The public split last week between US vice president JD Vance and defence secretary Pete Hegseth, over whether the conflict with Iran is a worthwhile expenditure of US resources and power, is now permeating an urgent question: How does the Trump administration get out?
The debate over the war inside the administration has hardly been a state secret since it started more than eight months ago. Vance privately expressed scepticism about a full-scale military operation; Hegseth, fresh from the capture of president Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, was among the most gung-ho.
Last Wednesday, after the Republicans’ broad defeat in the midterm elections, Vance was unsparing: “The reason we lost is the war.” He added: “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next six years was worth it, then do so.” Hegseth responded with a defiant, self-promoting video that seemed to be an argument for full speed ahead. With the US military again massing a major force near Iran, Hegseth argued to “fight, fight, fight”.
Now US president Donald Trump must decide where he will come down as he weighs whether to launch a renewed attack in the coming days. Just as Trump cited a jumble of objectives as the war began – collapsing the Iranian government, dismantling the remnants of its nuclear programme, restricting the country’s missile arsenal and ending Iranian help to proxies in the region – he is struggling to articulate how much more the United States should expend in the deeply unpopular conflict.
RM Block
On Wednesday, the president said it was “largely true” that Republicans lost badly in the midterms because the conflict had driven up gas prices, as Vance said. But he added that he would make the same decision to go to war again.
“The Iran thing, we had to do,” he said, “and we continue to do it.”
Hegseth and general Dan Caine, chair of the joint chiefs of staff, have presented the president with a menu of military options that Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, developed in recent months. It is unclear which way Trump will go: He has approved resuming a major campaign against Iran several times in recent months, only to pull back from the operations just hours before they were to begin.
On Sunday, Trump told CNN that it was “highly unlikely” the US would have to renew strikes if negotiations were successful.
“They’re withering away financially,” he added. “We’ve hit them militarily. We could finish them off.”
At the core of the problem, according to people engaged in the debate, is a fundamental issue: Trump and his aides still cannot agree on what they are trying to accomplish.
Here are some of the options currently under review.
A brief, intense resumption of war
The most ambitious option that the US and Israeli militaries have developed calls for a short but intensive operation of several days whose targets would probably include Iran’s energy infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and missile and drone arsenals, according to several US officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters. But they stressed that they have no expectations that a few days of battle would collapse the government; for that, US officials are relying on continued economic pressure.
Any option that involves major combat operations would include strikes from attack planes aboard two aircraft carriers now in the region (a third carrier is expected in about two weeks); fighter jets at land bases in the Middle East, as well as US-based, long-range B-1 and B-2 bombers.
In total, scores of fighters, bombers and other support planes would join the fight. More than 50,000 troops in the region, Europe and the US are assigned to the overall Iran mission, as are more than a dozen warships.
In recent weeks, the US and Israeli militaries have stepped up exercises, flying planes over Iraq to practise strike manoeuvres. The Pentagon and US state department have withdrawn personnel from bases and facilities in the region as a precautionary measure. The US also recently delivered an additional Patriot anti-missile battery to Israel, military officials said.
Pros: A days-long campaign would inflict more damage on Iran’s already degraded missile and drone arsenal. Perhaps it would result in concessions in limiting the country’s nuclear programme and fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Cons: It has not worked before. Iran would strike back at the Gulf states, almost certainly driving up energy prices and inflation around the world. It has said that this time it would also target more data centres and underwater internet and communications cables. Defending the Gulf states would add to the strain of the Pentagon’s eroded global supply of missile interceptors.
A pared-back military strike
A second military option would essentially amount to a shorter, scaled-back version of the first plan. Many energy targets would probably fall off the table, and strikes would most likely focus on military and nuclear sites, officials said. The thinking behind this approach is that Iran would be less likely to retaliate by attacking Gulf energy infrastructure.
This more limited military option would still be a marked expansion in scope and intensity from the small-scale strikes that the United States has conducted in recent weeks against Iran’s Qeshm Island, officials said.
Those strikes and others against missile and drone launchers across the country have been meant to stop Iran from escalating attacks against commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Some of these smaller strikes, sometimes carried out by long-range US artillery based in Gulf countries, have hit empty cruise missile launchers.
Even if limited and defensive, these smaller US attacks over the past few weeks marked the first US bombing of targets inside Iran since two days of strikes at the beginning of September.
Pros: Trump could claim that the US had inflicted additional damage to Iran’s arsenal, declare victory and begin the exodus from the region. A more limited offensive would also preserve the Pentagon’s stockpile of scarce interceptors.
Cons: Administration officials concede that a limited strike would achieve none of the goals Trump set out at the beginning of the war and would still leave Iran with significant leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. Some nuclear and missile sites, as well as drone-launchers and ammunition depots, could be destroyed. But Iran has surprised US commanders with its resilience and its ability to dig out and rebuild damaged or destroyed sites and weaponry.
Let Vance negotiate
Before the midterm elections, Vance reached out to general Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and former commander in chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, suggesting that US and Iranian officials meet soon. In his letter, he said he would lead talks for the US – an unusual role for the vice president, as such negotiations are usually led by a special envoy (in recent times, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner) or the secretary of state. Vance became deeply involved in the negotiations between April and June over a memorandum of understanding with Iran that quickly fell apart.
Initially, the proposal seemed well received, and officials from Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have all been involved in communicating with the Iranians. But in recent days, some US negotiators have turned more pessimistic, according to people familiar with their thinking, fearing that whatever agreement they reach could be undercut in Tehran by radical hardliners.
Pros: History shows that a diplomatic solution is the only way to have long-term limits on a nation’s nuclear programme. Trump, many experts believe, would be lucky to get limits akin to those in the 2015 Obama-era deal, in which Iran shipped 97 per cent of its uranium stockpile out of the country. That was the deal Trump terminated in 2018.
Cons: No one knows who is making decisions in Iran, and there is public discussion in the country now about just racing for a bomb.
Muddle along until the US can leave
In this scenario, the United States would live with the status quo: a naval blockade that prevents Iran from exporting oil, while US escorts and patrols ensure that 11-18 million barrels of non-Iranian oil get through each day. This would effectively allow Trump to avoid making a decision, in the hopes of a longer-term resolution.
He could also seek to negotiate a narrow deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, leave sanctions in place and slowly withdraw – letting the Gulf Arabs work out a deal with the Iranians over how the Strait is managed. Such a deal would not address the nuclear or missile issues – much less the nature of the Iranian leadership – that triggered Trump to go to war in February.
Pros: The long game requires patience – not Trump’s strong suit – but may be the most effective way of eventually cracking the leadership.
Cons: Maintaining the blockade is expensive, and if there is no war but no peace, European and Arab allies are not likely to participate. It could mean more misery for the Iranian people, who are caught between their own government and the US and Israel. And there would be no timeline to the endgame, meaning the conflict could drag on for the remaining years of Trump’s presidency and into that of his successor. – This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
[ Keith Duggan: Lights begin to go out on Trump's reignOpens in new window ]
