Last night, Donald Trump gave his strongest indication that he was willing to intervene in Iran following the regime’s harsh crackdown on impoverished citizens who are rising up against the powers that be.
Trump warned on Tuesday that the despotic regime’s ‘killers and abusers’ would ‘pay a big price’ for arresting tens of thousands of protesters and allegedly killing up to 2,600 people since rallies began in late December.
Trump has already proven himself willing to hurt Iran with the launch of the so-called 12-Day War in June, in which American and Israeli drones and planes hit military, nuclear and civilian targets across the country.
But so far, the Republican president has only told Iranians following the start of the mass protests that ‘help is on its way’, while offering no solid details on exactly what American intervention would look like.
He is said to be considering a range of options, thought to include everything from targeted assassinations to major on-the-ground campaigns.
Experts say that before he decides what actions he wants to pursue, Trump needs to look at what his goal for Iran is.
The Americans will also need to properly assess the likelihood of their actions backfiring and playing in to the hands of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
And Trump also risks a major escalation in hostilities, with Iran warning that it will strike US military bases in those countries in case of a U.S. attack, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Wednesday.
‘Tehran has told regional countries, from Saudi Arabia and UAE to Turkey, that U.S. bases in those countries will be attacked if U.S. targets Iran… asking these countries to prevent Washington from attacking Iran,’ the official told Reuters.
Among the strongest actions the Americans have put on the table is the possible assassination or abduction of the Ayatollah.
Having been in power since 1989 and supported groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and the al-Assad regime in Syria, he has long been a thorn in the world’s side.
He has been particularly insistent that he will not ditch Iran’s nuclear programme, one of the US’ main sticking points that has stopped it from lifting crippling sanctions that have devastated the economy and gave rise to the ongoing protests.
On Monday, Trump announced he was placing a massive 25 tariff on goods from countries with commercial ties to Iran. CNN, meanwhile, reported he was considering additional sanctions on major sectors of Iran’s economy, like banking.
Khamenei’s insistence on keeping the nuclear programme is something that other leaders in Iran, including president Masoud Pezeshkian, massively disagree with.
Mathew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, told the Telegraph: ‘The way that Khamenei is talking in public is not a good indicator that he’s actually got that message’
‘And if Khamenei is seen as the blocker, would there be a pressure to remove the blocker?’
This would be incredibly tempting for the US, especially on the back of the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, which saw a smooth transition of power from the dictator to his lieutenants who appeared to be more than happy to take over in exchange for bending the knee.
But Danny Citrinowicz, an Israeli defence analyst who specialises in Iran, told the Telegraph that taking Khamenei out is incredibly risky and risks triggering an all-out war in the Middle East.
He said: ‘It’s not like you’re taking Maduro out, and that’s it. If you’re killing [Khamenei], then you have to open a Pandora’s box of relations with the Shia community for whom he is not only a political leader, but also a religious one’.
The US is also considering launching symbolic strikes against targets across Iran, designed to send a message of willingness to intervene further.
Iran has plenty of targets to choose from. During the so-called 12-Day War, the Israelis hit the country’s intelligence ministry, and Trump may also choose a similarly symbolic building to hit.
The US already has plenty of assets in the region it could use to hit high-value nuclear targets, which could be enough to persuade the regime to ease off its crackdown on demonstrators.
But if targets are too symbolic, they risk becoming a symbol of possibly American apathy and given Iranian authorities carte blanche to continue their brutal crackdown.
Stronger than this would be a sustained bombing campaign. Farzan Sabet, a managing researcher at the Global Governance Centre in Geneva, told the Telegraph: ‘The preponderance of [America’s] focus would have to be on the domestic repressive apparatus.
‘Key personnel, not only at the top level but one or two levels down; their communications nodes; the facilities they use. And then the main facilities of state media … and the judiciary and prosecution service.
‘Military planners might also feel compelled to hit some military targets so that the retaliation is limited.’
This would require significant time for the US to build up its military capabilities in the region, including the deployment of aircraft carriers and warplanes.
And, as former British ambassador to Iran Nicholas Hopton warned: ‘You would need to put American boots on the ground, and he is not going to do that’.
He also risks a ‘rally-round-the-flag’ effect, where Iranians may flock back to their leader upon being attacked by the US.
So, if Trump wants to cause material damage to Iran while also avoiding the risk of escalating military tensions, what else can he do?
For one, the US has kept the cyber warfare option on the table. Using some of the most sophisticated software in the world, the US has a range of cyber options at its disposal.
It could, if it wanted to, break the regime’s communications blackout, allowing those inside to coordinate their actions against the state.
It could also cripple vital governmental infrastructure, an opportunity that could then be capitalised on by protesters.
But Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, said the window of opportunity to use cyber warfare tactics may be long gone: ‘The US might have missed the window. If it was going to respond, it should have [done so] a few days ago.
‘At the moment it looks like the regime will survive this, unless there is something we are not seeing. It is important to remember that we do not have visibility of what has happened in Iran. But for now it looks like they are managing it – in the most bloody way’.
For now, though, Iran doesn’t appear to be backing down. Mohammad Ghalibaf, the speaker of Parliament, told a pro-government rally in Tehran on Monday: ‘Come and see how all your assets in the region will be destroyed… what will befall American bases, American ships and American forces’.
