Trump’s Armada Is Getting in Place. Now He Must Decide What to Do With Iran.

He didn't bring the toys out unless he intended to play with them. Besides, it's time for a distraction from Minnesota.

Trump’s Armada Is Getting in Place. Now He Must Decide What to Do With Iran.

The challenge is achieving big goals with a limited action

By David S. Cloud and Alexander Ward, WSJ

Jan. 30, 2026 8:00 pm ET

DUBAI—The U.S. military has assembled a formidable force in the Middle East within striking range of Iran. Now, President Trump must decide how to use it.

As warships and planes reach the region in growing numbers, administration officials said they are debating whether the main aim is to go after Iran’s nuclear program, hit its ballistic missile arsenal, bring about the collapse of the government—or some combination of the three.

Trump has asked aides for quick and decisive attack options that don’t risk a long-term war in the Middle East, officials said. The ideal option would be one that hits the regime hard enough that it has no choice but to accede to U.S. nuclear demands and lay off dissidents, they said.

There have been discussions about a punishing bombing campaign that could topple Iran’s government, the officials said. Trump and his team have also weighed leveraging the threat of military force to extract diplomatic concessions from Iran.

What Trump decides will determine the shape of any military action. “The kind of things you’d want to do and the force packages you would need are very different,” said retired Vice Adm. Robert Murrett, a former Navy intelligence officer.

A senior administration official said that while Trump has consistently said Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon, he is being purposefully ambiguous to keep his strategic objectives and military thinking secret.

Speaking about the ships converging on the Middle East, Trump told reporters Friday in the Oval Office that “they have to float someplace. They might as well float near Iran.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that Tehran was open to nuclear discussions but that the U.S. needed to stop issuing military threats.

Trump in his second term has ordered attacks in Yemen, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Somalia and Nigeria, often without an Oval Office speech explaining his actions or seeking congressional authorization.

A January raid on Caracas was aimed at seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to stand trial. The airstrikes and missile attack on Iran in June targeted key nuclear sites with powerful bombs designed for penetrating such hardened targets.

Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Trump’s other military advisers have helped the White House achieve notable tactical successes, often by using surprise operations developed over months that sought to avoid quagmires.

In Iran the president is facing an opponent that, though considerably weaker militarily than it was only a few years ago, remains capable of withstanding a major U.S. attack and of retaliating with missile and drone strikes on U.S. bases, warships, and allies in the region, including Israel.

“There is no ‘shock and awe’ solution to the Iranian question,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a fellow at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, alluding to the U.S. bombing campaign before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. “Anyone promising otherwise is probably mistaken.”

People protesting in the streets of Tehran with a large fire burning in the background.

Protesters took to the streets in Tehran earlier in January. Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images

Trump’s path toward new military confrontation with Tehran began when he vowed this month to come to the aid of antigovernment protesters demonstrating in Tehran and other cities.

At the time, there weren’t enough U.S. forces to the region to launch a sustained bombing campaign and defend U.S. bases and Middle East allies from Iran’s certain retaliation. Faced with bad options, Trump abruptly decided against military action.

Now he has more forces at his disposal. “We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to Iran right now. And it would be great if we didn’t have to use them,” he said Thursday, adding that he had communicated his demands to Tehran.

“I told them two things: Number one, no nuclear; and number two, stop killing protesters,” the president said.

Trump has received briefings on possible attack options developed in tandem by the White House and Pentagon. Among them is the so-called big plan, which would see the U.S. strike facilities of the regime and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in a large-scale bombing campaign, the officials said.

More limited options include strikes on symbolic regime targets, allowing space for attacks to ramp up if Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, doesn’t agree to a deal to Trump’s liking.

An operation targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei like the one Trump ordered this month to capture Maduro using special forces teams would be far more difficult in Iran, which is extra vigilant about protecting its leadership and where the capital is far inland.

Even if Khamenei is ousted, no one can say for sure whether the government that follows would be any more friendly, officials said. A senior IRGC member would likely assume control, some officials assess, which could preserve—or even deepen—the regime’s hard-line approach.

Addressing a Senate committee Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it is an open question what would happen if Khamenei were removed and the regime fell. “I don’t think anyone can give you a simple answer as to what happens next in Iran,” Rubio said.

“Even if you defeat the regime really quickly, the day after matters,” said Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and former U.S. official now at Johns Hopkins University.

Administration officials are using the threat of an attack to pressure Tehran to agree to talks on restricting its nuclear program, as well as limitations on its ballistic missiles and assistance to regional proxies.

The White House is wary about getting drawn into unproductive negotiations. If Trump orders an attack instead, analysts said, none of the goals he has outlined is achievable through a swift round of airstrikes or missile attacks of the sort that the Pentagon appears to be readying.

“He likes the application of military violence when it is quick, cheap and decisive,” said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. “The problem is you can’t do things quickly and cheaply and get decisive results.”