President Donald Trump appears to be talking himself into a fateful new chapter in the bitter showdown between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
At a time when the theocratic regime faces a crisis, the case for U.S. military strikes to aid Iranian protesters is becoming increasingly urgent and compelling.
Trump keeps drawing new red lines after Iran’s leaders ignored his previous warnings that if they started shooting, he would, too. The president warned in an interview with CBS News on Tuesday that he would take “strong action” if Iran goes ahead with its planned executions of protesters. This does not lock in a U.S. military response. But any combat action that appears to be merely symbolic could deplete his ability to deter Tehran.
“The president told the Iranian people that help is coming. So I think it’s the president’s responsibility to take some action here,” Leon Panetta told CNN News on Tuesday. The former U.S. defense secretary and CIA director did not specify whether a full-scale military attack would be needed. But he added: “I think the credibility of the United States right now requires that the United States take some action to show support for the protesters.”
The grounds for humanitarian action are also growing. Internet blackouts still obscure the full horror of authoritarian repression. But new footage has emerged showing the carnage. 2,400 deaths were reported. If the regime continues, many will second-guess powerful outsiders who stand by and watch.
Trump’s repeated warnings may also have raised expectations among protesters who risk their lives. A president who recently said the only limit to his power abroad is his “morals” may feel a moral obligation to act.
Karim Sadjadpour, one of the nation’s most prominent experts on Iran, told CNN’s Erin Burnett, “I counted seven times today in the last two weeks that President Trump has threatened military action against Iran if it kills peaceful protesters.” “That’s 2,000,” said Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Before multiple deaths…I do think that many people took his words seriously and wanted to at least have the shield of the United States to help protect them from this very brutal regime.”
On January 9, 2026, Iranians gathered on blocked streets during a protest in Tehran, Iran. – MAHSA/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images
Opportunity to end authoritarian regimes
There are tempting strategic reasons why Trump might seek to advance history.
► Iran’s clerical dictatorship has rarely been so weak, at home or abroad. Severe economic shortages mean it is struggling to complete the basic task of feeding its people. Desperation is a powerful organizing force for protesters.
► With Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei turning 86 and unconnected to the recent unrest, an uneasy succession drama is unfolding and raising the possibility of a new political dawn.
► During last year’s 12-day war between Israel and Iran, a large number of Iran’s top leaders and top military and intelligence leaders were wiped out.
► War broke out on multiple fronts after Hamas launched an attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, reducing Iran’s regional influence and ability to counterattack Israeli or U.S. bases in the region in retaliation for U.S. military actions.
So why doesn’t the United States use this opportunity to end a regime that has killed thousands of Americans, including the 1983 Beirut embassy bombing that its proxies and militias have carried out for years against U.S. forces in Iraq?
Freeing the Middle East from the destabilizing influence of Islamic regimes would make Israel more secure and advance the vision of a wealthy, peaceful and integrated region that Trump laid out last year in Saudi Arabia.
A president who prides himself on his audacity and who ignores the limitations imposed on him by his predecessors must be strongly tempted to take this action.
After all, he’s been working hard and trying to take action. He had just survived a daring U.S. military assault that ripped Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro from his bed without any Americans dying in the fighting. He likes to recall last year’s round-the-world stealth bombing raids that wreaked havoc on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Trump also heard from his hawkish friends that greatness beckons. “This is President Trump’s Ronald Reagan moment. (Iran) will be his Berlin Wall moment a thousand times over,” South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham wrote on
It’s unlikely to be as easy as in Venezuela
Trump met with the administration’s top national security officials on Tuesday after visiting Michigan. The president, wearing a white baseball cap emblazoned with “USA,” kept everyone guessing when asked what he would do about Iran. “I can’t tell you. I know exactly what it would be.”
But ultimately, if future engagements are to be meaningful, the president’s threats must be backed up by the use of force. Many former officials and foreign diplomats have concluded that President Barack Obama’s failure to enforce a 2013 red line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria emboldened U.S. adversaries, including Russia, to invade Ukraine and Syria.
But history is ominous.
