President Donald Trump is confronting one of the most consequential choices of his second term. With the largest American military buildup in the Middle East in over two decades now underway, the question is no longer whether the US can act against Iran, but whether it should. Options range from targeted strikes on nuclear facilities to sustained operations that could last weeks, potentially including attempts to remove Tehran’s leadership. Yet Trump remains publicly undecided, weighing diplomatic negotiations against the use of force.
The Military Options on the Table
According to people familiar with the planning, the US military could be ready to strike Iran as early as this weekend. However, officials and regional diplomats do not expect action that soon. The preparations are extensive, involving advanced assets including the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier, expected to reach the Eastern Mediterranean by early next week.
The potential strike options vary widely in scope and ambition.
- Targeted attacks focused on nuclear facilities or missile sites.
- Broader operations aimed at crippling Iran’s military infrastructure.
- Regime change efforts targeting leadership and government institutions.
- Sustained campaigns lasting weeks rather than hours.
All options would address, at least in part, the threat of Iranian strikes against Israel or American bases, as well as the risk of proxy groups obtaining nuclear materials.
Trump’s Preference: A Deal He Can’t Yet Secure
Despite the military buildup, Trump continues to signal a preference for diplomacy. Middle East envoy Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, is among those hopeful that a nuclear agreement can still be reached. Oman’s foreign minister has been involved in indirect talks in Geneva.
But optimism is fading. Many now see diminishing prospects for a deal that satisfies all of Trump’s demands. The president has publicly insisted Iran must give up uranium enrichment entirely, a concession experts believe Tehran is unlikely to make.
Trump offered a vague timeline on Thursday, saying he would know within 10 to 15 days whether an agreement is possible. He warned that if no deal is reached, “bad things will happen,” though he refused to elaborate on what that might mean.
The Debate Inside the White House
Trump’s advisers are divided. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who visited the White House urgently last week, argues that Iran has never been weaker and that now is the time to extract concessions or strike its missile program. Secretary of State Marco Rubio plans to visit Israel soon to update Netanyahu on the talks.
Other Trump allies, including Senator Lindsey Graham, have publicly and privately argued for intervention. Yet even some of the president’s own advisers admit they are unclear how to explain a potential war to the American public. One source said officials are intentionally being vague about motivations.
The Constitutional Question
Any military action against Iran would raise serious constitutional questions. Two lawmakers, a Democrat from California and a Republican from Kentucky, plan to force a vote next week on a resolution requiring congressional authorization before Trump can order strikes.
“The Constitution is super clear about this,” said Massachusetts Democrat Jake Auchincloss. “He cannot engage US forces into hostilities without congressional authorization. That authorization has not been granted by Congress.”
Auchincloss acknowledged that coercive diplomacy is appropriate but warned against unilateral decisions that could vest the United States in “another forever war that the American public does not want.”
What Remains of Iran’s Nuclear Program
Trump has previously claimed that US strikes last June “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. But the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, contradicted that assessment on Thursday.
“Most of the material that Iran had accumulated up until June of last year, despite the bombings and the attacks, is still there, in large quantities,” Grossi said. “Some of it may be less accessible, but the material is still there. From a non-proliferation standpoint, the material remains.”
This persistence of nuclear material, he argued, creates urgency for a diplomatic agreement that could prevent further military action.
A Pattern of Last-Minute Decisions
Those familiar with Trump’s decision-making see a pattern. In both the decision to strike Iran last year and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January, Trump reportedly went back and forth for weeks before finally giving the order.
This week, he has privately argued both for and against military action, polling advisers and allies on the best course. US troops have not yet received a target list, a sign that Trump has not “pulled the trigger” on any specific operation.
President Trump now stands at a crossroads. Behind him lies the largest military buildup in the Middle East in 22 years. Before him stretch two paths: diplomacy with diminishing prospects, or military action with unpredictable consequences. He has not yet chosen, and even his advisers admit they are unsure which way he will lean.
What is clear is that the window for decision is narrowing. Within days or weeks, Trump will have to answer whether “bad things” means war, and whether the American public will support a conflict they did not authorize and may not understand.
By
