Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has been advising President Trump and top officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict, according to two sources with knowledge of those internal discussions.
Why it matters: There’s an ongoing debate at the top levels of the Trump administration about how to handle the Iran standoff and what the consequences of each option would be. At the moment, several of the voices in Trump’s circle are urging caution, though some sources think Trump himself is leaning towards a strike.
- Above all, there’s the question of what success would look like when it comes to military action, and how risky it would be to try to achieve it.
- On the other side, reaching a nuclear deal would likely mean walking back some of the president’s previous red lines.
- As Trump debates whether and how to attack Iran, his envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff have been urging the president to hold off and give diplomacy a chance.
This account of where members of Trump’s top team stand is based on conversations with five sources who have sat in or been briefed on the high-level meetings.
- