Trump’s Credibility On The Line As U.S. Forces Mass Near Iran – OpEd
A U.S. armada—an aircraft carrier with supporting warships, fighter jets and thousands of troops—has been deployed near Iran, while the U.S. has already been increasing its troops presence in the region since the start of 2026. As an attack on Iran appears imminent, the question arises as to how hard and with what endgame will this be carried out?
Trump’s Influence on the Protests
The recent protests that erupted across Iran were initially driven by deep and long-standing economic grievances. Over time, however, they were shaped and intensified by the U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated warnings on January 2, 4 and 9 to Tehran against the lethal suppression of demonstrators, his call to Iranians to seize state institutions and his amplification of messages of support despite internet blackouts and mass arrests.
Trump’s reputation, as geopolitical analyst and Asia Times columnist Bahauddin Foizee argues, for following through on threats and promises—from the dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro during Operation Absolute Resolve, to airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, and the killings of figures such as Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in 2020 and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019—“lent credibility to his words and encouraged citizens to protest despite the risks.” These actions reinforced the perception that Trump could translate bold statements, often dismissed at first as rhetoric, into tangible consequences.
Many inside Iran, therefore, did not view Trump’s threats and calls to action as rhetorical flourishes. Instead, they interpreted Trump’s statements as signals backed by a credible willingness to act.
Limits of Diplomacy and Weak Action at This Stage
As the current deployment of the U.S. “armada” underscores military readiness against Tehran, and the U.S. officials simultaneously signal openness to dialogue should Tehran engage on established terms, there is a clear attempt on the U.S.’s part to settle disputes with the regime mainly diplomatically, where a limited aerial campaign could well be used as a pressure tactic to enhance diplomatic leverage. This approach, without a coherent endgame to change or dismantle the regime, may be insufficient to either ensure safety for the protesters or protect the U.S.’s credibility.
If the U.S. proceeds with a largely aerial campaign as a tool of diplomatic leverage rather than as part of a broader strategy to change the regime, the campaign risks being perceived as symbolic rather than transformative. Such limited action would likely prove insufficient to protect protesters’ aspirations, let alone compel genuine political change in Tehran.
As Foizee argues, many Iranians interpreted Trump’s repeated warnings, combined with his demonstrated record of follow-through, as evidence that the U.S. was “capable of and willing to alter outcomes in real time.” That belief emboldened protesters, accelerating confrontations, leading to deaths or severe injuries among the protesters. Yet Trump’s warnings risk ringing hollow unless they are matched by sustained strategic follow-through. Without meaningful action against the regime in Tehran, the confidence many Iranians developed in Trump could quickly give way to disillusionment.
Foizee underscores this danger, warning that if “no impactful U.S. action” materializes, Iranians may “lose trust in the international community as a whole and in the US in particular.” Such an outcome would not only discourage future protest movements but would also weaken U.S. credibility far beyond Iran’s borders.
Test of U.S. Resolve
With protests now suppressed and Tehran having reasserted control, the risks of judicial persecution is no longer hypothetical. There might be executions, life imprisonments and more if the regime survives. Any action perceived as weak will result in disillusionment which may dampen future movements inside Iran, while confidence among U.S. allies and partners in Washington’s commitments could erode. The movements that once trusted U.S. backing may hesitate if they conclude that their risks will not be matched by U.S. resolve.
For Trump, whose political brand rests on the assertion that “he means what he says,” this moment represents a defining test. If the U.S. seeks to uphold its global commitments and sustain the hopes of oppressed populations, a diplomatic approach, even if leveraged by an aerial campaign, will not suffice. What is required is a decisive approach to bring about political change in Tehran. At this juncture, any U.S. approach, attempt or effort must translate into outcomes that decisively bring changes to the on-the-ground reality. Otherwise, the hard-won perception of U.S. resolve risks unravelling on the global stage.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
