Iran Protests: Trump Threatens Military Action But It Won't Get Him the Result He Wants
Analyst Trita Parsi lays out three different ways the US and Israel could attack Iran, the potentially disastrous consequences, and how the Iranian people are not the priority for DC or Tel Aviv.
Trita Parsi
Jan 2, 2026
Zeteo
https://zeteo.com/p/iran-protests-trump-threatens-military
Just hours ago, President Donald Trump sent an extraordinary and unprecedented social media post – threatening Iran with war if Tehran harms its own protesters.
Last weekend, protests erupted in several Iranian cities over Iran’s collapsing currency. In some cases, clampdown by the authorities turned deadly, with at least seven people reportedly killed in the unrest. As the protests have spread to more cities, concerns have heightened that Iranian authorities could respond with the kind of intense, violent crackdown seen in the past.
Trump’s post, delivered without a clear strategic rationale, was striking not for its clarity but for its contradiction: the same leader who repeatedly promised to end regime-change operations abroad now appears to be flirting with the very kind of interventionist brinkmanship he once condemned.
Whether Trump is bluffing or not remains to be seen. But if he is seriously contemplating military action, three plausible scenarios present themselves.
First, he could authorize limited strikes on remote Iranian military installations – either to demonstrate action or as the opening move on an escalation ladder. Second, he could attempt a regime decapitation strategy, targeting senior decision-makers in Tehran. Third, he could support an Israeli attack on Iran, allowing Israel to activate preexisting war plans under the pretext of protecting Iranian protesters and enforcing Trump’s threats.
All options are far more likely to lead to war than to the collapse of the Iranian regime.
A limited strike on military installations would almost certainly have minimal impact on the protests themselves. In relative terms, it would also carry the lowest risk of escalation – if Trump could successfully coordinate the attack with Tehran. That would require signaling the targets in advance, allowing Iran to evacuate personnel, followed by a symbolic Iranian retaliation against an empty American base. Such tacit arrangements have occurred before and have, so far, succeeded in preventing wider conflict. But there is no guarantee they would work again. Even under the best circumstances, this is a high-risk, low-reward gamble.
The second scenario would mirror the opening phase of Israel’s operation last June: a campaign of targeted assassinations aimed at collapsing the regime or, at a minimum, igniting mass protests until it falls. Senior Iranian officials would be killed – alongside family members and an untold number of civilians living nearby.
In June, Israel succeeded in assassinating roughly 30 high-ranking military leaders of the Islamic Republic. Yet the campaign failed to topple the regime or trigger a popular uprising.
As the Washington Post reported, Mossad agents even called senior Iranian officials, threatening to kill them and their families unless they publicly defected. More than 20 officials were contacted. Not a single one complied. Nor did the targeting of the regime’s leadership translate into mass resistance. In short, Israel failed to capitalize on the Iranian government’s broader unpopularity and the chaos its initial attack had created.
What the campaign did produce was a ferocious Iranian missile response that forced Israel to seek a ceasefire after just nine days – an outcome that stands in stark contrast to Israel’s refusal to voluntarily agree to ceasefires in Gaza or Lebanon. According to sources, on the final day of fighting, Iran’s missile penetration rate reached 63%, meaning most missiles pierced Israel’s air defense systems.
Would an American-led decapitation campaign fare better? US firepower is unquestionably superior to that of both Israel and Iran. And the fact that protesters are already in the streets across multiple Iranian cities may tempt Trump to believe the odds are improved. He is also being urged forward by the same neoconservative figures who championed the Iraq War and are now openly advocating regime change in Iran.
But even if such an intervention were to succeed – and that is a very big if – it would not happen quickly. In the meantime, Trump would face unprecedented escalation. Iran, which has consistently sought to avoid a full-scale confrontation with the United States, would likely conclude that restraint is no longer an option and strike back forcefully. A far more plausible outcome is the same one Israel faced: a costly war, widespread destruction, and no regime collapse.
The third scenario would see Trump step aside while Israel takes the lead, using the protests and Trump’s threats as justification for launching a war it had already planned after failing to achieve its objectives last June. Israel would frame its assault not around Iran’s nuclear or missile programs, but as an effort to defend Iranian protesters.
That framing would be designed to generate international sympathy while portraying Israel as assisting Trump rather than dragging the United States into another conflict. It would be aimed at putting Trump’s “America First” base on the defensive – a base that includes many who have been furious at Israel’s repeated attempts to pull the US into new wars.
This path would almost certainly lead to a second Israeli-Iranian war. But Tehran’s strategy would likely differ from last June. Sustained Israeli strikes would amount to the familiar “mowing the grass” approach Israel employs in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria – periodic bombing campaigns intended to prevent adversaries from developing capabilities that challenge Israeli dominance.
Iran, however, is unlikely to accept that role. To dispel any illusion that it can be treated like Gaza or Lebanon, Tehran would likely strike hard and early. If those attacks produce high Israeli casualties, pressure on Trump to intervene would become overwhelming. Once again, the likely outcome would be the same: no speedy regime collapse, a destabilized region, and the United States dragged into yet another war.
What is most striking with Trump’s shifting Iran policy is not any single threat or online post, but the pattern behind them. At every critical juncture, Trump has edged closer to Israel’s preferred position. First, he adopted Israel’s zero-enrichment demand – an absolutist stance that guaranteed diplomatic deadlock and helped doom his earlier negotiations. Then, earlier this week, he broadened the confrontation from Iran’s nuclear program to its missile capabilities. Now, he has shifted yet again, invoking street protests as a new justification for war, while Israeli officials actively urge ordinary Iranians to take to the streets.
This is the opposite of his professed “America First” doctrine. Israel has long sought a war with Iran, having failed to neutralize Tehran through limited strikes or covert operations. Instead of defining and defending US interests – above all, avoiding another regional war – Trump is allowing American policy to be pulled along by Israeli priorities. Each shift brings him further from diplomacy and closer to confrontation, even as the rationale for escalation grows thinner.
Needless to say, the Iranian people will not benefit from any of this. Their welfare is not the concern of either Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu, who is knee deep in blood from the genocide he has conducted for more than two years in Gaza. What Israel seeks in Iran is not regime change in any meaningful sense, but the weakening and fragmentation of the Iranian state itself. The goal is prolonged destabilization: to strip Iran of its ability to project power in the region and, in doing so, eliminate any serious challenge to Israel’s hegemonic designs.
The last thing Israel wants is a genuinely democratic Iran. Israeli leaders understand that an Iranian government that truly represents its people would neither accept Israeli dominance nor pursue friendly relations with a state that has attacked it unprovoked.
Trita Parsi is the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute and an award-winning author. Read more of his writing on his Substack.