As tensions between the United States and Iran reach a critical point, experts are evaluating three possible scenarios for a potential American military strike. President Donald Trump has set a deadline of 10 to 15 days for Iran to negotiate, while massive US naval and air forces are positioned in the region, making some form of military action increasingly likely according to Danish defense analysts.
Three Scenarios for Military Action
International media outlets have reported multiple timelines for a potential US strike against Iran in recent days. Trump himself has given Iran between 10 and 15 days to decide whether to continue negotiations or face military consequences. Two Danish experts now outline three possible scenarios for how the conflict could unfold, ranging from a large-scale offensive to no attack at all.
The Massive Air Campaign
Since early January, the United States has significantly increased its military presence around Iran under Trump’s leadership. Two aircraft carriers, the Abraham Lincoln and the George Ford, are now positioned in the region, accompanied by a large number of American military aircraft and smaller vessels. Most experts agree that any potential attack would likely involve US air strikes against Iran rather than ground troops.
David Vestenskov, chief consultant at the Center for Stabilization Efforts at the Royal Danish Defence College, finds this scenario highly plausible. The massive American military buildup suggests preparations for a major operation targeting multiple objectives simultaneously. These could include nuclear sites at Iran’s atomic facilities, but particularly strikes against Iran’s missile program, he explains.
Why Iran Is Vulnerable Now
Morten Valbjørn, a lecturer at the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University specializing in Middle Eastern politics, notes that Iran is more weakened now than in recent memory. The regime’s former ally Bashar al-Assad in Syria has been toppled, while militant groups Hamas and Hizbollah have been significantly degraded after years of conflict. Most importantly, Iran’s economy continues to deteriorate, sparking nationwide protests that spread across the country in January.
This presents what some view as a golden opportunity to overthrow a regime that has been a thorn in America’s side since 1979, Valbjørn explains. The combination of economic collapse, internal unrest, and the loss of key regional allies has left Iran’s clerical government more isolated and vulnerable than at any point in recent decades.
Risks of Large Scale Intervention
However, a major attack carries significant risks that argue against executing it, both experts acknowledge. The outcome of an Iranian retaliatory strike against either American bases in the region or against Israel, a close US ally, remains unpredictable. Additionally, such an attack could create an unmanageable situation throughout the region that could quickly spiral beyond American control.
Gulf states have long attempted to dissuade the US from a large attack, as it is decidedly not in their interests, Valbjørn notes. Furthermore, the historical lesson remains clear: it is always easier to topple a regime than to establish a new one. An attack could also affect oil production and sales from these same Gulf states, potentially impacting global markets and ultimately the American economy, which would circle back to Trump’s own MAGA base.
The Buildup Demands Action
Despite these considerable risks, both experts struggle to envision such a massive American military buildup without some form of attack following. Trump promised to end America’s involvement in endless wars that cost American lives and enormous sums of money. Yet the deployment of two carrier strike groups and dozens of advanced fighter aircraft signals serious intent. This leads to the second scenario.
Targeted Strike Options
When discussing a smaller, more targeted attack, two distinct possibilities emerge. The first would attempt to overthrow the clerical regime through a strike against Iran’s supreme religious leader, the ayatollah, and his inner circle. This would resemble the operation the US conducted in Venezuela in early January that removed President Nicolás Maduro from power.
Decapitation Strike Challenges
The problem with this approach, according to Valbjørn, is that it could plunge Iran into an uncontrollable situation afterward. The military, specifically the Revolutionary Guard, might simply seize power. Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah, has also been mentioned as a potential new or interim leader if the clerical regime falls. However, the fear remains of chaos with separatist groups and civil war that would not only devastate Iran’s civilian population but also destabilize the entire region.
These consequences would almost certainly not be worth a strike against the ayatollah, Vestenskov points out. This is particularly true because it is not the ayatollah but rather the Revolutionary Guard that holds real power in the country. Therefore, any gain would be purely symbolic, while the US would face significant international criticism.
Military Targets More Likely
The second and more probable option for a limited strike would target military objectives in Iran. During its attack on Iran last June, the US hit three of Iran’s nuclear storage facilities, and Trump announced that the country’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons had been completely eliminated. That is probably not the case, given that he is once again seeking to negotiate a nuclear agreement, Vestenskov observes.
Possible targets could include nuclear facilities, but also Iran’s missile program or a factory producing these missiles. A smaller attack could provide an easier exit strategy now that the Americans have built up such substantial military capacity that needs to be used for something, Vestenskov suggests. At the same time, it could serve as a way to pressure the Iranians in subsequent negotiations, Valbjørn adds. While the first scenario would represent a military conclusion to the conflict, the second scenario might be used to give Americans an advantage in a new round of negotiations.
Symbolic Strikes and Pressure
This approach would allow the United States to demonstrate resolve without committing to a full-scale military campaign. A strike against key missile production facilities could significantly degrade Iran’s conventional military capabilities while avoiding the chaos of regime change. It would also send a clear message to Tehran that Trump’s threats carry real consequences.
The strategy resembles pressure tactics used in previous Middle Eastern conflicts, where limited strikes aimed to bring adversaries to the negotiating table on more favorable terms. However, Iran has historically shown little willingness to make concessions under military pressure, making the effectiveness of this approach uncertain.
The Diplomatic Path Forward
A third scenario exists where Donald Trump might not attack Iran at all. On Tuesday, delegations from Iran and the US met for negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland. No breakthrough emerged, but the parties agreed on guiding principles for a future agreement, according to subsequent statements.
The Missile Sticking Point
However, both Vestenskov and Valbjørn find the prospects for a future agreement difficult to envision. There is one point on which the two countries will find it extremely difficult to reach consensus: missiles. The Americans enter negotiations with three demands for Iran: limitations on the country’s nuclear program, an end to connections with militant movements like Hamas in Gaza, Hizbollah in Lebanon, and Houthi in Yemen, and restrictions on the Iranian missile program.
Iran will likely be willing to negotiate on the nuclear program because it has been so damaged after the US attacks last summer, Valbjørn explains. The same applies to connections with militant groups, which are otherwise Iran’s allies. Iran can easily compromise here because they lack the economy to funnel money to these groups anyway.
Iran’s Last Line of Defense
Then comes the missiles, the point that according to Vestenskov makes scenario three the least likely. If Iran gives up its missile program, it effectively has no defense left. This amounts to de facto surrender. Iran will therefore most likely only agree to a nuclear deal, the same kind of agreement that then-President Barack Obama reached with Iran in 2015 but which Trump withdrew the US from in 2018 because he believed it was not comprehensive enough.
This makes it difficult to see where these negotiations can lead, and both American and Iranian sides likely share this view, Vestenskov notes. The insurmountable obstacle in negotiations, combined with the fact that the US has already built up such massive military forces, leads experts to believe most strongly in some form of attack that could potentially lead to new negotiations.
Regional Stability at Risk
The diplomatic impasse reflects fundamental differences in strategic priorities. For the United States and Israel, Iran’s missile arsenal represents an immediate threat to regional allies and American bases throughout the Middle East. For Iran, these missiles constitute the primary deterrent against the overwhelming conventional military superiority of potential adversaries. Without them, Tehran would be vulnerable to coercion or attack with limited means of response.
These are interesting times, but sometimes it is better to live in boring times, Valbjørn concludes. The statement captures the anxiety many observers feel as diplomatic options narrow and military preparations continue. Whether Trump ultimately follows through on his threats or opts for continued negotiations remains uncertain, but the window for a peaceful resolution appears to be closing rapidly.
Sources and References
TV2: Er Trump ved at trykke på knappen? Her er tre scenarier for et angreb i Iran
