Washington Reassesses Its Iran Playbook as Trump Considers Force Amid Growing Unrest

As street protests intensify across Iran, the White House is quietly recalibrating its options.

President Donald Trump has been briefed over recent days on a new menu of potential military actions against Tehran, U.S. officials say, reflecting a serious internal debate over whether Washington should translate sharp warnings into kinetic action in response to Iran’s crackdown on demonstrators.

No final call has been made, but officials familiar with the discussions describe a president weighing the costs and consequences of authorising strikes if Iranian authorities continue to suppress protests driven by deep economic distress.

The options presented span a range of calibrated responses, including limited strikes aimed at non-military yet symbolically significant locations in Tehran.

Those officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the deliberations involve sensitive national security planning.

Pressed publicly on whether military preparations are underway, the White House declined to discuss specifics, instead directing attention to Trump’s recent public remarks.

In a social media post on Saturday, the president struck an optimistic note about the unrest, writing that Iran was “looking at FREEDOM, perhaps like never before,” and adding that “the USA stands ready to help.”

The demonstrations erupted in late December after a sharp currency slide compounded years of economic mismanagement and sanctions pressure.

What began as protests over living costs has since broadened into a nationwide movement, with crowds in multiple cities calling for sweeping political change and an end to authoritarian rule.

Human rights groups report that dozens of protesters have been killed as security forces respond with force.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, signalled defiance on Friday, declaring that the government would “not back down” despite the scale of the unrest—an indication that the leadership intends to rely on coercion rather than compromise.

Trump, for his part, has repeatedly warned Tehran against violent repression. On Friday, he said Iran “is in big trouble,” underscoring that the United States would not ignore mass casualties.

Speaking to reporters during a meeting with oil executives, he said any response would avoid ground deployments but would involve striking Iran “very, very hard where it hurts.”

Diplomatic engagement has moved in parallel with military planning. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio held a call Saturday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to people briefed on the conversation.

The leaders discussed the unfolding protests in Iran, the situation in Syria, and efforts toward a ceasefire and political settlement in Gaza.

Shortly afterwards, Rubio publicly voiced U.S. support for what he called “the brave people of Iran.”

The administration’s posture follows a pattern of assertiveness that Trump has emphasised since the start of his second term.

Earlier this month, he ordered a U.S. military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—an episode senior officials have since cited as evidence that Trump is prepared to act decisively.

Reinforcing that message, the State Department on Friday shared footage of the Venezuela operation online with a blunt caption warning that Trump’s threats should be taken seriously.

Behind the scenes, U.S. officials say at least some of the Iran options focus narrowly on elements of the country’s security services believed to be directing violence against protesters.

Yet they also acknowledge significant risks: poorly calibrated strikes could rally public opinion behind the Iranian leadership or trigger retaliatory attacks against U.S. forces and diplomats across the region.

A senior U.S. military official said commanders would prefer more time before any action to strengthen defensive postures and reposition assets, anticipating that Iran would respond asymmetrically if struck.

The debate unfolded barely six months after Trump ordered attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. That June operation—dubbed Midnight Hammer—saw B-2 bombers drop bunker-buster munitions on the hardened Fordo site while U.S. Navy submarines launched cruise missiles at facilities in Natanz and Isfahan.

Iran retaliated with missile launches and later signalled openness to renewed talks over its nuclear programme, which it maintains is civilian in nature.

Late last month, Trump met Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to discuss Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions.

Netanyahu has consistently said Israel will not allow Tehran to advance those capabilities.

After the meeting, Trump told reporters he had been informed that Iran was “behaving badly” and suggested he would support Israeli action if Iran pressed ahead.

Since returning to office, Trump has authorised air or missile strikes in multiple theatres, including Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria.

His willingness to use force has long been evident; during his first term in 2020, he ordered the drone strike in Baghdad that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a senior commander of Iran’s Quds Force.

As Iran’s protests persist, U.S. officials describe the moment as a delicate balancing act—how to pressure Tehran over its repression without igniting a broader regional conflict or unintentionally strengthening the very leadership that protesters are challenging.

#IranProtests #USIranTensions #DonaldTrump #MiddleEastCrisis #Tehran #Geopolitics #HumanRights #WhiteHouse #GlobalSecurity