Military pressure, covert strikes, or diplomacy, world awaits next move
Why Egypt and regional powers are concerned about an “uncontrolled” escalation
The Middle East stands at a historic and perilous crossroads. The dramatic extraction of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela and US precision strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last year, seem to have emboldened US President Donald Trump. Emphasizing a doctrine of “massive force, swiftly delivered,” the White House is now weighing a definitive move against the Islamic Republic.
President Trump’s recent foreign policy has been defined by short, decisive victories.
The “snatch-and-run” operation in Venezuela proved to the administration that regime change does not always require a decade-long occupation.
Coupled with last year’s “bunker-busting” raids on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Trump has developed a taste for military action that yields emphatic results without long-term “boots on the ground”.
However, Iran is not Venezuela. With a population twice that of Iraq and a territory four times its size, any miscalculation could ignite a regional conflagration.
As US offensive and defensive assets pour into the region, analysts and diplomats identify six primary scenarios currently under consideration in Washington.
1. Maximum military pressure
The Iranian regime is currently at its nadir. The “three pillars” of its power, proxy militias, nuclear ambitions, and ballistic missiles, have been severely degraded.
Domestically, the brutal suppression of recent protests, which resulted in thousands of deaths, has stripped the leadership of its remaining legitimacy.
Washington may bet that a massive show of might without an actual strike could force Tehran to surrender its remaining assets or even sacrifice Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to ensure the system’s survival.
2. The symbolic strike
A limited, symbolic strike could allow Trump to demonstrate resolve without plunging into full-scale conflict.
Similar to the missile attacks on Syrian regime targets in 2017 and 2018, this approach might involve hitting a high-profile Revolutionary Guard installation, such as the Thar-Allah headquarters in Tehran.
While such a move would satisfy domestic and international demands for action, it risks being dismissed as performative. Worse, it could expose Washington to accusations of moral posturing if the Iranian crackdown continues unabated.
3. Limited substantive action
This scenario involves a multi-day campaign targeting air defences, energy facilities, and the Basij militia infrastructure. The goal would be to “blind” the regime and create a vacuum for the Iranian people to reclaim their streets. The danger remains that, as seen during the “12-day war” last June, external strikes can sometimes cause a “rally-around-the-flag” effect, inadvertently strengthening the regime’s grip.
4. The Maduro option
High-level intelligence could lead to a surgical operation to capture or kill the Supreme Leader.
While Trump has previously hesitated, calling Khamenei an “easy target”, but one he wasn’t ready to hit, the calculus has changed. However, following the 12-day war, Tehran launched a massive counter-espionage purge, making the “Maduro moment” significantly harder to replicate today.
5. The Gaddafi option
A sustained air campaign can cause a total collapse of the state. While this offers the “highest reward” for regional security, it carries the most risk. A prolonged conflict would alienate Trump’s anti-interventionist base and could lead Iran to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, sending global oil prices into a tailspin.
6. The Saddam option (The unlikely path)
A full-scale ground invasion remains the least likely scenario. Despite his rhetoric, Trump remains ideologically opposed to the nation-building projects that defined the Iraq War. The fear in Cairo and other regional capitals, however, is that even a “limited” strike could accidentally trigger an escalatory spiral that ends in a ground war.
Diplomacy as war drums beat
Even as military planning intensifies, diplomatic efforts continue. Saudi Arabia has reportedly been mediating between Washington and Tehran, while Turkey, Qatar, and Oman are pressing for negotiations.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has publicly offered to facilitate de-escalation, underscoring regional anxieties about a wider conflict.
These initiatives highlight a critical reality, the Middle East stands at a fragile juncture. A miscalculation could plunge the region into turmoil, with repercussions far beyond its borders.
For Egypt, a pillar of regional stability and a key US partner, the stakes are profound.
Any escalation would reverberate through energy markets, trade routes, and security dynamics.
Cairo has long advocated balanced diplomacy, recognising that durable stability requires political solutions alongside deterrence.
An uncontrolled conflict with Iran would threaten shipping in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, disrupt global commerce, and exacerbate humanitarian crises.
Conversely, a negotiated settlement that curtails Iran’s destabilising activities could open space for a more cooperative regional order.
A decision with global consequences
Trump’s Iran dilemma encapsulates the central paradox of contemporary American power: the ability to strike swiftly and decisively, tempered by the risk of unintended entanglement. Each of the six options carries profound moral, strategic, and political implications.
Ultimately, the choice will shape not only the future of Iran but also the credibility of US leadership and the trajectory of Middle Eastern geopolitics. As warships gather in the Gulf and diplomats shuttle between capitals, the world watches anxiously, aware that a single decision in Washington could redraw the region’s strategic map for a generation.
In this moment of peril, prudence, multilateral engagement, and a clear-eyed assessment of risks must guide policy. The costs of miscalculation are simply too high.
President Trump believes that wars can be won quickly, cleanly, and on his own terms. If he is right, the Middle East may see the end of a long era of Iranian-backed instability. If he is wrong, Iran could be the place where his “America First” foreign policy unspools into the very chaos it sought to avoid.
As the US fleet moves into position, the world waits to see if the “Maduro Option” can be scaled to an ancient civilization of 85 million people, or if the region is on the brink of a transformation whose consequences will be felt for generations.
