US President Donald Trump has recently issued increasingly harsh warnings to Iran, as the Islamic nation has refused to make concessions on the nuclear and missile programs demanded by Washington in negotiations.

He set a deadline of 10-15 days for Iran to agree to abandon its uranium enrichment efforts and restrict its ballistic missile program, or face "really bad things." The US military is also deploying two carrier strike groups along with more than 10 warships and at least 60 fighter jets around Iran, ready to launch airstrikes if ordered.

President Donald Trump speaks at the Kennedy Center in Washington. Photo: AFP

On 23/2, the US President declared that the country would "win easily if a decision is made to attack Iran." He had previously threatened to "strike critical targets" in Iran.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that President Trump "is not afraid to use force and the power of the US military against Iran if deemed necessary," although diplomacy remains the "preferred option."

These tough statements are not only appealing on television and social media but also reflect Mr. Trump's characteristic style of using strong rhetoric to advance policy. They also show a US President determined to differentiate himself from predecessors who often hesitated when approaching the Iran issue.

However, according to experts, President Trump would face many challenges and risks if he decided to attack Iran, as all current military options are poor choices.

Symbolic airstrikes

The Wall Street Journal, citing sources, reported that both Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and Pentagon officials warned of risks such as casualties for US and allied soldiers, as well as the potential for US air defense forces to deplete resources if Iran is attacked.

For this reason, the US President is reportedly considering limited military strikes to compel Iran to meet nuclear deal requirements. This would not be a full-scale attack that could trigger large-scale retaliation from Tehran.

Ordering US warships and aircraft to launch missiles at a few barracks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), destroying some Iranian naval facilities in the Persian Gulf, or leveling a command center would be enough for Mr. Trump to declare that the US had acted decisively, but not to the extent of initiating a direct conflict.

US Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters participate in a maritime security support mission in the Middle East in 6/2024. Photo: AFP

This type of symbolic attack would allow President Trump to claim he "follows through on his words" while enabling Washington to move past the issue. However, it would not be enough to force Iran to accept all concessions on its uranium enrichment and ballistic missile development programs, according to observers.

The US previously conducted such a symbolic attack during Operation Night Hammer, dropping powerful bunker-buster bombs on three critical Iranian nuclear facilities in 6/2025. However, recent satellite images show Iran restoring these facilities, and there is no evidence that Tehran's nuclear program has been "eradicated" as Mr. Trump claimed.

Meanwhile, the Iranian government would view a US airstrike as clear evidence of an external interference plot, thereby strengthening the unity of its supporters and continuing its efforts to enhance military power for self-defense.

Another practical issue Mr. Trump seems to have not accounted for: US air defense missile stockpiles are nearly depleted after major operations defending ally Israel, as well as military aid to Ukraine.

With two carrier strike groups and a range of modern assets present in the Middle East, the US could conduct a prolonged airstrike campaign against Iran. However, this would mean its forces and allies would also face the risk of sustaining damage from retaliation by Tehran's powerful ballistic missiles.

With depleted stockpiles, US air defense systems in the Middle East would be unable to withstand massive, sustained ballistic missile attacks from Iran. In Operation Rising Lion last June, many Iranian missiles penetrated Israel's modern air defense network, crashing into densely populated urban areas, including Tel Aviv.

Video recorded by residents in Tel Aviv showed an Israeli air defense battery firing at least five projectiles, but still failing to intercept the incoming Iranian missile. The Iranian missile then struck an area near the battery.

An Iranian missile crashes into Tel Aviv, Israel on 13/6/2025. Video: Reuters

The US would likely have to rely on support from regional allies such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), or Qatar.

However, these Gulf allies have clearly stated they do not wish to be involved in attacks on Iran. They witnessed Iranian missiles strike Al Udeid airbase in Qatar in 6/2025. They understand that their oil infrastructure, cities, and economic lifelines are in the crosshairs.

Targeting Iran's leadership

If President Trump believes a symbolic attack is insufficient to deter and considers targeting Iran's highest-level leadership, as he did with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the consequences would be even more dangerous, Ghosh warned.

In Iran, the most organized, best-armed, and cohesive force is the IRGC, with approximately 190,000 personnel, comprising all branches from army, navy, to air force.

If the US were to conduct a raid on Tehran modeled after the operation to capture Mr. Maduro, it would encounter fierce resistance from the Iranian army and the IRGC.

Any raid targeting Iranian leadership would depend on unreliable intelligence, carry the risk of causing civilian casualties, and offer no guarantee of success. If it failed, the US would both anger the Iranian government and demonstrate its helplessness, Ghosh noted.

Even if the operation succeeded, it could not eradicate the IRGC. It might even create conditions for hardline IRGC officials to rise more powerfully, sparking a full-scale war, and risking the US getting bogged down.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in a video broadcast on state television in 6/2025. Photo: AP

Prolonged military campaign

An option between the two above is for the US to launch a prolonged airstrike campaign aimed at weakening Iran's security apparatus. This would not be a symbolic attack, nor a decapitation strike, but calculated strikes targeting Iranian command centers, weapons depots, or disrupting government communications.

This option allows the US to show it is serious about the situation in Iran without deploying troops on the ground. However, the more successful the campaign, the greater the risk of chaos, analysts warned.

As Iran's security apparatus weakens, ethnic and regional divisions could erupt, causing the country to descend into endless instability, with civilians bearing the brunt of the consequences.

Additionally, a prolonged campaign would certainly face logistical hurdles. Iran has also demonstrated its ability to retaliate by targeting US forces in the region, Washington's allies, or disrupting maritime transport in the Persian Gulf.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi previously warned the US not to "test military options" because Iran is better prepared for war scenarios.

"We do not want war but are ready for this scenario. Our preparation is now better than in the previous conflict," Mr. Araghchi said, seemingly referring to the conflict in 6/2025. "If Washington wants to risk using military options as before, we are ready."

Axios reported that General Caine warned of the risk of the US "getting bogged down in a prolonged conflict" in Iran. Both envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law, also urged the US President to postpone attacks to allow for diplomacy.

"If it chooses a military option, the US will again put itself in a situation with no clear outcome in the Middle East," Jon Hoffman, a Middle East expert at the Cato Institute, warned. "A single strike is not enough to change the situation. Once missiles are launched, there will be calls for more US strikes."

Vu Hoang (According to TIME, AFP, Reuters)