Senior U.S. advisers have warned President Trump that a large-scale strike on Iran is unlikely to achieve regime change and could instead trigger broader conflict, according to reporting by U.S. outlets cited by Chinese state media. The counsel reflects a debate inside Washington over whether military action would deliver a swift, decisive outcome or merely invite prolonged retaliation from Tehran and its regional proxies.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly urged President Trump by phone to delay any strike, seeking more time to prepare for possible Iranian reprisals and expressing doubts that attacks limited to security targets would substantially degrade Iran’s ability to retaliate. Regional U.S. partners, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have also lobbied against immediate military action, fearing escalation across the Middle East.
Despite cautionary voices, U.S. forces are being repositioned to expand options: news outlets report the dispatch of at least one aircraft carrier and additional missile-defence systems to the region. Administration officials say they want any military move to be ‘‘quick and decisive’’ rather than the start of a protracted war, underscoring an appetite for limited, measurable operations rather than occupation or regime change.
The debate exposes a core strategic problem. Regime change in Tehran, unlike a single military target, would require sustained pressure, governance plans and acceptable post-conflict arrangements — elements the U.S. appears unwilling to commit to. Conversely, restrained strikes risk incentivising asymmetric retaliation by Iran through proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, or by direct missile and drone attacks on U.S. and allied assets.
For regional capitals and global markets, the stakes are immediate. A miscalculated strike could disrupt oil flows, unsettle neighbouring states, and draw NATO partners into difficult political choices. For Washington, the dilemma pits short-term military signals against long-term strategic costs: tactical strikes may provide political cover, but they do not erase the challenge of containing an adversary with deep regional networks and resilient command structures.
The unfolding deliberations also reveal strains within the U.S.-Israel relationship and among Gulf allies, who must weigh the security benefits of confronting Tehran against the economic and humanitarian costs of wider conflict. As forces reposition and diplomats lobby, the next decisions will determine whether pressure produces de-escalation and diplomacy, or a spiral of tit-for-tat attacks with unpredictable consequences.