US President Donald Trump is weighing options against Iran that include targeted strikes on security forces and leaders to inspire protesters, multiple sources said, even as Israeli and Arab officials said air power alone would not topple the clerical rulers.

Two US sources familiar with the discussions said Trump wanted to create conditions for “regime change” after a crackdown crushed a nationwide protest movement earlier this month, killing thousands of people.

To do so, he was looking at options to hit commanders and institutions that Washington holds responsible for the violence, to give protesters the confidence that they could overrun government and security buildings, they said.

One of the US sources said the options being discussed by Trump’s aides also included a much larger strike intended to have a lasting impact, possibly against the ballistic missiles that can reach US allies in the Middle East or its nuclear enrichment programmes.

The other US source said Trump has not yet made a final decision on a course of action, including whether to take the military path.

The arrival of a US aircraft carrier and supporting warships in the Middle East this week has expanded Trump’s capabilities to potentially take military action, after he repeatedly threatened intervention over Iran’s crackdown.

Four Arab officials, three Western diplomats, and a senior Western source whose governments were briefed on the discussions said they were concerned that instead of bringing people onto the streets, such strikes could weaken a movement already in shock after the bloodiest repression by authorities since the 1979 revolution.

Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Programme at the Middle East Institute, said that without large-scale military defections, Iran’s protests remained “heroic but outgunned.”

The sources in this story requested anonymity to talk about sensitive matters.

Iran’s foreign office, the US Department of Defense and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The Israeli prime minister’s office declined to comment.

Trump urged Iran on Wednesday to come to the table and make a deal on nuclear weapons, warning that any future US attack would be more severe than a June bombing campaign against three nuclear sites.
He described the ships in the region as an “armada” sailing to Iran.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran was “preparing itself for a military confrontation, while at the same time making use of diplomatic channels.”

However, Washington was not showing openness to diplomacy, the official said.

Iran, which says its nuclear programme is civilian, was ready for dialogue “based on mutual respect and interests” but would defend itself “like never before” if pushed, Iran’s mission to the United Nations said in a post on X on Wednesday.

Trump has not publicly detailed what he is looking for in any deal.

His administration’s previous negotiating points have included banning Iran from independently enriching uranium and restrictions on long-range ballistic missiles and on Tehran’s network of armed proxies in the Middle East.

Limits of air power

A senior Israeli official with direct knowledge of planning between Israel and the United States told Reuters that Israel does not believe airstrikes alone can topple the Islamic Republic, if that is Washington’s goal.

“If you’re going to topple the regime, you have to put boots on the ground,” he said, noting that even if the United States killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran would “have a new leader that will replace him.”

Only a combination of external pressure and an organised domestic opposition could shift Iran’s political trajectory, the official said.

The Israeli official said Iran’s leadership had been weakened by the unrest but remained firmly in control despite the ongoing deep economic crisis that sparked the protests.

Multiple US intelligence reports reached a similar conclusion, that the conditions that led to the protests were still in place, weakening the government, but without major fractures, two people familiar with the matter said.

The Western source said they believed Trump’s goal appeared to be to engineer a change in leadership, rather than “topple the regime,” an outcome that would be similar to Venezuela, where US intervention replaced the president without a wholesale change of government.

Khamenei has blamed the unrest on the United States, Israel and what he called “seditionists.”

Khamenei less visible

At 86, Khamenei has retreated from daily governance, reduced public appearances and is believed to be residing in secure locations after Israeli strikes last year decimated many of Iran’s senior military leaders, regional officials said.

Day-to-day management has shifted to figures aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including senior adviser Ali Larijani, they said.

The powerful Guards dominate Iran’s security network and a big part of the economy.

However, Khamenei retains final authority over war, succession and nuclear strategy — meaning political change is very difficult until he exits the scene, they said.

Iran’s foreign ministry did not respond to questions about Khamenei.

In Washington and Jerusalem, some officials have argued that a transition in Iran could break the nuclear deadlock and eventually open the door to more cooperative ties with the West, two of the Western diplomats said.

But, they cautioned, there is no clear successor to Khamenei.

In that vacuum, the Arab officials and diplomats said they believe the IRGC could take over, entrenching hard-line rule, deepening the nuclear standoff and regional tensions.

Any successor seen as emerging under foreign pressure would be rejected and could strengthen, not weaken, the IRGC, the official said.

Across the region, from the Gulf to Turkey, officials say they favour containment over collapse — not out of sympathy for Tehran, but out of fear that turmoil inside a nation of 90 million, riven by sectarian and ethnic fault lines, could unleash instability far beyond Iran’s borders.

A fractured Iran could spiral into civil war as happened after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, two of the Western diplomats warned, unleashing an influx of refugees, fuelling militancy and disrupting oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a global energy chokepoint.

The gravest risk, analyst Vatanka warned, is fragmentation into “early-stage Syria,” with rival units and provinces fighting for territory and resources.

Regional blowback

Gulf states – long‑time US allies and hosts to major American bases — fear they would be the first targets for Iranian retaliation that could include Iranian missiles or drone attacks from the Tehran-aligned Houthis in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Egypt have lobbied Washington against a strike on Iran.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that Riyadh will not allow its airspace or territory to be used for military actions against Tehran.

“The United States may pull the trigger,” one of the Arab sources said, “but it will not live with the consequences. We will.”

Mohannad Hajj-Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Centre said the US deployments suggest planning has shifted from a single strike to something more sustained, driven by a belief in Washington and Jerusalem that Iran could rebuild its missile capabilities and eventually weaponise its enriched uranium.

The most likely outcome is a “grinding erosion — elite defections, economic paralysis, contested succession – that frays the system until it snaps,” analyst Vatanka said.