"The sources noted it would likely be a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign that's much broader in scope - and more existential for the regime - than the Israeli-led 12-day war last June, which the U.S. eventually joined to take out Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Such a war would have a dramatic influence on the entire region and major implications for the remaining three years of the Trump presidency. With the attention of Congress and the public otherwise occupied, there is little public debate about what could be the most consequential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East in at least a decade."
"Breaking it down: Trump came close to striking Iran in early January over the killing of thousands of protesters by the regime. But when the window of opportunity passed, the administration shifted to a two-track approach: nuclear talks paired with a massive military build-up. By delaying and bringing so much force to bear, Trump has raised expectations for what an operation will look like if a deal can't be reached. And right now, a deal does not look likely."
A joint U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran would be broader and more existential for the regime than last June's 12-day war and could reshape the region while affecting the remaining three years of the Trump presidency. Public attention elsewhere has left little debate about what could be the most consequential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East in a decade. Trump nearly struck Iran in early January after regime killings of thousands of protesters, but when the window passed the administration shifted to a two-track approach of nuclear talks and a massive military build-up, and officials say diplomacy currently shows limited progress with wide gaps.
Read at Axios
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]