The USS Lincoln, which has long been just a name in foreign news for most Iranians, no longer seems like a distant floating airbase after two weeks of killings and repression in Iran. This hundred-thousand-ton giant with its strike group has now become a moving question mark for many, and its course change is being closely monitored. Will Donald Trump's promise of 'help on the way' soon materialize?
With internet access cut off, limited information is coming out of Iran. It is believed that street protests have largely subsided after the government's bloody crackdown, but tensions outside the country's borders continue, and some analysts still consider action from the U.S. likely.
Two former senior U.S. Defense Department officials, in an interview with BBC Persian, describe the twists and turns of decision-making within the Pentagon and the National Security Council at the White House, stating that the search for practical options in Washington continues earnestly. According to them, what seems to be 'a change in the U.S. President's view regarding military support for protesters' is more tied to real limitations on any military action, internal government rifts, and the unconventional and personal style of the U.S. President.
Based on these assessments, the U.S. security and military apparatus is grappling with difficult questions. 'Uncertainty about what will happen the day after an attack' and America's historical failures in engineering or 'predicting the political outcome of military actions' in the region are just part of the questions facing military advisors in Washington.
They emphasize that with the absence of protesters on the streets and 'no provocative actions from Tehran,' military action will be difficult and challenging for Washington, although Donald Trump's decision-making style has shown that the tide can turn at any moment.
From the E-Ring to the Oval Office; Searching for the Golden Option
Two minutes before 3 a.m. on Friday, January 2, the Pentagon was finalizing a raid on the Venezuelan Presidential Palace to capture 'Nicolas Maduro' when suddenly another important mission came up.
Donald Trump announced in a few lines the 'ready and loaded gun' of Washington in support of Iranian protesters in the event of government killings. A new mission was defined in the outermost wall of the Pentagon, known as the E-Ring, which houses the offices of senior decision-makers.
The mission aimed to deliver intelligence assessments, operational scenarios, and cost-benefit analyses of options before the President to 'Mark Esper,' the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
According to U.S. media, less than 36 hours after Trump's statement, the first draft of this file was on the President's desk; a draft that highlighted a fundamental problem: there is no U.S. aircraft carrier in the region. In the event of any significant attack on Iran and subsequent retaliation from Tehran, the existing military posture in the Gulf would not provide an unbroken defensive shield for U.S. bases and allies against a flood of Iranian missiles. The meeting on Saturday night ended without a final decision, allowing options to be reviewed at leisure.
When I asked Mara Karlin, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, 'Didn’t the President know there was no aircraft carrier in the Gulf?' she replied, 'The President may not have paid much attention to this, but rest assured those advising him from the Defense Department have emphasized this issue. A big question likely has been what the United States and the President aim to achieve. Trump has shown that whenever he considers military options, his use is very short and with very specific and limited goals.' Therefore, 'one can imagine that if military advisors told him that we do not have sufficient force in the region and even if we attack, the outcome is uncertain, the President might think to himself that now is not the time for such action.'
The accounts of military officials and key figures from Trump's first term, such as General Frank McKenzie, former CENTCOM commander, and John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor, indicate that the Pentagon has had detailed and repeatedly revised plans for its classic scenarios, such as attacking Iran's nuclear facilities or military bases and oil infrastructure, for years; plans that consider everything from the type of munitions to flight paths and legal and political consequences.
Nevertheless, a former high-ranking Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous, tells the BBC that given the unprecedented nature of Trump's decision in response to recent bloody crackdowns on protesters, 'there is not necessarily a ready plan' for action against Iran, and part of the work must be redefined from scratch. According to him, if the President calls for military action to 'support the protesters,' the first question in the Pentagon is not the type of bomb, but the President's political goal: 'Is it just to send a warning message to Tehran and increase the cost of repression, or is the goal to weaken the security structure and even change the regime?'
Another complexity is that the President's military advisors know he is an unconventional President who does not necessarily follow the usual political patterns in Washington. The answer to this question distinguishes between the scenario of a symbolic attack on empty buildings or militia headquarters and the much riskier scenario of targeting the top of the power hierarchy, such as Ayatollah Khamenei.
Ms. Karlin states, 'There is currently a serious search for options underway. The question is what options are available and what each could achieve. It is difficult to imagine a superficial and apparent action. Therefore, on one hand, President Trump and his team are weighing whether to take a symbolic and striking action or to do nothing at all.'
The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense points to another problem that some U.S. media have referred to as 'Trump's search for an option with a 100 percent guaranteed outcome.' She says, 'I have yet to see a military option with a 100 percent guarantee. There is always a certain level of unavoidable risk and danger.'
Any discussion of 'military options' in Washington immediately brings the issue of Iran's retaliation to the table. According to a former Pentagon official, Iran still possesses hundreds of ballistic missiles, and dozens of U.S. bases with nearly 30,000 American troops in the region are within range of these missiles. He recalls that during the days when discussions of a more serious attack were escalating, the absence of an aircraft carrier in the region was 'both dangerous and strange' for some planners; because the carrier and its accompanying strike group play a significant role in missile defense and conflict management.
Recommendations to the President in Washington encompass a range of options. From military action and regime change to seizing oil tankers and sanctions, cyberattacks, communication assistance, or dramatic covert operations, similar to capturing the Venezuelan President,
This former Pentagon official states that if the final option is a 'very dramatic' attack targeting the Iranian leader, the assessment is that Tehran will seek a 'proportional' and very heavy response. A response that, without a missile defense umbrella and serious preparations, could come at a heavy cost for U.S. forces and bases. He notes that conversely, a limited attack on empty buildings or some militia centers or the Ministry of Intelligence, especially at night, could send a political message to Tehran while simultaneously reducing the likelihood of a severe Iranian reaction, but it would not change the balance of power between protesters and the government.
On the other hand, the puzzle of 'the day after the attack' also occupies the minds of many advisors.
In the spring of 2003, George Bush, the U.S. President, announced the successful completion of the Iraq war mission aboard the USS Lincoln. However, this war lasted another seven years and cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers.
The history of conflicts between Iran and the U.S., whether it was the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the former commander of the Quds Force, or during the twelve-day war, has shown that Iran generally seeks to respond either with 'proportional retaliation' or to reserve its right to retaliate.
According to a former Pentagon official, with the relative subsiding of protesters' street presence, the movement of the Lincoln toward the Persian Gulf may ultimately serve more as a tool to preserve options and send deterrent signals to Tehran, and even continue the maximum pressure policy by threatening Iran's oil resources to draw Iran back to the negotiating table. But will the U.S. undertake such an action without the intention of attacking when the operational cost of a ship like the Lincoln is estimated at $5.5 million to over $8 million daily, depending on the mission?
Mara Karlin states, 'If people are not in the streets, it becomes very difficult; and that is the challenge. The carrier strike group is likely to arrive in the region by mid-next week, and perhaps if the situation appears calm and people are not on the scene, the Lincoln will remain in the region for deterrence or will move and go elsewhere.'
What seems certain so far is Trump's unconventionality in his decisions. During the twelve-day war, he initially stated that the U.S. would not participate in an attack on Iran but suddenly ordered an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Over the past year, according to the non-profit organization 'Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project' (ACLED), the U.S. has conducted at least 626 airstrikes in various countries, including Somalia, Iran, Yemen, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, and Syria, all with the approval of the U.S. President.
Mara Karlin states, 'We are not dealing with a secret right now; this is a mystery. This is what makes the situation very difficult because in a more traditional presidency, you better understand when the government is willing to use military force and when it refrains from doing so. But regarding President Trump, everything is very uncertain, and understanding it is really difficult.'