Sooner rather than later, President Donald Trump will decide whether the U.S. will join Israel in carrying out airstrikes against the Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons facilities. “Based on the fact that there is a chance for substantial negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision on whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” Trump said in a statement read Thursday by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

While the MAGA dissenters from this strategy would likely remind Trump of the Middle Eastern blunders of previous administrations, the mistakes they made are not inevitable. The way to avoid getting bogged down in endless, aimless nation-building is to keep the goal in view and stick to it. Put another way, Trump’s desired end should determine the ways and means he uses to reach it.

The ultimate end is simple. As Trump has stated repeatedly, “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” But there are various outcomes that all achieve this end result. Both Israeli and American decision-makers likely have a preferred outcome in mind, although they are wise to conceal their objectives from public (and hostile) view.

Currently, at least four options seem possible.

Option A: Nuclear Deal

The Trump administration has made clear to Iran that a nuclear deal, whereby it voluntarily gives up its nuclear weapons stockpiles, is still on the table. Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained that the U.S. military is “postured defensively in the region” to “set the conditions for a deal,” saying, “President Trump’s made it clear, it’s on the table. The question is whether Iran will take it.”

Over the past 60 days, the Iranian regime steadfastly refused to agree to terms America considered acceptable. President Trump apparently holds out hope that Israeli airstrikes on their nuclear facilities and military will change the regime’s mind.

President Trump’s restraint of U.S. forces may be out of consideration for this option. If such a deal were to materialize, it would make U.S. intervention unnecessary. Alternatively, U.S. military intervention would likely rule this option out.

The downside of this outcome is that it “would leave the regime in place just to fight another day,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “If, in the short term here, the Iranian leadership says ‘we give up, we’ll step down’… that would be great,” concurred Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “I just don’t see that happening.”

In any event, President Trump appears to have changed the terms of the nuclear deal, in light of Israel’s speedy victory over Iranian skies. Trump now demands “unconditional surrender” from America’s sworn antagonist.

“Right now, we’re not in a position to be looking for a negotiated settlement or a cease-fire,” said retired Brigadier General John Teichert on “Washington Watch.” “We must demand, like the president said, unconditional surrender. And that means a complete and immediate destruction of the Iranian nuclear program.”

Thus far, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has steadfastly rebuffed the president’s demands. In a televised response, he declared, “Intelligent people who know Iran, the Iranian nation, and its history will never speak to this nation in threatening language because the Iranian nation will not surrender.” Alas, this option was always a long shot.

Option B: Hostile Demolition

If the Iranian regime will not agree to surrender its nuclear weapons program voluntarily, the next most straightforward scenario is to destroy its facilities in a series of hostile airstrikes. Thus far, Israel has put on a stupendous display of military prowess, destroying most of Iran’s above-ground facilities, including the electricity infrastructure at Iran’s largest nuclear enrichment site, Natanz. Knocking out the power caused some radiological contamination and may have damaged the centrifuges, although it did not completely destroy the nuclear enrichment site, which lies in an underground bunker.

However, Israel has not yet attempted to destroy Iran’s other nuclear enrichment facility, Fordo. This site will prove more challenging, as it sits in a mountainside, nearly 300 feet from the surface. National Review’s Jim Geraghty speculates about whether Israel has a “trick up its sleeve” to destroy the Fordo site — perhaps a cascade of “bunker-buster” bombs, a commando raid, a saboteur, or drones flying into the tunnels. The point is, it is not yet clear how or if Israel can destroy the Fordo site.

Unless Israel can destroy this site, then Israel cannot entirely eliminate the Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons program on its own.

This is where the U.S. comes in. The only bomb that could reach the Fordo site is the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), “a 30,000 pound bomb that is described as ‘the most powerful and deeply burrowing non-nuclear bunker buster on earth.’” The U.S. is the only country in the world that has MOPs. Such a special bomb requires a very special bomber. The only plane in the world that can carry a MOP is the B-2 — which only the U.S. has. “In order for Fordow to be taken out by a bomb from the sky, the only country in the world that has that bomb is the United States,” said Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S.

Of course, Israel’s bombing campaign extends beyond the nuclear weapons program to “every site and every target of the Ayatollah’s regime,” said Netanyahu last Saturday. The aim is to minimize the damage from any Iranian counterattack, whether from ballistic missiles, Islamist militias, or other military forces.

While not perfect, Israel’s campaign to degrade Iran’s retaliation capability has met with great success. Already, Israel has reduced Iran’s ability to fire weapons at Israel by at least 50%, and Israel has already assassinated Iran’s top general twice — the first last Friday, and his replacement on Monday. Reportedly, Khamenei is in a “difficult mental state” due to the death of most of his close associates, and he is having a “hard time with the replacements.”

