Washington — President Donald Trump is considering diplomatic pathways to avert a full-scale military confrontation with Iran, even as top military advisers caution that any potential strike on the country would pose far greater challenges than the recent U.S. operation in Venezuela, according to a New York Times report published Sunday.
The report, based on insights from individuals briefed on internal administration discussions, reveals that Trump and key aides are preparing for a high-stakes meeting in Geneva on Thursday with Iranian negotiators. This gathering is described as a last-ditch effort to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program without resorting to force. Amid escalating tensions, the administration is exploring an 'off-ramp' from military action, which could allow Iran a limited nuclear enrichment program strictly for medical research purposes.
Central to these deliberations is General Dan “Raizin” Caine, who recently advised Trump on the complexities of targeting Iran. During planning for last month's operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, General Caine assured the president of a high likelihood of success. However, in discussions about Iran, he delivered a starkly different assessment. “General Caine has not been able to deliver the same reassurances to Mr. Trump during the Iran discussions, in large measure because it is a far more difficult target,” the Times reported, citing sources familiar with the conversations.
Vice President JD Vance, known for advocating restraint in U.S. military engagements abroad, played a notable role in these internal debates. According to the report, Vance did not outright oppose a potential strike but pressed General Caine and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe for detailed opinions on the options available. He emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the risks and logistical complexities involved in any action against Iran.
The Times article, authored by Julian E. Barnes, David E. Sanger, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt, outlines how Trump has instructed his advisers that initial diplomatic efforts or limited targeted attacks might not suffice. “President Trump has told advisers that if diplomacy or any initial targeted U.S. attack does not lead Iran to give in to his demands that it give up its nuclear program, he will consider a much bigger attack in coming months intended to drive that country’s leaders from power,” the sources said.
This comes against a backdrop of persistent unrest within Iran, where months of protests have challenged the authority of the country's theocratic regime led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Demonstrations, fueled by economic hardships and demands for greater freedoms, have provided a volatile context for U.S. policy considerations. The administration appears to be leaving open the possibility of a broader military assault later this year, potentially aimed at toppling Khamenei, though such plans remain speculative at this stage.
Other recent reporting underscores the gravity of the situation. Senior White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs of CBS News reported earlier this week that top military officials have informed Trump the U.S. is prepared for a potential strike on Iran as soon as this weekend. Meanwhile, Axios correspondent Barak Ravid wrote on February 18 that a U.S. military operation in Iran would likely unfold as a massive, weeks-long campaign, resembling full-fledged war rather than the swift, pinpoint action seen in Venezuela.
The Venezuela operation, which culminated in Maduro's seizure last month, serves as a recent benchmark for U.S. capabilities in regime-change scenarios. That mission, executed with relative precision, boosted confidence within the administration but has not translated to similar optimism regarding Iran. Sources indicate that doubts persist about whether airstrikes alone could fully dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure, prompting discussions of more comprehensive strategies.
Iranian officials have not publicly commented on the upcoming Geneva talks, but the prospect of negotiations highlights a potential willingness on both sides to seek de-escalation. The proposed off-ramp — permitting limited enrichment for medical isotopes — reflects a pragmatic concession, acknowledging the challenges of achieving total denuclearization through military means alone. Administration members have expressed skepticism that partial measures would suffice, yet they represent a starting point amid the high risks of escalation.
Trump's approach draws from his long-standing emphasis on maximum pressure tactics against Iran, including the 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Obama-era nuclear deal. Since then, Tehran has accelerated its uranium enrichment activities, prompting renewed U.S. concerns. The current deliberations occur as the president navigates domestic political pressures and international alliances, with allies like Israel urging a hardline stance.
Internally, the administration's debates reveal fissures over the path forward. While some hawks push for decisive action, figures like Vance advocate for caution, highlighting the potential for prolonged conflict and regional instability. General Caine's warnings about Iran's defenses — including its dispersed nuclear sites and robust air defenses — have tempered expectations, contrasting sharply with the more straightforward Venezuelan theater.
The Geneva summit, set for Thursday, could mark a pivotal moment. If successful, it might yield commitments from Iran to curb its program in exchange for sanctions relief. Failure, however, could accelerate toward military options, with the Times sources noting Trump's openness to escalation if demands are unmet. As preparations intensify, the world watches closely, given the potential for broader Middle East fallout.
Beyond immediate tactics, the Iran situation intersects with global energy markets and U.S. strategic priorities. Any conflict could disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for 20 percent of the world's crude. Protests inside Iran, ongoing since late last year, add another layer, with dissidents hoping external pressure might hasten regime change, though U.S. involvement risks backlash.
Looking ahead, the administration's next steps will depend on the Geneva outcome and ongoing intelligence assessments. Trump has signaled flexibility but firmness, telling reporters last week that Iran must verifiably dismantle its nuclear ambitions. As the Thursday meeting approaches, diplomatic channels remain active, offering a narrow window to avoid the 'far more difficult' military path General Caine described.
In the broader context of U.S. foreign policy, this episode underscores the administration's selective interventionism — swift in Venezuela, deliberative in Iran. With military readiness confirmed by CBS and the scale of potential operations detailed by Axios, the stakes could not be higher. For now, the focus remains on diplomacy, but the shadow of conflict looms large.