US President Donald Trump gestures as he speaks during a press briefing at the White House, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs, in Washington, DC, US, February 20, 2026. Photo: Reuters
President Donald Trump’s escalating threats against Iran have raised fresh questions about Washington’s long-term strategy, with officials offering little clarity on what the United States ultimately hopes to achieve through either limited strikes or a broader conflict.
Trump has deployed warships and dozens of fighter jets to the Middle East and said he would decide within “10 or 15 days” whether to order military action if no nuclear deal is reached with Tehran.
The move has fuelled speculation over potential US objectives — ranging from targeted strikes on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to attacks on Iran’s missile programme, or even an attempt to force regime change.
Iran has warned it would respond forcefully to any attack.
Military options on the table
According to Axios, Trump has been presented with multiple military options, including a possible direct strike against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Despite the military buildup, Trump has repeatedly said he prefers a diplomatic solution that would curb not only Iran’s nuclear programme but also its ballistic missile capabilities and support for militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas — demands Tehran has rejected.
The two sides recently held indirect talks in Oman and Switzerland, but the discussions failed to narrow differences. Another round is expected this week in Switzerland.
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff said the president was “surprised” Iran had not “capitulated” despite the US military pressure.
Alex Vatanka, an analyst at the Middle East Institute, said the administration likely seeks a limited confrontation rather than a prolonged war.
“The Trump administration most likely aims for a limited conflict that reshapes the balance of power without trapping it in a quagmire,” he said.
Vatanka added that Tehran is bracing for “a short, high-impact military campaign” designed to cripple its missile infrastructure and weaken its deterrence.
Political justification
Trump has insisted US strikes have already damaged Iran’s nuclear capabilities, while also framing potential action as support for the Iranian people following a deadly crackdown on protests earlier this year.
He has frequently argued that regime change in Tehran could advance peace in the Middle East, citing his role in brokering a fragile Gaza ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.
However, opposition Democrats have warned the president risks dragging the United States into another major conflict and have urged him to seek congressional authorisation before any military action.
Growing US military presence
The United States currently has 13 warships in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, nine destroyers and three frigates.
Another carrier, the USS Gerald Ford — the world’s largest warship — is heading toward the Mediterranean.
In addition to carrier-based aircraft, Washington has deployed dozens of warplanes and maintains tens of thousands of troops across the Middle East, all of which could become potential Iranian targets in the event of hostilities.
Uncertain endgame
Analysts say the biggest question remains what a conflict would ultimately achieve.
Richard Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that military action could backfire.
“It could just as easily strengthen it as weaken it. And it is impossible to know what would succeed this regime if it were to fall,” he wrote on Substack.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also acknowledged the uncertainty, telling senators that no one knows what would follow if Iran’s supreme leader were removed, beyond hopes of a manageable transition.
Meanwhile, Gulf Arab states — many of which maintain working ties with Tehran — have cautioned Washington against military escalation, fearing regional spillover and retaliatory strikes.
Mona Yacoubian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned Iran’s complex power structure makes the risks particularly high.
A so-called “decapitation strike”, she said, could end up “really unleashing a mess inside of Iran.”
