The United States has amassed its largest military air presence in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq war, as diplomatic negotiations with Iran appear to be stalling. With a potential military campaign looking increasingly likely, questions are mounting about the objectives, risks, and consequences of such an operation.
Writing for the Atlantic Council, analyst Nate Swanson outlined six critical questions that US policymakers should be addressing before any strike on Iran. Swanson notes that the White House has yet to clearly define what a military campaign would aim to achieve. The possible objectives range from strengthening the US hand in nuclear negotiations, to degrading or decapitating Iran’s leadership, to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to support Iranian protesters. Each of these goals, however, faces significant obstacles.
How Will Theran Respond?
A major concern is how Iran might respond. While Tehran has historically calibrated its military reactions to be proportional, there is a growing perception within the regime that inflicting US casualties is necessary to restore deterrence. The role of Iranian proxies adds further unpredictability. Analysts warn that if Iran perceives strikes as more than symbolic, miscalculation could quickly escalate the conflict into a wider regional war.
Diplomatic prospects appear bleak. Iran has reportedly been given two weeks to show progress toward US demands, but the gap between the two sides remains vast. Tehran insists on negotiating solely about its nuclear programme and maintains its right to enrich uranium, while Washington is reportedly seeking terms closer to an unconditional surrender. Some factions within Iran reportedly believe that surviving another attack and inflicting damage in return could improve their future bargaining position—a potentially dangerous miscalculation.
The reaction of the Iranian public is another unknown. Following a severe crackdown on protesters in January, Iran’s security forces have regained control of the streets. An estimated 900 Iranians died during the twelve-day war in June 2025, and many citizens who support intervention are likely hoping for surgical strikes rather than a prolonged campaign that risks further civilian casualties.
Complex Regional Dynamics
Regional dynamics further complicate the picture. Arab and Turkish partners have urged Washington to de-escalate, with the UAE and Saudi Arabia publicly stating that US forces cannot use their airspace for attacks on Iran. Israel, however, is expected to participate in some capacity, given its longstanding concerns about Iran’s missile programme. Meanwhile, polling shows that 70 per cent of Americans oppose military intervention in Iran—a figure that could weigh on the president’s calculations given his sensitivity to public opinion and his campaign pledges to end “stupid forever wars.”
As the window for diplomacy narrows, the Trump administration faces a critical juncture. With policy options narrowed to a new nuclear deal or military action, the stakes of getting the answers to these questions right could not be higher.
Photo: From the last 12-days Israeli-Iran War, Tehran Under Attack