Major Garrett moderates a special hour on rising U.S.-Iran tensions as President Trump weighs military strikes if diplomacy fails. Reporters on the ground and Washington analysts describe a massive U.S. military buildup in the region — F-22s and F‑35s to Israel, two carrier strike groups (USS Gerald R. Ford, USS Abraham Lincoln), numerous guided-missile destroyers and cruisers, missile defenses (Patriot, THAAD) — that gives the president a wide range of kinetic options and has heightened fears in Congress that action may be imminent.
Diplomacy and timing
• Indirect talks in Geneva, mediated by Oman, produced a long session and a move toward technical discussions and possible IAEA monitoring. Negotiators bought time, but deep mismatches remain: some U.S. officials believe sustained pressure will force Iran to change, while many Iranian negotiators say endurance under pressure improves their leverage.
• The diplomacy may serve both to clarify red lines and to buy time while military options are staged. Technical teams and monitoring by the IAEA were discussed, but there is no sign yet of a comprehensive deal limiting missiles, proxies and enrichment in perpetuity.
Military posture and presidential choices
• Retired General Frank McKenzie (CENTCOM) stresses that the U.S. buildup creates credible military options and force protection. He notes President Trump has in the past chosen restraint (e.g., 2019 drone shootdown) and taken decisive strikes (e.g., Soleimani), and argues the president is capable of weighing escalation versus diplomacy.
• Critics say the sheer volume of forces can create a political momentum toward action; proponents say the presence of force supports diplomacy “with a fist behind it.” The Trump administration has given Iran a deadline and issued public warnings; advisers are divided over whether strikes would be targeted against nuclear facilities, missile sites, proxies, or intended to coerce regime change.
How close is Iran to a nuclear weapon?
• Analysts differentiate enriched-material production, weapon design/manufacture, and weaponization/delivery. Attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure last summer reportedly set programs back. Officials have at times said Iran was near bomb-grade material, but experts here say while Iran could enrich material more quickly than before, producing a tested, deliverable nuclear weapon — including reentry vehicle and missile integration — would likely take many months to years.
• Joe Cirincione and Matt Kroenig emphasize that enriching uranium to weapons grade is the hardest technical step; even if Iran could rapidly increase enrichment, making, testing and deploying a warhead on a reliable missile remains complex and observable. U.S. intelligence told Congress last year Iran had not decided to build a weapon; the Defense Intelligence Agency has assessed an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile threat to the U.S. as years away.
Ballistic missiles and regional threats
• U.S. and allied concerns focus heavily on Iran’s ballistic missile forces and proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas, regional militias) rather than only enrichment. Israel, Gulf states, and U.S. planners worry about missile threats to allies and escalation to attacks on U.S. forces and facilities across the region.
• Analysts stress that limiting or degrading Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities is a different and politically fraught mission than degrading enrichment infrastructure.
Politics at home and abroad
• CBS polling cited on the program shows 72% of Americans don’t think the administration has clearly explained the rationale for military action; 53% oppose war maneuvers intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Lawmakers from both parties are asking for clear explanations and congressional engagement; a House vote was being planned demanding presidential briefings on war plans.
• Advisors warn of political risks: public support can decline quickly if strikes lead to casualties or mission creep. Some Republican allies give the president latitude; others, shaped by the Iraq experience, urge caution.
• Israel is positioned to play a role; the U.S. has deployed assets to deter Iranian missile attacks and to enable or support limited strikes.
Voices on strategy and outcomes
• Senator Dave McCormick argued Iran is economically and politically weakened and that pressure is tightening; he supports a broad range of coercive options short of U.S. ground forces and emphasizes supporting Iranian protest movements while avoiding prolonged U.S. entanglement.
• Columnist Niall Ferguson suggested the current diplomacy could be a prelude to strikes, arguing that talks allow the U.S. to posture forces and keep Iranian leaders uncertain. He expects any U.S. military action would likely be limited and targeted rather than an invasion.
• Former CIA officers and national-security writers warned about unclear objectives: is the goal to stop enrichment, curb ballistic missiles, punish proxy attacks, or seek regime change? Ambiguous goals increase the risk of mission creep.
Military assessments and options
• Military planners have developed a range of options from limited strikes against missile and nuclear sites to broader campaigns. A sustained aerial campaign could be supported by the current force posture, but achieving long-term objectives — especially regime change or permanently eliminating nuclear capability — would be difficult without long-term commitments.
• Retired General McKenzie emphasized that President Trump has previously chosen restraint in high‑stakes moments and can separate military deployments from inevitable use, underscoring that being “on the cusp” doesn’t mean strikes are predetermined.
Iran’s internal situation and regional consequences
• Journalist Jason Rezaian, who was detained in Iran for years, described mass repression of protests and the humanitarian and political stakes for Iranian civilians. He warned that strikes risk harming prisoners and that prison facilities have been vulnerable during past attacks.
• Analysts noted that regime weakness at home — economic pressure, protests — might make Iranian leaders more or less likely to take escalatory options, and that outcomes of U.S. action are uncertain: strikes could deter, degrade capabilities, or spur retaliatory proxy or missile attacks.
Intelligence, timing and public debate
• Officials have signaled technical teams and IAEA inspectors could be part of next steps; March 18 was cited as a future public congressional intelligence briefing date when assessments might be updated.
• Experts urged clearer public explanation of objectives and legal/constitutional consultation with Congress. Historical experience suggests that public and allied support matter to the political calculus and the sustainability of any U.S. campaign.
Bottom line from the show
• The hour examined whether war is imminent, what goals would justify strikes, how close Iran is to a bomb, and whether the U.S. can coerce behavior (missiles, proxies, enrichment) without attempting regime change. There was no consensus: some said strikes were possible and even likely if diplomacy failed; others stressed restraint, uncertain returns, and significant risks to U.S. forces, regional allies and civilians. The episode emphasized the interplay of military posture, diplomacy, intelligence assessments, and political constraints shaping President Trump’s decision.