TIME:

by Nik Popli

As nationwide protests shake Iran and security forces respond with lethal force, U.S. President Donald Trump has raised the prospect of American intervention, reviving a familiar question in Washington: what, exactly, would U.S. action in Iran look like—and to what end?

Publicly, the Administration has kept its options deliberately broad. The White House  says that Trump has been briefed on military and nonmilitary alternatives, from cyber operations to targeted strikes, but has not yet reached a decision.

Yet on Tuesday, Trump signaled that he may soon authorize U.S. military strikes against the country’s leadership, calling on Iranians to keep protesting and promising that “help is on its way.”

“I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS,” Trump wrote, days after he told reporters that he was willing to negotiate with Iran even as "the military is looking" at "some very strong options” and that if Iran does retaliate, “we will hit them at levels that they’ve never been hit before."

Despite the bellicose rhetoric, the Pentagon has not surged aircraft carriers or strike groups into the region. Gulf allies, still wary after Iranian missile strikes during last year’s brief war with Israel, have also shown little appetite for hosting American attacks on Iran.

"This is another example of the United States inserting itself into something happening in the Middle East with no clear end game,” warns Jon Hoffman, a Middle East expert at the Cato Institute. “Is a single strike going to overthrow the regime? I don’t think so. And clearly that’s going to lead to further calls for more activity.”

Go to link