Trump vowed that if Iran killed demonstrators, he would authorize military strikes against its leaders. Iran called his bluff. Now Trump appears to have backed down.
Last week, all signs were positive that the Trump administration intended to commence airstrikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran for its brutal crackdown on the ongoing protest movement. Recall that Trump had threatened on Truth Social that, if the government of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei killed protesters, the United States “will come to their rescue.” Khamenei’s force proceeded to do just that—killing upwards of 12,000 protesters, according to opposition sources. So the United States got ready. Iran’s airspace was cleared. US forces in the region were put on the highest alert. Some Israeli leaders relocated to Crete in expectation that Iran might launch a massive retaliation against their country.
Then… nothing happened.
Iran Crossed Trump’s Red Line—and Trump Did Nothing
All night, the world waited on pins and needles… just for the Americans to ultimately do nothing. The next morning, Trump trundled down to the White House lawn, acting like it was just another day. There, he explained to a bewildered press that he was holding off the airstrikes because he was told by the highest authorities in Iran that they would not execute protesters arrested during the previous week. Of course, this is an absurd justification. It ignores the fact that Iran’s streets are already awash in blood. Moreover, it is ridiculous to believe that Iran’s regime will simply let bygones be bygones for the thousands of dissidents now in its prisons awaiting summary execution.
There is plenty of evidence, however, to suggest that the real reasoning Trump backed away from what many assumed would be a series of airstrikes against Iran had little to do with the empty promises of the Islamic Republic. Whatever Trump said about being told the regime was going to do regarding treatment of the protesters was merely a cover.
The fact of the matter is that there were three interconnected reasons behind his hesitance.
1. Iran Is Hard to Strike—and Will Strike Back
The first reason was that the Iranians have built for themselves a seemingly impenetrable honeycomb network of underground missile cities that are simply brimming with massive amounts of long-range ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, and a seemingly endless supply of drones. That’s to say nothing of whether the Iranians have developed a true nuclear weapons capacity.
Set that last part aside and focus solely on the volume of missiles, hypersonic weapons, and drones at Iran’s disposal. Had the Americans (and Israelis) gone forward with sweeping airstrikes ostensibly in defense of the protesters who were being brutalized, their ultimate targets would have necessarily been regime targets. Last summer, during the 12-Day War, the Americans could reliably target suspected nuclear weapons development sites. With those off-the-table, what else could the Americans target?
Sure, they could target Iranian naval facilities and other military bases—and they likely would have done that along with the Israelis. But if the stated goal was to provide support for the protests, and those protests were aimed at the regime itself, then the obvious conclusion was for the US and Israelis to strike regime targets (government facilities, known hideouts where senior Iranian leaders were taking cover in an effort to kill them, etc.)
Had those strikes occurred, the Iranians would have gone to extreme lengths to retaliate with those aforementioned missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons. They would not have confined their overwhelming strike potential to just Israel.
And, because of the direct military threat to their regime’s survival, the Islamic Republic would have done more than a toothless demonstration against US military facilities arrayed throughout the region. Tehran’s regime would have launched the mother-of-all saturation attacks against US bases and Israeli civilian targets the likes of which we have never seen from Iran.
What’s more, Iran made it clear to their Sunni Arab neighbors that they would not relegate their attacks merely to US military facilities and Israeli soft targets. If necessary, the Iranians would strike at targets belonging to America deep inside those Sunni Arab states.
Given the sheer number of missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons the Iranian regime would blast across the region, no realistic number of sophisticated air defense systems could withstand those swarming tactics.
Further, both the American and Israeli stockpiles of key air defense systems are woefully depleted due to the ongoing demands of the Ukraine War. This has created a massive strategic gap wherein the US-Israeli alliance desperately wants to oust the Iranian regime, but it cannot without suffering the devastating counterattack of Iran’s overwhelming missile, hypersonic weapon, and drone arsenals.
2. America’s Regional Allies Slammed the Brakes
The second factor behind Trump’s hesitation relates to the wider Muslim world. On the eve of what appeared to have been strikes, the leaders of Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey were apparently communicating their resistance to Trump’s plans for Iran. Their antipathy to these actions was likely so severe that Trump felt compelled to stand down.
The reason is simple: both the US military’s bases throughout the region and Israel itself rely on those Sunni Arab states that were in opposition to the proposed American airstrikes on Iran for an added layer of missile defense.
Think back to the 12-Day War. After the Israelis made their initial strikes on Iran, the Iranians did attempt to retaliate against Iran. A coalition of Sunni Arab and American warplanes and missile defense systems spread throughout the path of those Iranian missiles, drones, and hypersonic weapons, intercepted most of Iran’s systems before they could endanger the American facilities in the region or Israeli targets.
