic Pandora's box. Trump would be regarded as a war criminal. If detonated in the atmosphere, a nuclear bomb would generate an electromagnetic pulse destroying most chip-based systems within hundreds of miles around Iran. A ground burst would create a radioactive cloud moving with the wind, affecting populations far beyond Iran's borders. A major geopolitical consequence is that this attack could change how Russian President Vladimir Putin views the use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war.

Faced with this list of unacceptable options, the most viable choice is to declare victory and pursue negotiations. Trump would claim he brought Iran to the negotiating table, though discussions between Washington and Tehran have continued despite the escalation. The first issue would be reopening the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb. Oil prices would drop, stock markets recover. Trump would take credit, and a devastating war along with economic crisis would plausibly be avoided. This is his best and only reasonable option.

This article reflects the author's views alone, not necessarily the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.