Having amassed the heaviest US air power in the Middle East since the disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion, President Trump is now considering an initial, limited strike on Iran to force it to bow to the maximalist demands of Israel and the United States. The idea is based on two deeply questionable premises:

• that air strikes alone will compel Iran to give up its defensive ballistic missile capabilities, and halt all nuclear enrichment 
• that Iran won't retaliate for an American "limited strike" in a way that sends the United States, Israel, Iran and perhaps even Russia and China racing up an escalation ladder 

Reported by the Wall Street Journal, the single-strike scenario is an alternative to the idea of a sustained, weeks-long military campaign that would not only target nuclear sites, but also state and security facilities. The Pentagon has been actively planning for such an onslaught, and one official told Reuters that the administration fully expects such a campaign would trigger Iranian retaliation and a series of strikes and reprisals that last far longer than last summer's 12-day war that was initiated by Israel. 

While Israel-catering warmongers like to portray Iranian leaders as unstable religious zealots, the Iranian government has demonstrated enormous restraint in the face of decades of economic and military warfare. In addition to last year's war started by Israel, other extreme provocations have included the 2020 US killing of Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, an April 2024 Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Syria, and a long-running series of Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. 

However, the era of Iranian strategic restraint may be over. "Unlike the restraint Iran showed in June 2025, our powerful armed forces have no qualms about firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in January. 

Elsewhere, Iran has said that, "in the event that it is subjected to military aggression, all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate targets." More pointedly, Ayatollah Khamenei has conjured imagery of US sailors being condemned to a watery grave by Trump's initiation of war: 

The risk of spiraling escalation is compounded by another variable: Iran's increasingly close ties to Russia and China. Underscoring the dangerous potential of US conflict with major powers, the three countries recently kicked off joint naval drills in the key oil transit chokepoint Strait of Hormuz, as well as the Gulf of Oman, and the northern Indian Ocean. President Putin aide Nikolay Patrushev framed the exercises as part of Russia's drive to advance a "multipolar world order on the oceans...We will tap into the potential of BRICS, which should now be given a full-fledged strategic maritime dimension." 

As we noted on Tuesday, it's unlikely that Chinese or Russian militaries would engage with US forces, but their presence raises the risk of accidental engagements, and complicates the US Navy's maneuvering of ships and firing of weapons in the crowded waters. 

Attacking Iran would certainly put an end to the latest US-Iranian negotiations, which have thus far comprised two rounds of talks in February, the first in Oman and the second in Geneva. Though Iran initially struck some positive notes about the Geneva talks, both sides ultimately voiced dissatisfaction with the discussions. 

Vice President JD Vance said Iran failed to take seriously Trump's demands that Iran end all enrichment of uranium, and limit the range of its conventional ballistic missiles, including the hypersonic missiles that proved to be a potent counterforce after Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran last summer just days before another round of nuclear negotiations were to take place: 

The demand for Israel to surrender this component of its defenses is widely viewed as something Iran will never agree to. Here's how the Quincy Institute's Trita Parsi framed it in a Thursday post on X: 

[Conventional ballistic missiles are] Iran’s last remaining deterrent against Israel. Without this deterrent, Israel would be more inclined to attack Iran to cement its subjugation of Iran... Capitulating to Trump’s “deal” would not end the confrontation, but only make Tehran more vulnerable to further attacks by Israel or the US.

While Vance said Iran was unwilling to validate Trump's "red lines," Iran criticized US negotiators for being quick to leave Geneva -- after just a few hours, and despite Iran's interest in continuing the dialogue. Iranian officials and allied media have also expressed dismay at the incongruity of Iran sending Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to the talks, while the US delegation has been led by Trump real-estate crony and "special envoy" Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. 

As the Journal notes, discussion of a single "bloody nose" strike on Iran has parallels in Trump's first administration. In 2018, he considered an attack on North Korea to convey his seriousness about halting the country's nuclear weapons program. That chapter ended without warfare, with Trump opting for a series of diplomatic talks that ended without North Korean concessions -- but did end up with peace. 

On Thursday, Trump vaguely suggested a timeframe for potential military action, saying, "We may have to take it a step further, or we may not...You’re going to be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days." What we'll specifically find out is whether Trump will cave to pressure from Iran hawks like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, risking another long-running, enormously expensive, and bloody intervention like the Iraq war he boldly condemned during his 2016 campaign.