For Trump, a military attack on Iran could have a symbolic purpose

However, the president has not yet specified, either to the American people or to the troops who would carry out his orders, what do you intende achieve with this military commitment.

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Donald Trump seemed to suggest a goal: that Iran must utter the “secret words” that it will never have a nuclear weapon.

But Iran has all but made that promise, even if it has enriched enough uranium for intelligence officials to scoff at it.

U.S. officials say they doubt Iran is ready for a deal, but that the strategy behind the targeted attacks It would be forcing their leaders to make concessions.

More immediately, the goal would be damage nuclear facilities and missiles from Iran.

Trump declared that Iran’s three major nuclear facilities were destroyed in US strikes last year.

They were not destroyed, but they are not operational either, according to officials who reviewed the intelligence information.

For Israel, the most critical immediate threat is Iranian missiles.

Destroying them would limit the country’s ability to retaliate against Israel and military bases in the region that house US troops.

U.S. military officials say that while their bombers and Tomahawks can significantly damage Iranian missiles, Iran could make more.

Additionally, Iran has expanded some of its launch basesmaking an attack difficult.

But any damage caused by a US attack would likely serve two symbolic purposes.

Several administration officials said it would allow Trump to proclaim a military victory against an old enemy.

But senior officials also hope it will prompt Iran to abandon its nuclear enrichment program, although some current and former officials doubt it will achieve that.

The general Dan Cainechairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said in Situation Room meetings that while US forces concentrated in the Middle East could carry out small or medium-sized attacks, there would be a potentially high risk of American casualties and a negative effect on US weapons stockpiles.

“When we initiate contact, we must expect Iran to launch 100 missiles against US basesbecause that is what they did against Israel in June,” declared Major General Paul D. Eatonretired Army veteran of the Iraq War.

American troops, he added, do not have the famous air defense system Iron Dome of Israel nor with its vast network of bunkers that helped reduce casualties during the country’s armed conflict with Iran in June.

Trump, Eaton said, “has failed to explain to the American people why we are carrying out this war by choice.”

Trump’s critics also say that if he intends to attack, he needs to articulate a clear objective and seek authorization from Congress.

“The president has not explained why now is the time for another war in the Middle East,” declared Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

“If anything, it has done the opposite by continuing to publicly insist that previous attacks ‘destroyed’ Iranian nuclear facilities.”

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, stated in an interview that much of the president’s foreign policy had a performative component.

“You hope that as you begin your performance, the other side will quickly say, ‘We’ve given up, let’s figure this out,'” Reed said.

If they don’t, the president simply declares victory and moves on, he added.

In his speech on Tuesday, Trump stated that he preferred to resolve the matter through diplomatic means.

«We are negotiating with them. “They want to reach an agreement,” he stated, without explaining what type of agreement his administration intended to reach.

Analysts have noted that Iran is in a weak position, but seems unlikely to reach a diplomatic agreement, given how much it has invested in its nuclear program.

“Es improbable for Iran to accede to President Trump’s demands and abandon its nuclear program,” said Joseph Zacks, former senior CIA officer and research associate at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“We are probably headed for a military confrontation.”

If discussions in Geneva on Thursday do not result in any major progress, Zacks said there was a possibility of a limited initial strike to demonstrate to the Iranian government the seriousness of the US purpose “to push the regime to understand the seriousness of its intransigence and return to the negotiating table.”

But Zacks predicted that any limited strike would likely have the opposite effect and harden Iran’s posture, adding that “it was not in the supreme leader’s DNA to make concessions on the Iranian nuclear program” that went beyond the deal reached during the Obama administration.

Trump withdrew the United States from that agreement during his first term.

Privately, some senior government officials are skeptical about how diplomacy works, prompting debate over which military option would most effectively force Iran to reach a deal on its nuclear program.

The Trump administration has debated two plans.

One would be a large attack targeting a large number of targets over an extended period.

And, more importantly, I would also try dismantle the government forcing the departure from power of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But Trump appears to prefer a selective, limited strike against missile and nuclear facilities.

The objective, in addition to damaging missile reserves and production, would be to force the Iranians to negotiate.

U.S. officials have said that if Iran does not agree to their demands after a targeted strike, Trump would then consider the larger attack a follow-up mission.

However, two US military officials said that despite the administration’s troop surge in the region, the Pentagon does not have the forces or ammunition necessary for a prolonged bombing campaign.

Seven to ten days, according to one of the officials, is the approximate time that US military forces deployed in the region could continue attacks.

Some officials have warned that any attack would likely trigger a huge response by Iran.

A series of intelligence reports in recent weeks raised the possibility that Iran could order its allies to attack American targets if the United States or Israel attack Iran.

Some officials noted that Iran’s response to last year’s U.S. nuclear attack was relatively moderate, but that may not be the case this time, if the Iranian government determines that its limited retaliation failed to deter U.S. aggression.

In the meetings about Iran, Caine and the CIA director, John Ratcliffeprovided options and intelligence to the president and his advisors.

However, to the frustration of some Trump advisers, the talks have focused more on tactics than in the general strategy that the administration tries to follow.

The United States has long assessed that the supreme leader will be unwilling to give up on Iran’s nuclear program, and that the more the United States attacks Iran, the more likely it will be to believe that the best defense of your country will be to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Trump’s speech Tuesday night succinctly captured the scope of the president’s thinking and planning on Iran, one official said.

“One thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism, which it is by far, to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

“I can’t let that happen.”

That, the official said, is the president’s military objective in Iran.