Trump Delayed Iran Strikes Due to Lack of War Assets, Expert Says

In an interview with ANI, Trita Parsi also said that the United States President Donald Trump does have political capital to carry out an attack and that attacking will cost him more in the US midterm elections, particularly if it is a dragged-out war.

He outlined various scenarios and options in case of escalation. Referring to US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities in June last year in the face of Iran-Israel confrontation, Trita Parsi said "unlike before, when the Iranians were very keen on avoiding escalation and a direct confrontation with the US, they were willing to take hits and only respond back in a relatively symbolic way, such as striking an empty American base in Qatar, this time around all signals are that that is not going to be acceptable".

"Any attack will be treated as an act of war and war will ensue. This is, I think, part of the reason why the Trump administration, who were on the verge of going to war about two weeks ago, ultimately decided not to, instead have been moving a lot of military assets to the region in order to be prepared for a much larger war," he said.

"I don't think war is off the table at all. It is just that the reason why he delayed it was he realized that he didn't have the assets in place for the type of larger war very likely will follow any form of attack by the US," he added.

President Trump on Tuesday reiterated his hardline stance on Iran during a campaign-style event in Iowa, emphasising both military pressure and the possibility of negotiations with Tehran as tensions persist over the crackdown on protesters and regional security.

Pointing to a significant US military buildup in the Middle East, Trump said that there was a "beautiful armada floating beautifully toward Iran," noting that the Islamic Republic should "make a deal."

"By the way, there's another beautiful armada floating beautifully toward Iran right now. So we'll see. I hope they make a deal. I hope they make a deal. They should have made a deal the first time. They'd have a country," Trump said.

On the possibility of a pre-emptive Iranian strike, Parsi said this likelihood remained low, as Tehran would be more inclined to respond after an attack rather than initiate one.

He explained that if the US were to strike first, Iran would likely seek to outlast Trump politically by inflicting damage while avoiding a total military defeat.

"If the US attacks, the Iranians will strike back most likely. Their aim will be to try to outlast Trump, inflict as much damage as possible on US forces without losing the war in the hope that after a couple of weeks, Trump will do what he did with the Houthis. He will just back off realizing that this is a losing proposition. He may be able to win militarily, but he will lose politically and it will cost him a lot domestically as well. And as a result, just pull back," he said.

He said scenario will be different if Iran attacks first. "In that type of scenario, you're going to see a different type of immobilization in the United States. The psychology will be very different. It's not a war of choice in the same way. Rather, it is a response to an attack. And under those circumstances, even if the Iranians manage to last for several couple of weeks and inflict a lot of damage on the US, the likelihood of the Trump administration backing down is going to be much, much smaller....," he said.

Asked whether Trump has the political capital to attack Iran, Parsi said he does not.

"I don't think he does have that at all. I think he doesn't have the base support either. But I think there are other factors that are at play here. I think him attacking will cost him even more in the midterm elections, particularly if this is a dragged out war. All his talk about being a Peace President, not having started wars have already been disproven by his first year and it's getting worse...," he said

"But if you already think that you're gonna lose the midterm elections and you know that the Democrats are gonna take the House, they're gonna take the Senate, and they are going to pursue impeachment as soon as they take power, then you're not increasing the risk of that happening by taking military action, but you might be preparing yourself better financially for the type of legal warfare that you're gonna have to fight internally...," he added.

Earlier this month, US special envoy Steve Witkoff outlined conditions the administration says would be necessary for any deal with Iran, including a ban on uranium enrichment, the removal of already-enriched uranium, capping Iran's long-range missile stockpile, and reversing support for regional proxy forces.

While Tehran has expressed willingness to negotiate, it has rejected those terms outright.

Trump also referenced previous military action against Iran's nuclear infrastructure. He asserted that US strikes in June had "obliterated" the country's nuclear capacity by hitting three facilities, though the extent of disruption to Iran's enrichment programme remains unclear. "People have been waiting for 22 years to do that," he said while referring to the June bombing campaign.

- ANI