What’s behind Trump’s delay on attacking Iran?

THE HILL-Jan 20th2026

by Harlan Ullman, opinion contributor –

ust over two weeks ago, in a “one-day war,” the U.S. launched a mission that seized Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife. As of a few days ago, in response to President Trump’s threat to acquire Greenland, several NATO allies deployed a small number of forces to prevent its NATO partner from invading a fellow NATO partner.

Given the bizarre nature of these events, it’s hard to believe they actually happened.

What hasn’t happened is another question. Why has the U.S. not yet attacked Iran to protect the Iranians rioting in protest against an incompetent and autocratic government? Let’s pose an entirely speculative thought experiment to address that question.

First, press reports have been vague as to why no strike has occurred. Trump was adamant. Many, myself included, believed that when the U.S. had sufficient forces in the region, an attack would be launched. For the time being, Trump has backed off that threat arguing that the mullahs in Tehran are no longer killing their citizens protesting their rule.

Whether that assessment is correct or not, it makes sense that a president would declare victory if they believed the killing had stopped. But let us speculate a bit more.

No doubt Trump was serious in making that threat. With the success of Maduro’s capture behind him and the assurance of America’s military prowess in the Midnight Hammer missions last June that hammered Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, taking on the ayatollahs would seem easy. But what might his advisors cautioned?

Before Midnight Hammer and in his first term, Trump halted a retaliatory hit against Iran after it had shot down a U.S. Reaper spy drone. Why? The reason given was the possibility of collateral civilian casualties. Would that be repeated if the U.S. struck a range of Iranian targets?

Someone might have briefed the president on Operation Eagle Claw, the failed 1980 hostage rescue mission to free U.S. citizens held in the former U.S. embassy in Tehran. That fiasco ended in disaster almost before it started, with a collision between one of the mission’s CH-46 helicopters and a C-130 refueled at Desert One in a remote part of Iran.

Operation Eagle Claw, in part, cost Jimmy Carter the 1980 election. With U.S. elections in November, would Trump risk another failure? While there were not sufficient forces in the Gulf to assure a successful strike to halt the violence, no doubt planning was completed on what to hit and what not.

One can assume that cyberattacks to immobilize Iranian defenses, much as in Venezuela, would be carried out. Attempts to restore the internet or not would be considered. And no doubt greater sanctions against the mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps would be imposed. But what other targets might be struck?

The fundamental question must be: What is the strategic purpose of any action in Iran, kinetic or otherwise? Is it to prevent the further slaughter of Iranians? Is it to foment a regime change? Is it to punish the theocracy? Or was it to force the mullahs from further violence against the public?

Read more on original:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5694900-trump-iran-strategy-options/