European officials have raised doubts about the effectiveness of military pressure to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear program, which they view as an emblem of resistance against the United States. A report from the New York Times highlights that Washington had previously considered deploying special operations forces to target Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, though these plans have been put on hold pending diplomatic negotiations. The situation underscores the complex dynamics at play in US-Iran relations and the precarious balance between military action and diplomatic efforts.

The article further discusses that the final decision by President Donald Trump regarding potential strikes on Iran hinges on finding a face-saving compromise for both sides. The Economist magazine also presents the wide range of military options available to Trump, emphasizing the unprecedented US military presence in the Gulf, which theoretically provides him with substantial operational flexibility. Options range from direct strikes against nuclear sites to targeting the Revolutionary Guards, reflecting a spectrum of military responses that could be executed.

However, there are significant cautions against such military actions, as the Economist warns that any American military response would likely provoke retaliatory strikes from Iran using missiles and drones. Such responses could target American or Israeli bases, presenting a daunting dilemma for Trump: he must navigate the challenges of military confrontation while avoiding escalation that could lead to broader conflict in the region. The interplay of military strategy and diplomatic talks showcases the intricate nature of international politics concerning Iran.