The rationale for U.S. military intervention from Vietnam to Iraq, from Afghanistan to Libya is often viewed as legitimate by Washington. But the enemies of the world and America have their say. The consequences of U.S. use of force are rarely as clean as presidents expect. Trump knows this better than anyone—he might never have become president if not for Americans exhausted by the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On March 23, 2003, the 2nd Battalion of the 8th Marine Regiment of the U.S. Marine Corps entered the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah. Allied forces encountered stiff resistance as they headed north toward Baghdad, the capital of Iraq. – Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty Images
This ominous history shows that two issues did not attract much attention in Washington, which was once again experiencing war fever.
► Is there good reason to believe that new U.S. strikes against Iran will help protesters and further their hopes of overthrowing the Iranian regime?
► Or will they intensify resistance to the counterrevolution?
Successive governments have tried to resolve this dilemma.
During the 2009 Green Movement protests in Iran, then-President Obama acted cautiously, angering Republican critics because he wanted to avoid giving the Iranian authorities an excuse for atrocities. He called for freedom of expression, dissent and democratic process. But he also said that “Iran’s leadership will be determined by the Iranians.” He added that he wanted to “avoid the United States becoming an internal problem in Iran” and becoming a “convenient political football.”
Presidents, like the rest of us, have no way of knowing exactly how their decisions will play out. In hindsight, Obama has regrets. He said on the “Pod Save America” podcast in 2022, “Any time we see a flash, a glimmer of hope that people are longing for freedom, I think we have to point that out. We have to bring attention to it. We have to show solidarity with that.”
The 44th president has given no hint that he will launch a military strike – something that would be unthinkable for a United States mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. But presidents have plenty of other options.
“You never know”
Trump’s blunt language, fondness for threats and aversion to detail often exacerbated the superficiality of debates in Washington.
The situation in Iran is very complex. He can’t just bomb Iran into a democracy. He might not even be able to do enough damage to protect the demonstrators. Cyberattacks could hamper the command and control capabilities of regime security forces. But can U.S. airpower actually save protesters gunned down in the streets by Basij internal security forces tasked with enforcing the theocratic rule?
The daring special forces raid in Venezuela that ousted Maduro from power seems unlikely to be repeated in Iran, where the risks of sending U.S. personnel to take part in beheading attacks appear prohibitive. A U.S. or Israeli missile or drone strike could do that. But eradicating Iran’s religious leaders may only allow a hawkish secular strongman to gain power.
Despite the sudden rise to prominence of exiled dissident Reza Pahlavi, a descendant of Iran’s last king who was ousted in the 1979 Islamic revolution, there are few signs inside Iran that there is a credible opposition force that can lead the transition. Generations of interference in Iran by imperialist powers such as Britain, Russia and the United States have shown that outsiders cannot plan Iran’s future.
On January 11, 2026, hundreds of people participated in a protest against the Iranian government in Sydney, Australia, and called for regime change. – Norvik Alaverdian/NurPhoto/Getty Images
Unlike many Middle Eastern countries, Iran is not a product of colonial mapmakers. Its enduring Persian civilization and national identity may have insulated it from the pain of Syria’s division. But authority could collapse if the regime, which has ruled repressively since 1979, is overthrown. Any subsequent refugee flows and instability will not be welcomed by U.S. regional allies, although they will cheer the demise of the Shiite revolutionary regime.
Then there is the issue of U.S. capabilities. Trump’s massive fleet deployed near Venezuela has stretched naval power. Many military aircraft are stationed at U.S. bases throughout the Middle East. But the closest carrier strike group is the USS Abraham Lincoln in the South China Sea, according to the nonprofit U.S. Naval Institute.
It is also fair to ask how much responsibility a government can take. Trump just captured Maduro, the Western Hemisphere dictator; he demands American ownership of Greenland; he should run Gaza under the Israeli-Hamas peace plan. The White House loves a big foreign policy victory, but follow-up seems to be lacking.
After overthrowing Maduro, Trump promoted democracy in Iran while rejecting the democratic opposition in Caracas, which is also a headache. However, recent history and the weight of his words suggest that he may find it impossible to deny his love of action.
But he also takes another huge risk.
On Tuesday, a reporter asked the president if he could be certain that U.S. airstrikes would protect protesters. “Well, you never know, do you?” he replied.
“My record so far has been outstanding, but you never know.”
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com