Here’s Donald Trump’s endgame in Iran

The United States now appears at the dawn of barely conceivable development a few days ago: direct involvement in Iran’s bombings.

President Donald Trump started by abandoning something else: indicates after an unsubscribe index that the United States could help Israel attack unpertified targets in his conflict with Iran.

He told people to flee the Iranian capital; has published a request for caps on social networks for “unconditional surrender”; And said he knew where the supreme leader hides but will not kill him – for the moment.

The implicit threat is obvious-that the United States could send its bombers and bunker-buses to search the most secret nuclear site in Iran, the installation of the mountain in Fordow, in oblivion.

There is also a longer term threat that this conflict can continue to climb until it risks the survival, both literal and figurative, of the Iranian regime.

So what is Trump doing?

An index came to an unusually long tweet of its vice-president. Jd vance specifically mentioned Enrichment of uranium: Iran can end it in the simplest way, he said, or to the hard, and, if that ends up being the last, the American army could help.

The dominant consensus among the experts interviewed by CBC News is that the current favorite option in Washington is non-participation.

This remains the plan A, in the opinion of a 34 -year -old CIA veteran who spent a decade as national intelligence director for Iran at the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

“It is clear that the Trump administration would prefer to see a situation where Israel’s attacks oblige Iran to return to negotiations with serious concessions – motivated by the desire to save the Islamic Republic,” Norman Roule, now principal advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies Think -Tank in Washington.

“However, it is not yet clear if Iranian leaders believe that their situation is so disastrous that they have to do it.”

Plan B: more climbing

And that is why the American government actively seeks to inspire a feeling of despair in Tehran, increasing pressure on Tuesday, said another analyst.

Kamran Bokhari predicted that Israel will hit increasingly vital infrastructure such as communications, oil and water supplies.

It also targets the last online factions of the Iranian security establishment – the Body of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard And Basij – move the balance of powers to the Layout, pre-revolutionary military.

“It increases the climbing scale,” said Bokhari, professor at the University of Georgetown and Senior Director of Eurasian Safety and Prosperity in a Washington reflection group, the New lines of strategy and policy Institute.

Washington’s favorite plan, he said, is that Iran ends the enrichment of uranium and fully opens the Fordow site to international surveillance. If this does not happen, said Bokhari, the United States can destroy Fordow, while Israelis continue to target Iranian leaders.

“A last appeal-that’s what it is,” he said about the use of B-2 planes to fall Massive ammunition penetration bombs on the highly fortified underground installation.

Risk of regime change

The current message to Iran, he said, is: “We are not trying to drop your diet. We do not want an anarchy in your country.” But if that continues, everything is possible.

This is the plan, at least.

The problem with the plans imposed by foreigners in the Middle East is that they have a history of explosion occasionally in uncontrollable chaos.

Ali Vaez said the Iranian management could see its seriously degraded nuclear program and its race to build the bomb with the assets he has left.

The project manager for Iran to the International Crisis group said that he could not imagine that the Iranians made major concessions during their bombing. It establishes a brutal precedent, inviting additional bombing, for additional objectives, whether it is a change of diet or the end of the Iranian missile program.

“A regime in Tehran who considers the choice before his surrender or his struggle can opt for the latter, expanding the conflict by targeting the interests, the assets and the American allies,” said Vaez.

Even if the Islamic regime collapses, he said, there is no guarantee which way will Iran have: a rapid transition like Syria in 2024, or a murderous and destabilizing struggle in the heart of a volatile region, in Libya after 2011 or Iraq after 2003.

“It would not be the first time that impressive gains from the United States and its allies finally ended with sorrow,” said Vaez.

How the United States has arrived here

He blames Trump for what he calls the original sin: withdraw from Obama-Were Iran Deal. This pact allowed an enrichment, but not enough to build a bomb.

We don’t know if Iran was daysOr monthOr years Far from a bomb. It depends on who you ask. The Israelis insisted that he was potentially imminent; American intelligence less.

A possible source of confusion is the improvement of centrifugal. More recent generations such as IR-7, IR-8 and IR-9, would have be tested Through Iran, dozens of more effective times to enrich uranium than the versions used a few years ago.

In the meantime, in a little assessmentAmerican intelligence officials recently estimated that in a decade, Iran could have 60 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting the continental United States.

Needless to say, American-Iranian relations have been perilous for decades. Last year, the United States Ministry of Justice charged someone With a plot to kill Trump on behalf of Iranian officials. THE costs were folded Biden administration.

Three Iranian analysts interviewed for this story agreed that Trump legitimately wanted to negotiate a new nuclear agreement in recent months. They agreed that the talks had langui. One of them said that it was even a question of calling them a negotiation – more as meetings to establish basic rules for negotiations. Trump has become frustrated.

They also agreed that Trump had a change of posture. For months, he actively pushed Israel’s desire to strike Iran, then stopped.

Where analysts differ is whether Trump explicitly encouraged it.

After all, Just last week He said he didn’t want Israel to attack because he hoped diplomacy could work. Now he encourages the Israelis.

Analysts differ on Trump’s approach

Vaez of the International Crisis Group said he suspected that there was an element of bad communication. The president had declared to his Israeli counterpart in April and May, that he was ardently opposed. Then in June, he expressed his frustration in the face of the pace of the talks. “Netanyahu took it as a green light,” he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bokhari does not share this point of view. He thinks that the American president was more explicit and more atrocist than that.

He said Trump concluded that the Iranians were dragging things, made him go, in the belief that he was bluffing the real consequences in the absence of an agreement.

Trump wanted to reaffirm the lever effect, said Bokhari, without being directly involved in any attack because he had promised his base Maga to avoid foreign wars.

“But you have Israel ready to do so,” he said. “”[Trump] said: “Ok, and let’s see what you can do.” And the idea was: “Well, if you [Iran] Were not ready to speak, if you were not willing to make compromises, so now are you ready to speak after being struck? … This strategy is played out. “”

Trump has certainly established certain conditions. For example, US officials tell journalists that the American president Nixed an Israeli plan to kill the Iranian supreme chief of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“”[Trump would have said to Israel]”Let’s agree on what you are going to hit. “It is not open. “How long do you need?” “Said Bokhari.

“You know, all the logistical things that must be understood. Targets and prohibited areas and so on.”

Now Trump is warned: it could still get worse.