“We’re watching Iran,” U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters on Thursday as he returned from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
“We have a big flotilla going in that direction, and we’ll see what happens.”
For the past week, a U.S. carrier strike group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln has been moving west from the South China Sea toward the Persian Gulf, positioning American naval power closer to Iran.
The deployment comes amid escalating tensions. Earlier this month, as anti-regime protests spread across Iran and reports emerged of Iranian security forces killing demonstrators, Trump pledged that the United States would “come to their rescue.”
Is the arrival of U.S. naval forces a prelude to military action against the Iranian regime? To assess Trump’s options, insights were provided by Nate Swanson, former director for Iran at the National Security Council in the Biden White House and a member of the Trump administration’s Iran negotiating team.
Why Is the Current Situation Unprecedented?
The United States is operating in unfamiliar territory. Prior to Operation Midnight Hammer in June, Washington had never directly attacked Iran.
For years, the U.S. invested heavily in developing the intelligence, technology and military capabilities needed to strike Iran’s nuclear program. Acting militarily to protect civilian protesters, however, represents an entirely different mission — with different targets, objectives and risks — and one that is likely still being shaped in real time.
As the USS Abraham Lincoln enters the region, Trump appears to have several broad categories of options available.
Could Trump Order Symbolic Military Strikes?
One option is symbolic strikes against conventional targets such as Iran’s nuclear or missile infrastructure.
Such actions would do little to directly aid protesters on the ground. However, they would reinforce Trump’s reputation for enforcing “red lines” and avoid accusations that he made threats without following through.
Symbolic strikes could also serve as a warning shot — signaling resolve without committing to a broader military campaign.
What About Strikes on Iran’s Security Forces?
Another option would involve targeting Iran’s internal security apparatus.
Trump likely has access to intelligence on facilities and personnel linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), law enforcement agencies and the Basij paramilitary force — all of which have played roles in suppressing protests. Cyberattacks against these institutions would also fall under this category.
While such actions could offer protesters a sense of revenge or validation, their practical impact is uncertain. Iran’s security forces number more than one million personnel, and a limited strike is unlikely to alter the regime’s willingness to use lethal force.
A sustained campaign against security forces could theoretically influence the regime’s calculus, but that would require a long-term commitment — something the Trump administration has historically avoided in its use of military force.
Could Economic Targets Be in the Crosshairs?
Economic infrastructure presents another potential pressure point.
During confrontations between Iran and Israel over the past year, analysts speculated that Israeli strikes might target Iranian economic assets. Similar U.S. action could focus on oil export terminals such as Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, or on critical natural gas facilities.
Such strikes would be risky and could disrupt global energy markets. However, they would also send a powerful signal to a government already struggling under severe economic strain and nearing collapse.
Is Targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader an Option?
Many Iranian protesters and some external observers have called for the removal of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
While it remains unclear whether such a strike is feasible — or advisable — its consequences would be profound. Khamenei is Iran’s highest political and religious authority, and there has been only one leadership transition in the Islamic Republic’s history.
There is no clear successor. Removing him would create an unprecedented power vacuum, with outcomes that are impossible to predict — ranging from systemic collapse to violent consolidation by hardliners.
Are There Non-Military Ways to Support Protesters?
Military action is not the only option.
There are numerous non-kinetic measures the United States could pursue. Swanson, along with former U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for Iran Abram Paley, has previously suggested steps such as pausing policy initiatives unrelated to protest support.
These measures are unlikely to be decisive or immediately change the trajectory of the current unrest. Instead, they are designed to lay groundwork for future protest movements and ensure Iranians have the tools to make their own decisions about the country’s political future.
Would a U.S. Strike Actually Help Protesters?
Swanson is skeptical that a U.S. strike would significantly alter events on the ground, though he cautions that outcomes are inherently unpredictable.
The success of any strike would be measured less by physical damage and more by its psychological impact — on both protesters and the regime. A strike might energize protesters enough to sustain demonstrations until cracks appear within the regime, leading to defections or collapse.
But the opposite outcome is also plausible: the regime could respond by intensifying repression and killing more civilians.
There are historical precedents. In Hungary in 1956 and Kurdish Iraq in 1991, the U.S. encouraged popular uprisings but lacked the means or will to protect protesters, who were ultimately crushed.
What Comes After a Strike?
Any military action would require the administration to articulate a clear vision for what follows.
One scenario is regime collapse followed by the emergence of a pro-Western democracy. An equally plausible outcome, however, is the rise of an even more hardline government — one more committed to nuclear weapons development and missile expansion.
These risks help explain why several Gulf states have cautioned against striking Iran.
It is also highly unlikely that U.S. ground troops would be deployed. Any political transformation in Iran would have to be driven internally by Iranians themselves, rather than imposed by foreign forces.
How Might Iran Respond?
The presence of the USS Abraham Lincoln serves two main purposes.
First, it enhances U.S. defensive capabilities against potential Iranian retaliation, giving Washington greater flexibility in choosing its next move. Second, it delivers a psychological signal: Iran knows that any response could trigger further escalation.
This dynamic is likely to restrain Iran from taking overly aggressive actions. The regime is expected to calibrate its response to match — in its own estimation — the scale of any U.S. strike.
If Washington conducts symbolic strikes, Iran may respond symbolically as well. Iran’s missile attack on U.S. forces in Qatar in June offers a model — allowing both sides to claim victory and step back from escalation.
What If Khamenei Is Targeted?
A strike on Iran’s supreme leader would fundamentally alter the equation.
Earlier this month, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian warned that
“an attack on the great leader of our country is tantamount to a full-scale war with the Iranian nation.”
What such a conflict would look like is impossible to predict. However, Swanson notes that the United States is now better prepared — militarily and strategically — to respond than it has been at any point in the past.
For now, as U.S. naval forces move into position, the central question remains unanswered: whether Trump is signaling deterrence — or preparing to act.
