Washington, D.C. — As President Donald Trump seems poised to carry out military action in Iran, a new analysis from the Center for American Progress argues that intervention is unlikely to achieve his objectives and brings grave risks of retaliation and a longer military entanglement in the Middle East.
“Trump has failed to present a logical—let alone compelling—rationale for a military campaign that entails serious risks to American service members and U.S. interests and promises dubious returns,” said Andrew Miller, a senior fellow at CAP specializing in the Middle East and author of the analysis.
The goals that have been laid out by the administration include supporting Iranian demonstrators and dismantling its nuclear program, ballistic missile capability, and regional proxy network. But these goals will be difficult to achieve through the use of force, particularly without deploying ground forces.
Air power alone did not and will not eliminate Iran’s nuclear program or its proxy network, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. And eliminating Iran’s current leadership will not automatically lead to real regime change.
Military action is unlikely to be limited, raising the prospect of escalating risks and costs. And where military efforts will fall short, diplomacy may be more likely to succeed. The Trump administration should seek to secure the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors with unfettered access to any suspected Iranian nuclear facilities in exchange for a pledge to refrain from the use of force for a specified period. President Trump and his negotiators should continue to pursue a new agreement that would limit Iran’s nuclear program.
Read the analysis: “Trump Is Potentially Leading the United States Into an Unnecessary War With Iran,” by Andrew Miller
For more information, or to speak with an expert, please contact Sam Hananel at [email protected].