Trump Has Approved Iran War Plans
Whatever that means.
WSJ (“Trump Privately Approved of Attack Plans for Iran but Has Withheld Final Order“):
President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
Since his private instructions in the White House Situation Room to the military, Trump has disclosed publicly that an attack is an option.
“I have ideas on what to do but I haven’t made a final—I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due,” he told reporters Wednesday.
Trump is hoping that threatening to join Israel’s strikes on Iran, which continued for a sixth day, will compel Tehran to meet his demands, the people said. He acknowledged that a U.S. attack was under consideration but said he still might decide against it.
A senior White House official said multiple options remain on the table, and that Trump would continue to watch how the Israelis operate.
Israel began its airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, military leadership and other targets last week, dubbing the mission “Operation Rising Lion.” The Israeli military has struck more than 1,100 targets in Iran, including eight Iranian attack helicopters at a military base and 40 missile-infrastructure components in western Iran on Tuesday.
At the Pentagon, officials said the administration was considering options for conducting an attack on Iran but the president hadn’t given a final order. So far the U.S. has limited its military role to assisting Israel in defending against Iranian missiles and drones, officials say.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine attended a meeting at the White House on Wednesday afternoon after testifying on Capitol Hill in the morning, according to a defense official.
While planning for a potential strike has progressed, Trump might prefer to resolve the crisis diplomatically, people familiar with his thinking said.
“I may do it, I may not do it,” he also told reporters Wednesday, repeating his demand for Iran’s unconditional surrender: “The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week.”
Other outlets have similar reports, seemingly based mostly on this one. At first read, it sounds as if Trump has approved a specific plan, but simply hasn’t decided whether to green light it. But it also sounds like multiple options are still on the table, which means no specific plan has been approved. Beats the hell out of me.
WaPo (“Navigating Iran crisis, Trump relies on experience over star power“) purports to take us inside the decision process:
As President-elect Donald Trump assembled his core national security team early this year, congressional and media attention fell on two choices better known for their Fox News appearances and invective against a supposed “deep state” than for their executive branch experience: Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon. Both won Senate confirmation, barely.
But as Trump faces a critical decision about whether to join Israel’s military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, perhaps the most momentous of his presidency, neither Gabbard nor Hegseth are playing starring roles as members of Trump’s inner circle of advisers, according to current and former U.S. officials and people close to the White House.
Trump instead has turned to a small group of lower-key but more experienced aides, these people said. The “Tier One” group advising on a potential U.S. strike on Iran is composed of Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, according to an outside White House adviser, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive dynamics.
Together, this quartet is helping Trump as he decides whether to launch weapons only the United States possesses to target nuclear enrichment sites in Iran. Since Friday, Israel has bombed a number of Iranian nuclear sites but been unable to destroy deeply buried uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz. U.S. strikes would bring Washington into a new Middle East war with uncertain consequences, invite Iran’s promised retaliation against U.S. military bases in the region and potentially roil the global economy.
Other reports indicate that CENTCOM honcho Eric Kurilla is a key player, which makes sense. Then again,
“The president changes his position so quickly that it is hard to keep anybody in the loop,” said Sen. Jack Reed, top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I’m sure he’s not calling any of his advisers at 1 o’clock in the morning when he says ‘unconditional surrender’ and things like that. That’s one of the problems.”
Spokespeople for Gabbard and Hegseth disputed that the two were not fully engaged in advising Trump.
The president, who often operates on gut instinct, also is navigating the crisis without many of the support structures his predecessors have leaned on. Last month, the White House dismissed scores of professional staffers at the National Security Council, which coordinates U.S. security agencies to assess and prepare options for the president. Rubio is also serving as Trump’s national security adviser after predecessor Michael Waltz was pushed aside.
Trump has imposed deep cuts on other arms of government, including the State Department and international broadcast operations that predecessors have used to reach foreign populations. In one telling example, about 75 employees of the Voice of America, mostly from its Persian news division, were recalled from administrative leave last Friday amid the escalating warfare between Israel and Iran.
A President is entitled to take advice from anyone he wants, or from no one. Ultimately, it’s their call. But there’s a reason most have relied on a deep bench of experienced hands and well-established institutional processes. Bad decisions can be made following good staff work, but it’s nearly impossible to make good ones without the best available information and analysis.
NYT national security correspondent David Sanger states the obvious in “U.S. Strike on Iran Would Bring Risks at Every Turn.”
It sounds so surgical, so precise, exactly the kind of air attack that only the U.S. Air Force can execute.
A series of B-2 bombers lifts off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri or the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Refueled in the air, they head for a remote mountain in north-central Iran, far from civilians, where they get Iran’s most heavily fortified nuclear site, Fordo, in their sights.
