The Trump administration's waffling on military strikes in Iran raises several key questions about its approach to foreign policy. The president's initial threat of strikes following a brutal crackdown on protesters has since given way to more ambiguous language, with him suggesting that the violence had ended and that the US would "watch and see" if it resumed.
One possible reason for this shift is that Trump's national security team is split on whether to intervene, but the president himself feels an obligation to follow through on his threats in order to preserve his credibility. This is reminiscent of Barack Obama's decision in 2013 not to take military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria after Assad had killed hundreds of civilians with chemical weapons.
The situation in Iran has become increasingly complex, with the protests spreading throughout the country and the regime's crackdown becoming more brutal. Human rights groups estimate that between 12,000 and 20,000 people may have been killed. The US intervention could either bring down the regime or create new problems.
If Syria is seen as the Obama precedent for intervening in a humanitarian crisis, Libya serves as the cautionary tale. The US-led NATO air campaign intervened to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, which led to the overthrow of Muammar al-Qaddafi's despotic regime but also Libya's descent into civil war and chaos.
The effectiveness of military intervention is still an open question. Trump has rarely claimed victory when it was politically inconvenient, regardless of the facts on the ground. If the violence in Iran is subsiding, it may give him an out to claim a win without actually intervening.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the risk that Trump's calls for Iranians to "keep protesting" motivated them to take to the streets despite the risk of death or imprisonment. This raises questions about whether the US is truly committed to supporting democratic movements abroad.
The situation in Iran is still far from over, and intervention remains a possibility. The people of Iran would hardly be the first to rise up against an autocratic government with America's encouragement, only to find that there are limits to how far the US was actually willing to go to support them.
One possible reason for this shift is that Trump's national security team is split on whether to intervene, but the president himself feels an obligation to follow through on his threats in order to preserve his credibility. This is reminiscent of Barack Obama's decision in 2013 not to take military action against Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria after Assad had killed hundreds of civilians with chemical weapons.
The situation in Iran has become increasingly complex, with the protests spreading throughout the country and the regime's crackdown becoming more brutal. Human rights groups estimate that between 12,000 and 20,000 people may have been killed. The US intervention could either bring down the regime or create new problems.
If Syria is seen as the Obama precedent for intervening in a humanitarian crisis, Libya serves as the cautionary tale. The US-led NATO air campaign intervened to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya, which led to the overthrow of Muammar al-Qaddafi's despotic regime but also Libya's descent into civil war and chaos.
The effectiveness of military intervention is still an open question. Trump has rarely claimed victory when it was politically inconvenient, regardless of the facts on the ground. If the violence in Iran is subsiding, it may give him an out to claim a win without actually intervening.
Perhaps most concerning, however, is the risk that Trump's calls for Iranians to "keep protesting" motivated them to take to the streets despite the risk of death or imprisonment. This raises questions about whether the US is truly committed to supporting democratic movements abroad.
The situation in Iran is still far from over, and intervention remains a possibility. The people of Iran would hardly be the first to rise up against an autocratic government with America's encouragement, only to find that there are limits to how far the US was actually willing to go to support them.
like, what's the deal? are they trying to provoke a situation or just looking for an excuse to back down altogether? 
i mean, on one hand, it's not uncommon for presidents to try and maintain their image of toughness, but at what cost? the people of iran deserve better than to be caught in the middle of a power struggle between the US and the regime. 
and can we talk about how concerning it is that trump is essentially egging them on to keep protesting? 
isn't that just asking for more bloodshed and chaos? 
anyway, gotta stay tuned to see what happens next... 
, either he's gonna stand strong or he's gonna chicken out 
... i mean, if the protests r really dying down, maybe it's better 4 him 2 call it a win and move on 
but at the same time, the ppl in iran r still countin on us 2 b there 4 them 
, it feels like he's just checkin out of this situation 
... btw, i'm kinda worried about these human rights group estimates - 12k to 20k ppl killed is just crazy 
I gotta say, Trump's all over the place on this one... Like, what's good with "watch and see" if you're gonna do something? And don't even get me started on how much of a credibility killer it is if he doesn't follow through. It's like Obama didn't intervene in Syria back in 2013 because Trump didn't want to be seen as a "warmonger"... 
. You know, back in 2003 when we were hoping for a quick win and instead got stuck in a war that lasted for years? It's crazy how history keeps repeating itself, right? And now with Trump and Iran, it's like déjà vu... but with a lot more deaths on the ground 
and btw, where's the proof that iran's protests have actually slowed down? i'm not buying it until i see some credible sources backing up these claims... 
It's just so cynical, and I don't think that's the kind of leadership we need right now.