US military action against Iran appears to be back on the political agenda in Washington, amid an increasingly deadly crackdown by authorities on protesters in cities and towns across the country.
Unconfirmed reports say more than 500 people have been killed – some rights groups say the death toll may be several times higher – in the suppression of the uprising, one of the biggest challenges to clerical rule since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The demonstrations were sparked by high inflation and the collapse of the currency, but have since grown into a broader protest against the government.
Both Washington and Tehran have indicated they are open to talks. However, US President Donald Trump has said action could still be taken given reports of brutality against protesters.
"We may meet with them. The meeting is being arranged, but we may have to act because of what happens before the meeting," Trump told reporters on Air Force One on January 11.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said on January 12 that "the Islamic Republic of Iran does not seek war, but is fully prepared for war."
So what options does Washington have if diplomacy fails?
Limited strikes
On the positive side, limited strikes on symbolic targets would imply less risk to US armed forces and a lower likelihood of civilians being hit.
They would also be more easily carried out within the framework of US military capabilities in the region and beyond – and it is conceivable that they could be carried out without involving US allies in the Gulf.
"It's the safest option. It doesn't have the same likelihood of unintended consequences as... when you try to destroy key military infrastructure," Marina Miron, a visiting researcher at the Department of War Studies at King's College London, told Radio Free Europe (RFE) today.
Some analysts say that this option has several drawbacks, most notably that it allows the regime to bolster patriotic support and divert attention from the discontent fueling demonstrations across the country, while doing little real damage.
It could also send a message to protesters that Washington is not coming to their aid while Iranian security forces are killing and arresting them.
An example of such a target would be a facility such as a barracks belonging to the police, the Basij paramilitary formations, or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
A more persistent campaign
A more focused campaign of attacks on the IRGC could have a greater effect, especially if it were broader and included strikes on Iranian missile facilities, command and control systems, and other security forces.
One problem is that US naval forces in the region are currently understaffed. The nearest aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is currently in the South China Sea, conducting live-fire exercises. That's a few days' sail from the Persian Gulf.
US forces have military bases in the region, in countries such as Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. However, those countries have reportedly asked Washington not to take military action.
Many would be wary of an Iranian counterattack. During the 12-day war in June, when Israel and the US attacked Tehran's nuclear program, an Iranian missile attack on an air base in Qatar caused nervousness.
That attack was largely symbolic, but Iran has threatened retaliation for another U.S. strike, and this time it could be more significant. Fossil fuel exports from U.S. allies in the Gulf, which pass through the Strait of Hormuz, could be disrupted. Israel could also be attacked, raising the possibility of a wider regional conflict.
"The current situation for the Islamic Republic is existential. It is a battle... that directly targets the very nature and essence of the regime," Ali Mamuri, a researcher at Deakin University in Australia, told Radio Farda (Iran's RFE/RL). "If it is attacked, it will almost certainly retaliate with all its available capabilities."
Special forces, assassination
After ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, is Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei next on the list for arrest by US special forces?
Such an operation seems unlikely. The US forces around Venezuela were significantly larger in number, and, as media reported, they were also assisted by intelligence sources within the regime.
Another scenario could be an assassination, "decapitation" of the regime and the initiation of a power struggle within Iran. This would depend largely on the quality of intelligence.
Analyst Miron of King's College said the "most logical option" would be "a combination of intelligence efforts on the ground, possibly arming the opposition... trying to take control of at least one major city, and then expanding from there."
The key drawback of this option would be that the outcome is unpredictable and could lead to greater chaos and bloodshed. However, a new regime, even one led by the IRGC, might be willing to cooperate with Washington.
"I think it's likely," Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, told Radio Farda on January 6.
Blockades, cyberattacks, sonic weapons
Trump has other options on the table in the Oval Office.
"It is quite likely that non-military options are also being considered. These could include a complete economic blockade of Iran to prevent its oil exports to China or cyberattacks that would disrupt the communication and decision-making systems of Iranian security agencies," Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group, told Radio Farda.
Cyber attacks have happened before.
Iranian gas stations were targeted by a cyberattack in 2021, which Iran blamed on the US and Israel, without providing evidence. Similar attacks have occurred since.
In 2019, Iran claimed to have broken up a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spy ring after a cyberattack on weapons systems. US media reported at the time that the attack was a US one, citing unnamed government officials.
There would also be less conventional attack options.
Following the US operation in Venezuela, White House spokeswoman Carolyn Leavitt shared a statement allegedly made by a man who survived a sonic weapon attack.
"It was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside. Everyone started bleeding from their noses. Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, we couldn't move," he was quoted as saying.
However, this report has not been independently or officially confirmed.
Bonus video:
