The article discusses the rising speculations surrounding Donald Trump's plans regarding Iran, with reports in British media suggesting a weeks-long military operation resembling a full-scale war. An American media outlet, Axios, has also mentioned the possibility of such a major conflict. However, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that while the option for a prolonged operation remains on the table, Trump is leaning towards a more limited strike, likely due to concerns over potential retaliations from a broader attack.

Foreign and security policy expert Henri Vanhanen remarks that the United States rarely positions such a significant amount of firepower, weaponry, and offensive capability in an area unless it intends to use it in some form. He critiques the notion that this could merely be a bluff in negotiations, suggesting that it would be politically and economically costly for the Trump administration to proceed with it. Vanhanen references Trump's expressed desire for a nuclear agreement with Iran, which indicates that any military action could ultimately aim to bolster his negotiating stance rather than pursue an all-out conflict.

The implications of this situation are significant as it highlights the delicate balance that Trump must maintain between demonstrating military strength and pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran. As tensions escalate, the potential for miscalculation grows, posing risks not only for U.S.-Iran relations but also for broader regional stability in the Middle East. The article underscores the ongoing unpredictability surrounding U.S. foreign policy under Trump's administration, leaving many watching closely for further developments.