This option simplifies the calculation by relying exclusively on hard power to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Yet it also has the drawback of leaving the Islamist regime — however diminished — in power. “That would be discouraging to the Iranian people, the vast majority of whom are very pleased with what they’re seeing right now,” Cramer commented. “I think of Barack Obama, who basically left the freedom-loving demonstrators of Iran just holding the bag. … At this point, you can’t leave the regime there.”

Option C: Forcible Regime Change

This raises a third possibility: forcible regime change. America once toppled Saddam Hussein, and now the Assad regime has fallen too. Perhaps the Iranian ayatollahs are next.

The main benefit of this option is that it eliminates the recurring source of problems in the Middle East, especially for Israel. “At this point, you’ve poked the bear so hard that, if you leave the bear there, you’re probably always going to have to look over your shoulder,” Cramer summarized.

“Since the first days of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the men who rule the Islamic Republic of Iran have been a cancer upon the world,” argued Geraghty. “The regime is the globe’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, beginning its reign of terror with the hostage crisis and continuing it in the Beirut barracks of American servicemen, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA flight 847, Khobar Towers, and in the cities of Iraq. They hate Americans and Israelis but don’t care who they hurt in their global campaign of chaos.”

But this option also has multiple drawbacks. For starters, even if Israel (or the U.S.) could eliminate every member of the regime, someone would have to maintain order. Thus, such forcible regime change would likely require more direct intervention than airstrikes can provide — that means boots on the ground. Soldiers on the ground stand in harm’s way, and such an effort would likely involve an ever-increasing commitment. On top of all this lies the uncertainty about what sort of regime would be likely to succeed Iran’s current regime. “We know through our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq that ‘regime change’ always looks easier before you get started,” granted Geraghty.

Due to these significant drawbacks, neither Israel nor the U.S. wants to pursue this option. Israel may go as far as eliminating Iran’s supreme leader, but only as a means to “end the conflict.” Leiter insisted that Israel is “not in the business of regime change.” Thus far, President Trump is even “opposed” to a strike on Khamenei.

On Thursday, Netanyahu indicated that forcible regime change was still a non-starter. “We’re also striking government targets, symbols of the regime … and there’s more to come,” he said. Yet, at the same time, the actual business of overthrowing and replacing the regime lies with the “Iranian people alone.”

Option D: Incidental Regime Change

Netanyahu’s comment suggests, as a fourth option, an outcome where Iran’s regime is changed, but not by the intervention of Israel or the United States. “The Iran regime is very weak,” Netanyahu said in a Fox News interview. “I think it’s basically left with two things: its plans to have atomic bombs and the ballistic missiles. That’s basically what Iran has.”

“They certainly don’t have the people. Eighty percent of the people will throw these theological thugs out,” he continued. They murder them. They oppress them. For 46 years, they have yearned for freedom. I mean, they shoot women because their hair is uncovered. They shoot students. They just suck the oxygen from this brave and gifted people, the Iranian people.”

“The Persian people and the Jewish people have had an ancient friendship [that] goes back to the times of Cyrus the Great,” Netanyahu added. “That could happen again, but again the decision to act, to rise up at this time is the decision of the Iranian people.”

This outcome would provide the most benefits for the U.S. and Israel. It would result not only in the destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but in the dissolution of the extremist, genocidal regime that pursued nuclear weapons in the first place.

However, the downside of this outcome is its feasibility. This outcome, by definition, is entirely beyond the ability of Israel or the United States government to engineer on their own. We can lay a foundation through a vigorous application of the regime targeting outlined under Option 2. But then everything lies in the hands of the Iranian people — a diverse, dispersed multitude of 90 million souls with whom we have only the slightest contact — and they present an unknowable variable.

Yet there is hope for this option. The Iranian people do yearn to throw off the tyrannical yoke of the Islamist mullahs and restore friendly relations with other countries. From time to time, they have risen up in mass protest, but without outside support, they were sternly punished for doing so. The difference now is that the Iranian regime is historically weak. As Israel further degrades its capabilities, it will become even less capable of handling a nationwide protest movement.

Conclusion

Whatever the outcome, Israel plans to keep fighting until the threat of nuclear annihilation by their sworn enemy is completely eliminated. And, under certain conditions, President Trump may aid them in achieving that objective. According to Axios, nameless “U.S. officials” have said that Trump is seriously considering joining the war, but he wants to first ensure that 1) a military strike is necessary, 2) it would not drag the U.S. into another prolonged war, and 3) it would actually destroy Iran’s nuclear program.