They drop their giant 30,000-pound bunker-busters, one after another, blasting a giant hole down to the centrifuge halls that have been in the bull’s-eye of the American military since President Barack Obama and the leaders of Britain and France revealed the existence of the plant in the fall of 2009, charging Iran with a great “deception.”
Few potential operations, with the possible exception of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, have been so examined, rehearsed and debated. Technically, the military and geological experts say, it should be doable.
And yet it is full of risks — known unknowns and unknown unknowns, as the former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld used to say in the context of the Iraq War, another rabbit hole of American military action in the Middle East. That is why it has given pause to every American president who has looked at it for the past 16 years.
[…]
Meanwhile, the Iranians, after five days of remarkable losses to the Israelis, seemed to be looking for a way out. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a defiant response to Mr. Trump’s call for “unconditional surrender,” but Mr. Trump said there were indications that the Iranians wanted to talk, and reports of an official Iranian plane landing in Oman, where many of the negotiations with Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy, had taken place before Israel’s attack.
If Mr. Trump is taking a pause, it may be because the list of things that could go wrong is long, and probably incomplete. There’s the obvious: It’s possible that a B-2 could get shot down, despite Israel’s success of taking out so many of Iran’s air defenses. It’s possible the calculations are wrong, and even America’s biggest conventional bomb can’t get down that deep.
“I’ve been there, it’s half a mile underground,” Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week, as the Israeli operation began.
But assuming that the operation itself is successful, the largest perils may lie in the aftermath, many experts say, just as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many lessons from that ugly era of misbegotten American foreign policy, but the most vital may be that it’s the unknown unknowns that can come back to bite.
Iran has vowed that if attacked by American forces, it would strike back, presumably against the American bases spread around the Middle East and the growing number of assets gathering in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. All are within missile range, assuming Iran has missiles and launchers left after the Israelis are done with their systematic targeting.
Of course, that could start a cycle of escalation: If Americans are killed, or even injured, Mr. Trump will be under pressure to exact revenge.
“Subcontracting the Fordo job would put the United States in Iran’s sights,” Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, and Steven N. Simon, a veteran of the National Security Council, wrote in Foreign Affairs on Wednesday. “Iran would almost certainly retaliate by killing American civilians. That, in turn, would compel the United States to reciprocate.”
“Soon enough,” they continued, “the only targets left for Washington to hit would be the Iranian regime’s leaders, and the United States would again go into the regime-change business — a business in which exceedingly few Americans want to be involved any longer.”
The reaction could take other forms. Iran is skilled at terrorism, and reacted to the U.S.-Israeli cyber attack on its nuclear program 15 years ago by building a fearsome cyber corps, not as stealthy as China’s or as bold as Russia’s, but capable of considerable damage. And it has plenty of short-range missiles left to attack oil tankers, making transit in the Persian Gulf too risky.
The last thing the White House wants to do is air these risks in public. Democrats are calling for a congressional role, but they have no power to compel it. “Given the potential for escalation, we must be brought into this decision,” Senator Adam B. Schiff of California, one of Mr. Trump’s political rivals, said on CNN on Wednesday. “Bombing Fordo would be an offensive activity.”
And like most offensive activities, there are longer-term perils, beyond the cycle of attack and retaliation.
Given how weak Iran is, I’m skeptical that joining the Israeli attack (beyond the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance help we’re presumably providing) is warranted. A return to something like JCPOA, with robust international inspections, is surely possible. We were able to secure that when Iran’s proxies were much more powerful and when the only stick was economic sanctions.
I’m also skeptical that dropping a bunker buster on Natanz would end our involvement. Such a blatant act of war would surely be met with attacks on American installations in the region, which we would have to respond to with a dramatic show of force. Regime change would be the logical end to that cycle and, therefore, the logical initial war aim. And there is no guarantee that a follow-on regime would be more moderate—especially when it came to power in the aftermath of a joint American-Israeli attack.
Does anyone have any confidence (other than Trump himself) that Trump has a rational decision process. When these stories simultaneously come out from unnamed sources, you just know we are being manipulated. Why the anonymity when it is obvious that the leaks are intentional? So tired of the game, especially when civilian people are being killed.
But is it really? If it was just the US, I think this would have been possible. However, we need to consider that Netanyahu didn’t support JCPOA the first time (and played an important role in Trump’s rejection of it). If Netanyahu believes that Iran cannot fundamentally be trusted on this topic, what would change that perspective?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-netanyahu-really-wanted-trump-to-scuttle-the-iran-deal
Again, as with Gaza, not one in power within the Israeli government seems to be able to articulate an end state for this conflict. As we’ve seen with Iraq and Afghanistan, that is a recipe for an ongoing boondoggle.
@Scott:
Trump said yesterday that he changes his mind constantly on what to do about Iran.
@Matt Bernius:
Or if Netanyahu believes a settlement with Iran is not in his own personal political interest.