The Arabs, with the backing of powerful NATO member Turkey, were so opposed to Trump’s proposed airstrikes on Iran that the Trump team felt compelled to back off—at least for now. The lack of certainty from the Arabs that they’d intercept any Iranian counterattack before they could really threaten US assets and Israel dissuaded Trump from attacking last week.
Countries, like Saudi Arabia, that have long been at odds with Iran wanted Trump to avoid striking Iran for two primary reasons. First, they did not want to have to deal with a post-Islamic Republic Iran that was in chaos and on the brink of civil war. Secondly, Riyadh and the other Arab states, since the 10/7 terrorist attacks, have increasingly felt more threatened by Israeli military actions than they have been by Iranian threats.
Arab fears over an unconstrained Israeli military capability became solidified with Israel’s unprecedented airstrikes on suspected Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, last year. If Israel had no compunction of attacking Doha, the Arabs fear that they could lash out at any of them.
So, the Arabs are increasingly recalcitrant about simply coming to the aid of the Israelis or their American backers simply because the Arabs do not want to empower Israel’s aggressive foreign policy any more than they already have.
Another interesting data point comes from the New York Times, which reported shortly after the abortive strike that the Israelis themselves opposed Trump’s desire to strike Iran. Israel’s leaders did not get cold feet because they are opposed to the policy of regime change in Iran.
Indeed, the Israeli government is the driver of this policy, with the Americans acting as the co-pilot.
The likeliest reason behind the hesitance by Israeli leaders is the fact that the Iranian counterstrike capability was so great it would have obviously rendered Israeli air defenses moot—especially if the Arabs refused to involve themselves in a combined defense against such an Iranian counterstrike.
3. America Wasn’t Ready to Strike Iran—but It Might Be Now
Third, and most importantly from Trump’s perspective, sufficient US forces were not in place for the kind of strike the president wanted. Because the Arabs were dragging their feet and even the Israelis were balking, with Iran having such a decisive capability to counterstrike, and with US and Israeli air defense systems not being replete with interceptors, Trump needed more forces at his disposal.
Yet the US military was not fully deployed to the region to conduct the kind of overwhelming airstrikes he was likely planning for. With two aircraft carrier strike groups inbound to the region, however, that is likely soon to change. Trump will probably feel more comfortable the next time he gets a hankering to strike Iran.
This is more likely due to the fact that Iran’s regime has already announced it would not honor whatever deal they may have struck with Trump to not murder the protesters. With the regime now once again firmly in control of its major cities—and intent on retribution—its barbaric gallows will soon be busy.
So, it is clear to everyone involved that Iran is not serious about dealing with Trump on the matter of the protesters; by lashing out at the protesters, the Iranian regime is making Trump look bad. He will not brook that for very long. Just ask Nicolas Maduro whose mockery and taunting of Trump was likely the cause of his sudden arrest and removal from power.
The introduction of two carrier strike groups might make Trump feel a bit more secure in launching a daring air raid against Iran’s regime. But the fundamentals will not change. Iran still has entire missile cities full of long-range missiles, hypersonic weapons, and drones just waiting to be launched against increasingly vulnerable targets throughout the region and inside Israel.
Trump didn’t spare Iran because he trusted the regime’s promises. He spared Iran because the strategic balance demanded it. Tehran’s missile cities remain intact. America’s interceptors have been dangerously depleted. Arab partners are only more hesitant with each passing day. Thus, Trump’s focus—Israel—remains dangerously exposed to Iranian retaliation.
Two carrier strike groups may yet stiffen Washington’s spine. They are unlikely to get the Iranians to stand down, though. That’s because of this fundamental fact that Iran has built a comprehensive retaliatory machine designed to make regime-change fantasies unbearable to American, Israeli, and Arab leaders.
Whether Trump accepts that reality is another issue entirely.
The blood now flowing in Iran’s streets will not be forgotten. Trump will only tolerate being mocked forever. But when the next strike comes, it will be because Trump has determined that regime change is necessary.
About the Author: Brandon J. Weichert
Brandon J. Weichert is a senior national security editor at The National Interest. Recently, Weichert became the host of The National Security Hour on America Outloud News and iHeartRadio, where he discusses national security policy every Wednesday at 8pm Eastern. Weichert hosts a companion book talk series on Rumble entitled “National Security Talk.” He is also a contributor at Popular Mechanics and has consulted regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including The Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, and the Asia Times. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.
Image: Shutterstock / Andrew Leyden.
