The goal is freedom for the people of Iran, Donald Trump told The Washington Post on Saturday. In the same vein, to Axios, he said the US could end its offensive “within two, three days.”
The next day, in a brief telephone interview with The New York Times, he said the United States intended to continue attacking Iran for “four to five weeks.” Trump said he had “three very good options” for a new leader for Iran.
Later on Sunday, to an ABC News reporter:
The attack was so successful that it eliminated most of the candidates to lead Iran. There will be none of them we think about because they are all dead.
The conflicting messages have led analysts to wonder whether Trump even has a plan.
It's a one-off. There is no final plan, said Jan Hallenberg, associate senior researcher at the Swedish Institute for International Affairs and an expert on US foreign and security policy.
“End in disappointment”
The attacks on Iran come with major risks for Trump, not least domestically. If things go badly, it's the president who takes the brunt.
I think the US will continue bombing for three, four weeks. Depending on how high the political cost is, Trump will then say, 'Now I have won, now I am pulling the forces home.'
This means a possible scenario in which the US hastily declares victory - and leaves a bombed-out Iran and the Middle East to their fate.
There is a significant risk that it will end in disappointment for many. Trump will be able to say that he has weakened the regime, that the Ayatollah is dead and a number of other military leaders are dead. But he will hardly be able to say that the regime has fallen.
Hallenberg points out that the course of events is difficult to predict:
The problem is that Trump doesn't know himself.
“To whom?”
Although the US goal is regime change in Iran, it is unclear how this will happen. Trump has called on the people of Iran to “take over” the country’s government. How unarmed Iranians will be able to overthrow a heavily armed regime with ramifications in every part of society is unclear. The idea seems to be that a weakened regime will lead to an organic protest movement and a transition to a new political system in Iran, according to an analysis in the Financial Times.
Without ground forces or an armed opposition, this requires significant defections within Iran's security apparatus. Trump has claimed that Revolutionary Guards who lay down their arms have full immunity.
Jan Hallenberg is skeptical.
Lay down your weapons - to whom? There must be some organization or opposition group that will accept them. There isn't one here.
