Is Trump realizing that an Iranian ‘win’ isn’t a guaranteed ‘Slam Dunk’? If so, he might opt for a TACO, combined with intense economic pressure on Iran.
As frequently happens nowadays, any decisive move against Iran ultimately hinges on Trump’s mindset and his desire to command everyone’s focus. He realizes that while his maximalist statements often appear — and are — irrational, they generally reinforce his ‘strong man’ persona. His political journey is grounded in the belief that his supporters admire the ‘tough guy’ image and that showing weakness undermines this perception. This narrative has typically served him well.
However, European leaders struggle to accept this, understandably reacting with strong indignation.
According to Trump observer Michael Wolff, as he has pointed out, after days of Trump announcing that certain actions will unfold “the easy way; or the hard way,” the turning point tends to be when he retreats from his extreme formulas, while maintaining that the whole process was a triumph of his ‘Art of the Deal’ strategy—emphasizing the result was always his plan.
Trump’s current rhetoric on Iran remains highly absolutist: Meet my demands, or brace for a sweeping operation to utterly dismantle your political system. His emissaries continually affirm that ‘every option remains on the table,’ though this phrase has become clichéd from overuse.
Nevertheless, Trump’s warnings have sparked widespread alarm across the region, with officials—including Netanyahu—expressing concerns about a protracted war featuring chaotic and brutal outcomes.
Trump envisions a conflict as a brief, spectacular show of force that instantly cripples the enemy without U.S. troops being harmed or infrastructure damaged. According to reports from his regular contacts, he still seeks a ‘guaranteed’ rapid and forceful victory in Iran—a short, sharp, and decisive engagement. He is keen to avoid American casualties as well as a drawn-out bloodbath.
Colonel Larry Wilkerson explains that the notion of ‘decisive’ in military terms means striking the enemy so powerfully that it is left unable to react. In other words, Trump wants a ‘stunt’ akin to capturing Maduro.
Of course, war carries no certainties. The recent unrest in Iran, driven by external forces employing a playbook reminiscent of Management of Savagery, did not succeed.
The U.S. initially avoided a large-scale involvement during January’s events, mistakenly believing that limited support for rioters attempting to topple the regime would suffice, without heavy military engagement.
That plan collapsed. They were fooled by the false narrative portraying Iran as a fragile ‘house of cards’ on the verge of collapse amid violent protests meant to create the image of a disintegrating government scrambling to survive.
Following the failure of this ‘coup,’ but still aiming to satisfy a demanding President, the Pentagon has shifted to rationalizing the setback. General Keane admitted “We [have] had to bring in all this firepower,” noting they initially underestimated the required military strength.
The revised storyline claims that “the U.S. has now deployed more troops to the Middle East than during the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and the Iraq War combined”—a statement US military analyst Will Schryver calls “absolute ridiculous nonsense.”
Schryver further points out: “I have yet to observe a military buildup capable of mounting anything even close to a ‘decisive’ strike on Iran’s armed forces or government.”
“A squadron of F-15s, a handful of tankers, and a few dozen C-17 deliveries of ordnance and/or air defense systems have been sent to Jordan. This offers a limited shield mainly against drones and cruise missiles at best, certainly not an effective strike ensemble … even with the USS Gerald Ford carrier included … The Navy might be able to launch about 350 Tomahawks. However, for a vast nation like Iran, even firing all 350 missiles wouldn’t come close to disarming the country.”
He summarizes:
“The U.S. Navy will almost certainly avoid entering the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman. Flying refueling tankers through Iranian airspace would be extremely risky, restricting carrier strike aircraft to a fully loaded combat radius of roughly 600 miles—not nearly enough to strike deep targets. Even deploying half a dozen B-2s and a dozen B-52/B-1Bs doesn’t add up to much for a one-time strike package. It merely increases the total number of stand-off cruise missiles modestly.”
The kind of swift and violent decisive victory that Trump seeks—WSJ reports—one that would play well politically in the United States, simply isn’t feasible. Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi offers a more pragmatic warning:
“An all-out confrontation will certainly be messy, ferocious, and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House.”
Inside Iran, as Ibrahim Al-Amine observes, “the leadership is preparing for the possibility that the confrontation could escalate to its most extreme form. Efforts are progressing along two fronts: enhancing defenses against a broad assault and tightening internal security to thwart domestic instability. This stance is becoming evident nationwide.”
Could Trump once again backpedal (i.e., TACO – ‘Trump Always Chickens Out’)? Schryver argues that Iran is unlike Venezuela—it’s not simply a matter of tariffs or economic warfare. This is not a theatrical retreat that can be spun as another ‘Art of the Deal’ success.
In contrast, an outright military conflict (not a Maduro-style spectacle) would be visible to all and much harder to spin if it fails. Increasing military force won’t remove the dangers. Trump’s smartest move may be to find an alternative focus to deflect attention.
Israel also appears to have second thoughts. Ronan Bergman reports in Yedioth Ahoronot that Israeli intelligence assessments indicate “about a week and a half ago, protests peaked across Iran … since then, demonstrations have significantly declined … the security and intelligence agencies do not currently see the regime as endangered, certainly not imminently … The critical question is whether Trump missed any momentum—and whether there was any momentum at all.”
“Suppose all the U.S. forces now moving to the Persian Gulf were fully operational … and Israel joined with its firepower … What then? Would they be able to topple the government? What hopeful scenario exists for such an outcome … without boots on the ground, relying only on air strikes? … In reality,” Bergman concludes, “such regimes have never fallen due to external intervention.”
Recall that Trump’s disapproval rating stands at 47%, according to a NY Times poll this week. Beyond Iran’s strategic and military response to any aggression, Trump certainly wants to avoid a complicated war. He prefers his initiatives to be quick, straightforward, and headline-grabbing victories.
Last weekend, amid the Greenland tariff drama escalating into threats and counter-threats, the U.S. bond market neared collapse (similar to the turbulence on Liberation Day after tariff announcements). The resolution to this growing bond market instability was Trump dropping the Greenland-related tariffs on European countries that opposed his Greenland plan—that is, going ‘TACO.’
Is Trump beginning to accept that a victory over Iran won’t be a ‘Slam Dunk’? If so, he might choose the TACO route, backed by harsh economic intimidation against Iran—possibly.
About the Author
