Analysis: Decoding Trump's Iran strategy - CNN

As the US moves more firepower into the Persian Gulf than those waters have seen since the war in Iraq, diplomats, generals and intelligence officers around the world trade guesses on what President Donald Trump is thinking.

In his State of the Union on Tuesday, Trump offered his highest-profile explanation of why he is amassing US military assets around Iran, saying his goal is to ensure the country not obtain a nuclear weapon. But he stopped short of providing a full accounting of his strategic objective in threatening Tehran with war.

“They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words: We will never have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said during a relatively short section of his speech on Iran. He said again his preference was to pursue diplomacy.

Iran, in fact, has stated clearly it is not pursuing a nuclear bomb.

The White House hasn’t spelled out its aims in terms of specific demands, red lines, or the tipping point that might trigger a series of air strikes. So what is Trump asking for, and what is he willing to give in return? When I put this question to a former colleague from the US intelligence community, he put it bluntly: Trump is not asking Iran to give up anything it currently has, and in return he is willing to give Iran almost everything it doesn’t have.

Wait, what?

Think about it this way.

First, Trump is asking the Iranian regime to not rebuild an aspirational nuclear weapons program that it was getting closer to achieving. When Israel, and the US, claimed to have obliterated key nuclear enrichment sites last June, the Iranian vision for a nuclear weapons program became much further out of reach.

Second, Iran has long been suspected by US intelligence to be developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program that, if achieved, would present an Iranian threat to a much larger reach than the Middle East. Iran’s ICBM program would provide platforms to carry nuclear warheads across the globe, according to US Defense Intelligence Agency estimates. The development of that program would have to stop.

Third, Iran has worked for years through its elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to recruit, train and supply a network of terrorist and insurgent groups it calls the “Axis of Resistance.” This includes the massive Hezbollah terrorist network, severely damaged by Israeli strikes and assassinations during the Hamas conflict, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran would have to commit not to rebuild that broken network.

For the supreme leader, on the face of it, the nuclear weapons and ICBM programs and the now-broken-up proxy fighters are all things the regime doesn’t currently have. If Iran were to agree not to regenerate those threats, Trump and his negotiators have all but said that crushing economic sanctions would be lifted, that Iran’s status as a pariah would fade away, and that opportunities for growth would come in ways that would benefit the regime and the Iranian people.

Iran says it’s not pursuing nuclear bomb

Just on Tuesday, the country’s foreign minister stated explicitly that Tehran was not pursuing a nuclear bomb.

Iran’s foreign ministry said Trump repeated “big lies” about Iran in his State of the Union address.

Spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei accused the White House of carrying out a “disinformation” campaign against the country in a statement posted to X on Wednesday morning.

Many doubt the Iranians are being truthful when they deny pursuing nuclear weapons. In the past, Tehran has enriched uranium to levels that would only be a short technical step from producing weapons-grade material.

Ultimately, Trump’s agenda is hiding in plain sight. The stick is the armada of warships pointing at Iran from every direction. The carrot is what life in the new Iran could look like.

But what about regime change? Isn’t that high on the list? Not necessarily. Look at Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. President Trump took Maduro out of office by dragging him out of bed and throwing him into a Brooklyn jail. He was an obstacle. But did it really change the regime? Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, is still there with the rest of his cabinet, filled with some of the same corrupt PSUV party hardliners. Those Maduro loyalists have capitulated to the same US demands Maduro refused. They are now doing business with American oil and cutting off Cuba and China.

In the case of Iran, whether it is the supreme leader who makes this deal or whoever may be left standing after the smoke clears from potential military strikes, it is not clear that the Trump administration has a taste for picking a new regime. Regime change, or trying to force democracy, is a tactic that has failed the US at great cost of treasure and blood.

Trump in both his first term (see the Abraham Accords) and his second term (See Israel ceasefire, “Board of Peace,” Saudis, UAE, etc.) has been very focused on a sweeping reset across the Middle East. The prospect of a weakened Iran being allowed over time to rebuild weapons programs and terrorist networks only creates the recurring need for more strikes. It becomes stealth bomber “Groundhog Day.” Any deal with Iran would need to include a verification process to ensure that money from a more vibrant economy does not find its way back to finance weapons or terrorist groups.

For Iran, the cost-benefit analysis seems to make the choice obvious. Rejoining the global economy as a player seems like a no-brainer, but that is what an intelligence analyst would call “mirror imaging.” That is the trap of assuming that your adversary would think about the problem the same way you would. The Iranian regime was built out of revolution and a rejection of outside influence, especially Western influence. The Ayatollahs have been fiercely independent at a great cost to their own economy and the Iranian people.

In a region where nations and leaders measure worth in the kind of wealth that brings respect and the kind of arms that command fear, Iran has consistently chosen building arsenals over building prosperity. This may be the time to test that case. After sweeping protests despite a violent crackdown and with a collapsing economy, a weakened regime may bend further than it ever has, if only for its own survival.

It is clear that the US cannot afford to leave that many military assets in one place for long without a result, and a moment of decision is coming for both Trump and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Doing nothing does not appear to be an option.

John Miller is the Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst for CNN and served as Deputy Assistant Director of National Intelligence in 2009-2010.

CNN’s Kevin Liptak and Rhea Mogul contributed to this report.