The Moment Trump Decided on Iran: What Comes Next for US Force

United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly issued stern warnings regarding potential military intervention in Iran, should the clerical leadership intensify its crackdown on widespread protests. These demonstrations, which ignited in late December 2025 over dire economic conditions, have since evolved into a profound challenge against the country’s entrenched religious establishment, in power since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

On Tuesday, Trump took to his Truth Social platform, delivering a direct message to Iranian protesters: “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP”. The acronym “MIGA” is a clear echo of his “Make America Great Again” slogan, repurposed as “Make Iran Great Again.” While the precise nature of this promised “help” remained undefined, Trump had previously stated on January 2 that if Iran were to “violently kill peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue,” adding, “We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking to Fox News on Monday, affirmed that while diplomacy remained President Trump’s preferred approach, he is “unafraid to use the lethal force and might of the United States military if and when he deems that necessary.” Leavitt specifically mentioned that “Air strikes would be one of the many, many options that are on the table for the commander-in-chief,” emphasizing that Trump is deeply concerned about the civilian casualties in Tehran. “Nobody knows that better than Iran,” she asserted, referencing past US military actions in the region.

The Shifting Sands of US Military Presence

Despite the strong rhetoric, the current geopolitical landscape and US military posture in the Middle East are markedly different from June 2025, when the US bombed three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan during a 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel. The US military presence in the region has since seen a notable reduction.

A key factor in this shift is the redeployment of the USS Gerald Ford, the US Navy’s cutting-edge aircraft carrier and the world’s largest warship. After its deployment to the Mediterranean near the Middle East during the June 2025 conflict, showcasing Washington’s military might, the Ford has now been dispatched to the Caribbean. It is currently involved in Operation Southern Spear, part of US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), targeting alleged “narco-terrorists” off the coast of Latin America. This operation has seen at least 30 US strikes on Venezuelan vessels in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean, which the US claims were involved in drug trafficking, though no evidence has been publicly provided. On January 3, US forces notably abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whom the Trump administration labeled a narco-terrorist, and who now faces charges in New York.

The logistical implications of this redeployment are significant. According to an October 2025 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), it would take approximately 10 days for the USS Gerald Ford to travel from the Caribbean to the Mediterranean. Reaching the Gulf and the coast of Iran from the Mediterranean would add another week, or potentially longer if the Suez Canal transit is required, as noted by Alex Gatopoulos, defense editor at Al Jazeera. Gatopoulos also cautioned against placing the carrier too close to Iran, due to the threat of Iranian anti-ship missiles. Beyond the Ford, its associated strike group vessels have also largely moved from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean, substantially reducing US strike power in the Middle East compared to the previous year.

Further impacting missile defense capabilities, a unit of US Patriot air defense systems, which had been redeployed from South Korea to the US CENTCOM area in March 2025 to bolster Middle East defenses amid tensions with Iran and Houthi rebels, returned to South Korea on October 30, 2025. Its purpose: equipment upgrades and resumption of its role in defending the Korean Peninsula.

Enduring Presence and Iranian Preparedness

Despite these significant relocations, the US maintains a robust military footprint across the Middle East. It operates a broad network of both permanent and temporary sites in at least 19 locations, a number that has remained consistent since June. Eight of these are permanent bases situated in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Recent developments at Qatar’s Al Udeid airbase, which hosts approximately 10,000 US troops – the largest contingent in the Middle East – have also drawn attention. Unnamed diplomats quoted by Reuters indicated that some personnel were advised to leave the base by Wednesday, though the reason remained unclear. One diplomat clarified that it was a “posture change and not an ordered evacuation,” without elaborating on specific motives. Al Udeid was targeted by Iran during the 12-day war in June 2025, following US B-2 stealth bomber strikes on Iranian nuclear sites with 14 “bunker buster” bombs. The US still possesses the capacity for such operations.

For its part, Iran’s leadership has issued strong warnings of retaliation against any US or Israeli attack. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera Arabic, stated that Iran now possesses “large and extensive military preparedness” far exceeding its capabilities in June 2025. That conflict saw over 1,000 Iranians killed in Israeli attacks, alongside US bombings of nuclear facilities. Iran responded with ballistic missile barrages against Israel, resulting in over 30 fatalities and hundreds injured, and also launched missiles at the US-utilized Al Udeid military base in Qatar.

Targeting Leadership and Ground Invasion Scenarios

The possibility of the US targeting Iran’s leadership has been a recurring theme. Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor of Middle East and Central Asian politics at Australia’s Deakin University, told Al Jazeera that “Trump favours short, sharp operations with minimal risk to US troops.” He drew parallels to the recent abduction of Venezuelan President Maduro and the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s (IRGC) elite Quds Force, in a Baghdad drone strike. Trump himself had written on Truth Social in June, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding… He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”

Akbarzadeh believes that while targeting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is a possibility Trump has openly considered, it would necessitate preparedness for an “inevitable backlash.” He cautioned that if the Supreme Leader were eliminated in an attempt to “decapitate the Islamic regime,” the IRGC would likely fill the power vacuum, potentially leading to overt military rule even more opposed to Washington. Such an outcome, Akbarzadeh suggests, would not be favorable for the US, though he notes the clerical regime’s unpopularity might prevent a public surge of support for the leadership if targeted.

Experts largely dismiss the likelihood of a US operation in Iran mirroring the Venezuelan abduction. Akbarzadeh highlighted the immense logistical challenges: “The logistics of doing something like the operation in Venezuela are too difficult in Iran. The distance that US helicopters have to fly is much greater, and the Iranian security is already on alert – in case Trump attempts something like that.” Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University, offered a nuanced perspective, suggesting that the US might aim for targeted strikes to compel a recalcitrant Islamic republic on nuclear or missile issues, rather than seeking full regime change or nation-building as seen in Iraq or Afghanistan.

A full-scale ground invasion by US troops is widely considered improbable. Akbarzadeh emphasized that “Trump is not a nation builder. He does not believe in long-term commitments or building democracy.” He cited Trump’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, which began during his first term with the 2020 Doha agreement, as evidence of his aversion to costly, long-term military engagements. Deploying boots on the ground in Iran would simply be too expensive and contradict this established doctrine.

Uncertainty and Deliberation

As of late Wednesday, President Trump appeared to be still deliberating on the course of action. NBC News reported that refined military options had been presented to Trump, but no final decision had been made. Sources indicated that Trump desires any military action in Iran to be swift and decisive. Conflicting signals from the White House and Pentagon underscore the prevailing uncertainty, as reported by TRT World.

Curiously, Trump publicly stated that he had received information suggesting Iranian authorities had halted the killing of protesters and suspended planned executions—actions he had previously warned could trigger US intervention. A second White House official told NBC News that Trump, after attending a meeting chaired by Vice President JD Vance, specifically requested more information on the estimated death toll among Iranian protesters, indicating his continued focus on the human cost of the crackdown. Limited options such as cyberattacks or targeted strikes on Iran’s domestic security apparatus reportedly remain under consideration, according to officials cited by TRT World.

The confluence of President Trump’s assertive rhetoric, a significantly reconfigured US military presence in the Middle East, Iran’s heightened defensive posture, and expert skepticism regarding large-scale interventions creates a highly volatile and unpredictable scenario. While the US retains formidable capabilities for targeted strikes, the logistical challenges and potential for severe, unintended regional destabilization suggest that any military action would likely be constrained, focused on specific objectives rather than broad regime change, and heavily weighed against the immediate political and strategic costs.