The JCPOA didn’t trust Iran, it imposed a thorough inspection apparatus. Trust and verify, as one of the precursors to Trump said.
Pretty much all the pieces are in place signalling an attack, including evacuating forces from Bahrain and Qatar, which is no small thing, the flow of aircraft into the region, and the repositioning of aerial refueling assets for long-range B-2 operations and other observable measures. These indicators and other fundamentals strongly suggest an attack will happen and would normally be pretty decisive indicators, but with Trump, who knows.
What’s the meaning of “unconditional surrender”? Here’s the current occupant’s answer:
Another issue is that it seems Israel and the US may be running low on missile defense interceptors. Video of recent Iranian attacks seem to show Iron Dome attempting to engage incoming missiles which you don’t do unless there’s nothing else.
Israeli targeting of Iran’s missiles and launchers is greatly reducing the number Iran can throw at Israel, but the rate they are getting through seems to have increased.
Anyway, I think a normal President would be attacking by now. Trump’s desire for personal wins and avoiding complicated situations that can’t promise that, may keep us from escalating the conflict.
I have been wanting to say this since yesterday at least, and folks might think I am a bit wacky for saying this, but I sincerely think that President Trump is wary of potentially giving Israel access to our bunker buster tech/ordinance.
We have a weapon that Israel would love to have, and I see no reason to use this weapon on their behalf just because they feel that Trump should respond with how high when they say jump.
It might be a bit crass to say this but the MOAB is kind of our pride and joy in the U.S., we have something that many other nations are probably envious of, including the nation of Israel.
President Trump is famously transactional, so what do we get from Israel for possibly being the only nation in earth that can help them finish the job?
Picture my eyeballs rolling right out of my head if your response is just an Iran with no nukes.
Also, if we are running low on some missiles to send to Israel because of the weapons and materials we sent to Ukraine, I can live with that because helping Ukraine is helping protect Europe and even countries in the Middle East from Putin’s aggression.
@inhumans99:
I will take whatever comfort is to be had in your sincere belief that Trump is wary of anything. Thank you. I really hope you’re right.
That is a concern for Europe and India who depend on the oil, but more for China that depends on below market shadow fleet Iranian oil. And the sale of that oil in 1/6th of the Iranian economy. If Iran goes after tankers in the Gulf, they can be certain that their oil facilities will disappear in smoke and flames for decades.
It is good to show they can take out the Supreme Leader while mostly working their way down the IRGC lineal list and nuclear scientists.
Beyond the repressive internal security forces, apparently the regime still has support in the rural people while many in Tehran and other cities have secret parties with mini skirts and alcohol. (although the latter was reported by a visitor who was last in Iran in 2020). It was the Baby Boomer college students who created this regime, maybe the Gen Z and Millennial students will choose differently.
The issue with the MOAB is that only the US has the airframes (B2 and B52) that can carry it to target. And Fordow would require a lot of them do dig deep enough.
@inhumans99: The MOP, and the MOAB, are pretty low tech. I believe the MOP has precision guidance, but that’s technology Israel has. What Israel wants from the US is B-2 bombers able to carry the MOP to altitude and penetrate hostile airspace.
I would add that the B-2’s stealth likely allows it to overfly Iran undetected. But if large bombs fall from nowhere, everyone will know damn well what happened.
ETA – Damn. JKB and I agree. Trump has frozen hell over.
The focus on specific weapon systems and eliminating particularly sites is short sighted, but sexy. Mother of All Bombs (MOAB – air burst) actually isn’t useful here, rather the MOP (perpetrator). What is needed to to deny access and ability to reconstitute. So entomb it by destroying all accesses and utilities and the place is useless. But that isn’t as bombastic as saying you destroyed it. Any use of the MOP would have to be from a B-2 Bomber (maybe it could be rigged to be dropped out of a cargo aircraft, no idea of timeline) = can’t just give it to Israel.
Another option that is off the table is to use a ballistic missile with a test package rather than a nuclear warhead (Trident II). Coming in at Mach 37 the kinetic energy will create a localized earthquake effect. It will also light up screens in command posts in Russia and China, incoming? You’ll also get a mushroom cloud (non-radioactive). Then…?
@Richard Gardner:
And this is the problem. As we saw with Hamas, it appears that Israel is rejecting their traditional approach of “mowing the grass” every few years (i.e., kill leaders, destroy infrastructure, and then wait for them to regrow).
And as with Gaza, I’m not sure where that leaves them, and by proxy, us as their key ally and supporting state.
This gets to:
@gVOR10:
Agreed AND it’s worth calling out that Israel didn’t trust the JCPOA to actually do the testing and verifying. They might have been right about that concern–we’ll never know. And I’m not sure who Israel would trust to test and verify–other than perhaps itself.
Again that leads us to an unknown end state for the conflict. If Israel cannot articulate an off-ramp, then that suggests that there is no off-ramp (or they consider whatever off-ramp they are planning to not be able to be shared publicly).
