The United States has outlined a clear path of military coercion against Iran, centered on phased military strikes aimed at ultimately achieving regime change or functional collapse in Iran. Trump’s decision-making combines his signature transactional approach, fulfillment of commitments to Israel, calculations of domestic political costs, and risk assessment of a potential regional conflagration.
US Intentions Toward Iran: Coercing Regime Change Through Overwhelming Military Force
First, establishing a clear “deadline” to create pretext for military action. On February 19, US President Trump publicly set a “10 to 15 day” deadline, demanding Iran reach a “meaningful agreement” with the United States within this period, warning that otherwise “bad things” would happen. This strategy aims to create urgency in negotiations while attributing responsibility for any failure to reach an agreement to Iran, thereby building political and public groundwork for subsequent military action.
Second, implementing a phased strike plan of “small strikes first, larger strikes later.” According to media reports including The New York Times, Trump has informed his advisors that he “favors a preliminary strike on Iran in the coming days” as a “first step” in applying pressure. Should Iran continue to refuse submission, the US would launch a larger-scale military operation in the coming months aimed at overthrowing the regime. The joint US-Israel “Epic Fury” operation on February 28 represents a critical step in moving this plan from threat to practice.
Third, completing the “final piece” of military deployment, creating a pincer deterrent from east and west. The US aircraft carrier USS Ford arrived in Israeli waters on February 27, joining the USS Lincoln carrier strike group already deployed in the Persian Gulf, forming the largest naval and air force concentration in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq War. Meanwhile, the US has deployed over 60 attack aircraft, including F-35 stealth fighters, at an air base in Jordan, preparing for weeks of sustained aerial strikes. This deployment aims to create high-pressure conditions against Iran from both the Mediterranean and Arabian Sea directions.
Fourth, the ultimate objective clearly targets “regime change” and elimination of strategic threats. Following the February 28 strikes, Trump publicly called on the Iranian people to “take over the government” after US military operations concluded, claiming he had “suitable candidates” in mind to lead Iran’s government. The division of labor in the joint US-Israel operation reflects this intent: US forces focus on striking Iran’s military industry, missile research and production facilities, while Israel directly targets senior Iranian regime officials and related core facilities. The fundamental purpose is to thoroughly dismantle Iran’s nuclear potential and long-range strike capabilities, permanently eliminating what the US considers an “existential threat” to itself and its Middle Eastern allies.
Trump’s Considerations
First, employing a “talk while fighting” strategy to maximize leverage. Despite ongoing indirect negotiations in their third round on February 26, Trump expressed on February 27 that he was “not satisfied” with negotiation progress and emphasized he had not yet made a “final decision” on military action. This approach of wielding a big stick at the negotiating table reflects his characteristic transactional style, aimed at testing Iran’s boundaries and attempting to secure maximum concessions (complete Iranian submission) at minimum cost (limited strikes).
Second, responding to Israel’s urgent needs while consolidating core alliances. Israel has been the most active advocate for tough action against Iran. By choosing to launch joint strikes with Israel and making the “decapitation” of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei a primary target, Trump simultaneously satisfies the Netanyahu government’s strategic demand to eliminate a major threat, while binding the United States more closely to its ally’s agenda. This demonstrates a “shoulder to shoulder” posture that reinforces America’s strategic foothold in the Middle East.
Third, navigating internal divisions while maintaining personal decision-making authority. The administration contains differing views on military action, with Vice President Vance and others questioning strike plan risks during Situation Room meetings. However, Trump has repeatedly emphasized that “the final decision rests with me.” His ambiguous public statements—discussing hopes for agreement while threatening military action—preserve flexibility while maintaining psychological pressure on Iran and domestic audiences, highlighting the unpredictability characteristic of his decision-making style.
Fourth, openly acknowledging costs while attempting to manage domestic expectations and political risks. In his speech announcing the commencement of operations, Trump unusually acknowledged that “brave American heroes may lose their lives.” This indicates he has anticipated potential US military casualties and seeks to prepare the public psychologically in advance. This approach reflects his calculation of potential domestic political repercussions (particularly in a midterm election year) from a high-risk regional war while pursuing strategic objectives. By framing the action as a righteous effort to “eliminate nuclear threats” and demonstrating solidarity with Israel, he aims to secure support from his conservative base.