Trump Weighs Restrained Military Options Amid Iran’s Brutal Protest Crackdown
By Perplexity News Staff
Washington, D.C. – President Donald Trump faces a narrow array of military responses to Iran’s escalating crackdown on widespread protests, with U.S. officials emphasizing precision strikes, cyberattacks, and economic pressure over large-scale invasions.[1][2]
Massive demonstrations have gripped Iran since December, fueled by staggering inflation and dissatisfaction with government policies. Security forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Basij militia, have responded with lethal force, killing up to 2,000 protesters according to human rights groups. Protests continued for a third consecutive night as of Saturday, with hundreds of thousands participating amid an internet blackout imposed by the regime.[1][3]
Trump has ramped up his rhetoric in response. In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, he warned Iran’s ‘killers and abusers’ within the regime that they ‘will pay a big price.’ Earlier, on Monday, he threatened a 25% tariff on any country doing business with Iran involving the U.S. Aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump revealed that Iranian officials had contacted him over the weekend to negotiate, hinting at a potential meeting – though he suggested action might precede talks due to the ongoing violence.[1][2]
Limited Military Toolkit: Airstrikes and Cyber Operations Preferred
Experts and former officials outline a menu of restrained options designed to avoid boots-on-the-ground commitments. Retired three-star Admiral John Miller, who once commanded U.S. Navy forces in the Middle East, downplayed the need for a massive troop buildup in the Gulf. Instead, he anticipates ‘global strike missions’ from U.S. bases or assets rapidly deployed to the region, targeting ‘centers of gravity for the regime’ such as command bunkers, military sites, and communications nodes.[1]
This approach echoes a June incident when Trump ordered American bombers to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities after flying across the Atlantic – a model for quick, decisive action without sustained presence.[1]
ABC News reports that Trump’s desk likely holds plans ranging from large-scale attacks to targeted strikes on specific leaders or police infrastructure blamed for protest deaths. Cyberattacks against the government and online ‘influence operations’ to amplify protesters’ voices are also in play.[2]
Mick Mulroy, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, expects any strikes to zero in on regime elements oppressing demonstrators, like the Basij forces. ‘We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts,’ he said, explicitly ruling out ground troops.[2]
Axios sources confirm that while military action is discussed, most options remain ‘not kinetic.’ Deterrent moves, such as deploying an aircraft carrier strike group, cyberattacks, and information ops are under evaluation. One U.S. official stressed: ‘All options are on the table for President Trump, but no decision has been made.'[3]
Congressional Caution and Non-Military Alternatives
Even Trump’s Republican allies in Congress express wariness about escalation. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) stated, ‘It’s not for us to invade Iran, it’s to protect the Iranian people. We’re not going to commit boots on the ground.’ Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) advocated ‘non-kinetic solutions’ like intensified sanctions on Iran’s energy and banking sectors, coordinated with allies.[1]
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) confirmed they haven’t been briefed on potential strikes.[1] New sanctions targeting key regime figures are also under consideration.[2]
Behind the scenes, administration meetings have explored protest support, but some worry major military moves could inadvertently bolster the regime by rallying nationalists. Intelligence assessments are assessing strike impacts on potential regime change.[2][3]
Iran’s Defiance and Regional Risks
Iran accuses Trump of inciting the unrest, claiming the U.S. and Israel are behind ‘imported rioters.’ President Masoud Pezeshkian warned of retaliation against U.S. bases and Israel if attacked, while pledging to address economic woes sparking the protests.[3]
The volatile mix raises fears of broader conflict. A direct U.S. strike could provoke Iranian proxies or missile barrages, though officials bet on calibrated responses to weaken the regime without full war. Trump’s history – from the Soleimani strike to nuclear site bombings – suggests he’s willing to act unilaterally, but congressional reluctance and protest dynamics may steer toward hybrid measures.[1][2]
Protests’ Momentum and U.S. Strategy
Tehran sources and U.S./Israeli officials report escalating demonstrations, with security forces intensifying crackdowns. An Israeli defense official estimated hundreds of thousands protesting recently.[3]
Trump’s team must balance support for Iranians without derailing their uprising. Non-invasive tools like online amplification and tariffs could sustain pressure, buying time for diplomacy. Yet, if killings mount, Trump’s vow of a ‘big price’ may demand action.[1][2][3]
As deliberations continue, the world watches whether Trump opts for surgical pressure or holds back, amid a death toll climbing and a regime fighting for survival.
This article synthesizes reports from Politico, ABC News, and Axios as of January 2026.