Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Capitol Hill Conversation is rapidly turning to Iran A series of statements from the White House suggesting the president is considering military action aimed at destabilizing the Iranian government or Protecting protesters under attack by government security forces.
The White House confirmed on Monday that the president was considering launching air strikes inside Iran, an action that would be an unprecedented step for the U.S. government but not impossible for Donald Trump, who last year directed airstrikes to halt Iran’s nuclear weapons development program.
White House press secretary Carolyn Leavitt told reporters that airstrikes were still being considered, but stopped short of saying the president would consider deploying U.S. troops on the ground to protect protesters, a notable distinction given that Trump has said he is open to deploying troops in this manner inside Venezuela.
“One of the things President Trump is very good at is always keeping all of his options on the table,” Levitt said. “Air strikes will be one of many choices facing the commander in chief. Diplomacy is always the president’s first choice.”
The president told Truth Society that his administration would intervene to stop widespread violent retaliation against Iranian protesters. Photos and videos appear to be from near the city of Tehran Mourning Iranians shown searching for loved ones amid rows of body bags In a warehouse near the hospital, the victim repressed by the government is sent. The exact number of people involved in the crackdown is unclear, but is believed to be in the hundreds, according to aid groups.
“We’re looking at this very seriously. The military is looking at this and we’re looking at some very strong options,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington on Sunday.
The likelihood of U.S. intervention in Iran is now as high as it was before last year’s attacks on multiple Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. Senator Lindsey Graham, who has long been one of the staunchest supporters of a military strike against Iran’s theocratic government, flew with the president on Air Force One last week and urged Trump publicly and privately to get the United States involved. Ayatollah Khamenei’s future as Iran’s leader may have expired, a second Republican senator told a local news station on Sunday.
“The ayatollah out there should realize that his time is limited,” Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a member of the Intelligence Committee, told COTA Territory News. “We should do everything we can to support [the protesters]”.
“The president is going to be very cautious in sending the military. He’s always been very cautious in sending the military. I think he will still be that way in the future,” Rounds continued. He added that he did not think such a commitment could be made at this time, but that other ways of supporting the protests were still being discussed.
The United States has not yet taken steps to build up forces in the Red Sea or surrounding waters near Iran, as it did before hostilities last year. In the case of Venezuela, the president’s military strikes on suspected drug-trafficking vessels and the raid to capture Nicolas Maduro came after an aircraft carrier strike group was dispatched to the region. News reports indicate the president will present a range of options at a briefing with top military officials on Tuesday.
But the war drums are beating loudly on Capitol Hill, with foreign policy hawks salivating at the prospect of ridding themselves of a major and persistent opponent of U.S. interests in the Middle East, even as the president’s crackdown on Venezuela fails to win the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans and fractures his “Make America Great Again” base.
Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott was vague on what exactly the administration should do in interviews with reporters last week but repeatedly said he believed the White House and the Israeli government would “do the right thing” in the coming days.
Lawmakers from both parties regularly support resolutions supporting the Iranian people’s right to self-determination, so potential attacks aimed at destabilizing the regime or halting the violent suppression of protests are likely to have bipartisan support in Congress.
One foreign policy hawk on the Democratic side has again expressed support for possible military action: John Fetterman, who has made similar statements about Venezuela’s efforts to capture Maduro.
Although Fetterman voted for the war powers resolution to limit further attacks in Venezuela, Fetterman welcomed Maduro’s attack and told CNN on Monday that he would support military action to support protesters facing a violent crackdown in Iran.
“Iran is one of the largest underwriters of terrorism in the world. And now this toxic regime is spiraling. So why wouldn’t we want to support it? Those brave protesters – they’ve probably killed over 600 people right now… Why wouldn’t we want to take… targeted actions that might break the regime?”
Graham appreciated his words and retweeted them on X, writing: “[O]On many issues, especially foreign policy, you have a clear assessment and a common-sense approach. Protesters in Iran have endured a brutal regime. President Trump told them he had their back, and this was truly a historic moment. Senator Fetterman, your statements supporting military force to protect protesters and weaken regimes are welcome and impactful. It will be a shot in the arm for those brave Iranians who take to the streets to demand an end to oppression. “
Responding to concerns about strike May enhance the regime’s morale or gain popular support For his part, Fetterman responded that he would support an attack only if it “made sense” in crippling America’s enemies.
“I think we can all agree that if you could break this regime, the world would be a better, safer, more just place,” he insisted.