In a revelation that adds a new dimension to the ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran, a recent report by The New York Times has claimed that former President Donald Trump was presented with military options to strike Iran's primary nuclear site in late 2020. This briefing occurred as the Trump administration was in its final weeks and while Iran was grappling with significant internal protests.
The High-Stakes Briefing in the Oval Office
According to the detailed report, the pivotal meeting took place in the Oval Office. Top advisors, including Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the acting defence secretary Christopher C. Miller, and General Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were present. The discussion centred on a response to a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which indicated that Iran's stockpile of nuclear material had increased significantly.
During this high-level meeting, President Trump directly asked his advisors about the potential for a military strike on Iran's major nuclear facility, Natanz. The officials reportedly outlined several possible courses of action. However, they strongly advised against an unprovoked attack, warning that such a move could easily escalate into a broader regional conflict. The advisors cautioned that a strike might lead to a dangerous confrontation and would likely be opposed by key US allies and partners.
Context: Protests and a Transition of Power
This military briefing was not happening in a vacuum. At the very same time, Iran was witnessing widespread protests following a substantial increase in government-set petrol prices. The internal unrest had turned violent, with reports of security forces cracking down on demonstrators. The Trump administration, which had pursued a "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran, was also in its final phase, having lost the November 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden.
The New York Times report suggests that President Trump ultimately decided against ordering an immediate strike. He was reportedly concerned about the risks of triggering a larger war. Nevertheless, he instructed his team to ensure that the Pentagon maintained the readiness to execute such an operation if he decided to proceed at a later time. This left the option on the table during the volatile transition period.
Potential Consequences and Strategic Implications
The revelation of this briefing sheds light on the precarious nature of US-Iran relations during that period. A decision to launch a military strike on a sovereign nation's nuclear facility would have had profound and far-reaching consequences.
Such an action could have derailed any future diplomatic efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It would have almost certainly provoked a severe retaliation from Iran, potentially targeting US assets or allies in the Middle East. The region, already unstable, could have been plunged into a new cycle of violence and conflict, with global economic implications, particularly for oil markets.
The report underscores the immense power vested in the office of the US President and the critical role of advisors in presenting balanced assessments of risk. The fact that senior military and civilian leaders advocated restraint highlights the complex calculations involved in matters of war and peace.
This news also arrives as the current Biden administration continues its delicate diplomatic engagement with Iran, aiming to find a path back to compliance with the nuclear agreement. The legacy of the "maximum pressure" policy and the shadow of potential military action continue to influence the geopolitical landscape between the two nations.