Per CNN, Trump will allow 2 more weeks for diplomacy before deciding whether to strike Iran.
Real reason for war with Iran
@CSK: Ah, yes. The infamous placeholder direction of “in two weeks.” Along with infrastructure week, a healthcare plan, and dozens of other initiatives.
Two weeks does seem to be the upper threshold that most Americans pay attention to anything.
@CSK:
Reminder: This is about the 14th time Trump has said he’d do or decide something in 2 weeks. Generally whatever it is never happens.
@Jen:
I didn’t see your comment before I posted the addendum to mine. Yup, we agree, as usual.
@JKB:
It’s also a concern for the US.
If the world economy goes sour, the US is not immune to consequences.
And in particular a stop on the dollar recycling into US bonds could have unpleasant implications for the bond markets, the dollar, and thus US interest rates.
The US does not, in fact, inhabit a separate planet.
@CSK: @Jen:
Betcha a dollar Putin called him.
@Gavin:
I would suspect that as a result.
Significant parts if the world may unite and stand up to the current America, United States of. A sneak attack while negotiations are under way makes us an outlaw nation. Few will believe Bibi would’ve done this if we hadn’t green-lighted it. As outlaws with the most powerful military the world has ever known, there will be some who feel an imperative need to demonstrate at least a bit of spine.
@Michael Reynolds:
That didn’t occur to me, but you’re probably right.
All this talk of striking one site sounds way too much like 3 or 4 Star Wars movies.
@inhumans99:
The bunker buster is too large and heavy for Israel’s air force to deliver. You need a heavy bomber for that, and only the US, China, and Russia have these. I suppose you can fit one into a transport aircraft with an aft ramp that can be opened mid flight, like a C-130 Hercules, but I doubt it can hit a target if you did that.
So, if Israel wants to use the bombs, they’d have to wet lease at least a couple of B-2s. I began to write the preceding sentence as a joke, but with El Taco and the lush running things, they may just do it.
Having approved plans isn’t surprising. The military is crafting plans all the time, and Trump doesn’t read or ask questions.
I doubt he could pass a test about what is in the plans he has approved.
@CSK:
Immediately after he reveals his health care plan. And infrastructure.
‘I’m in no mood for more negotiation. Iran is defenseless. We have total control over Iranian airspace — nobody does it like the U S of A. Khamenei could be taken out at any time, we know where he is. They better make a deal before nothing’s left. They shoulda taken the deal, now it’s too late. I don’t care what Tulsi says, they’re thiiiiis close to the bomb. IRAN CANNOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON! Unconditional surrender is Iran’s only option. Everyone must immediately evacuate Tehran!’
Two days later…
‘I’ll decide in two weeks. Same time I’ll release my taxes, unveil my healthcare plan, pass an infrastructure bill, end my tariff reprieve, sanction Putin if he won’t agree to a ceasefire, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it, release the Epstein files, make Canada the 51st state, lock up Hillary, take the Panama Canal, annex Greenland, and enforce the TikTok ban. I mean it, you guys! I’m a tough, macho, tell-it-like-it-is masculine alpha male respected around the world!’
Taco Thursday will soon be a national holiday in Russia, Iran, China, and N. Korea.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I wouldn’t take the two weeks too seriously. After all, Trump green-lighted Israel’s attack while promising future negotiations, which is why so many senior Iranians were killed in their homes – they assumed Israel would not attack while Trump still had negotiations open.
@Andy:
The WSJ is now saying within two weeks, so I suppose that could mean tomorrow.
@Andy:
I don’t believe he green-lighted anything. I think Netanyahoo gave Trump the finger just like Putin did in Ukraine. The only way for Trump to save face is to make up this BS. And they both hold power over him by keeping his lie a secret.
@Gavin:
It all seems kinda abstract until you read this stuff.
@CSK:
Or more likely in the middle of next week, when there’s a new moon.
@CSK:
I’m sure it’s a coincidence, but Whiteman AFB (Home of the B-2) was closed for airfield maintenance and not scheduled to be operational until June 23rd. It’s now operational again, ahead of schedule.
@Daryl:
For lots of political, technical, and operational reasons, Israel could not start this kind of operation without a green light from the US.
@Daryl:
Exactly.
I’ve pointed out before that every Alpha is someone else’s Beta. It’s the nature of hierarchies. Every top is also a bottom and Trump bottoms for Putin and Netanyahu. His dilemma now is to figure out who he must obey when his masters disagree. The fate of the Middle East hinges on who can best flatter, threaten or pay off the pussy in the White House.
Going to war with another nation is not their call, according to the constitution. Nor should it be. But with Congress increasingly reluctant to do anything beyond argue about who gets their snouts in how big a trough, it seems this is yet another government function which nobody is willing to stop Trump annexing to himself.