Is it real? Experts split on Trump’s Iran strike threat

Shafaq News/ US President Donald Trump has reignited tensions with Tehran, vowing to consider military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails—comments that have triggered sharp divisions among American policy experts.

In a televised interview, Trump declared he would “definitely” weigh military options should Iran refuse to curb its nuclear ambitions. His remarks come amid renewed negotiations—considered the most serious since Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during Trump’s first term.

Trump has long criticized the JCPOA as ineffective, expanding sanctions under his administration’s “maximum pressure” policy to limit Tehran’s nuclear and regional activities.

In an exclusive interview with Shafaq News, Ivan Sascha Sheehan, Associate Dean of the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore, described Trump’s posture as “highly unpredictable,” yet emphasized the seriousness of the military threat, stating, “The president has declared that he would use decisive military force against the Islamic Republic and I take him at his word.”

He projected that any potential strike would rely heavily on airpower rather than ground forces and could be accompanied by support for Iran’s pro-democracy opposition and covert operations inside the country. “Tehran has long feared internal dissent will metastasize to bring about regime change from within,” he warned, suggesting that plans for such a scenario may be taking shape for the summer.

Sheehan also flagged growing pressure from Congress to ensure any future agreement includes complete nuclear disarmament and full verification of non-enrichment in discussions with Tehran. “Anything short of this will engender criticism in Washington.”

“With Iran beset with rampant inflation, the rial in free fall, unemployment rising, and fierce discontent on the Iranian street, all the warning signs are blinking red for the regime,” the associate dean added, pointing out that organized opposition groups—such as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (Mojahedin-e-Khalq) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran—are increasingly positioned to offer “an alternative to theocratic rule.”

However, Analyst Samir al-Taqi of the Middle East Center in Washington rejected the likelihood of a US military strike, arguing, “What comes after? A strike won’t dismantle the program—it could legitimize it.”

Al-Taqi emphasized to Shafaq News that Iran’s scientific capability renders the program virtually irreversible, cautioning that an attack might accelerate nuclear development rather than halt it. “Trump’s remarks are media posturing, not a serious strategic roadmap”.

Offering a broader regional perspective, former Northwestern University professor Mohieddin Qassar told Shafaq News that neither the US nor Israel appears ready to launch a sustained military campaign, observing, “I don’t believe the Trump administration is in a position to open a new front in the Middle East—even a limited one.”

“If Israel acts, it will act alone.”

Qassar acknowledged Israel’s ability to carry out precise strikes but stressed that such an operation would likely still require US intelligence and logistical support. “And once the bombing ends, who controls the fallout?”

He also dismissed claims that Iran seeks to use nuclear weapons against Israel, labeling such narratives as politically convenient myths. “The Iranian regime thrives on external threats to justify internal repression.”

The professor warned that Iran’s influence in countries like Iraq and Lebanon serves more as political leverage than ideological warfare. “The idea of an all-out religious conflict between Iran and Israel is largely a media illusion.”

“In reality, these regimes often weaponize hostile rhetoric to advance domestic agendas.”

For Shafaq News, Mostafa Hashem, Washington, D.C.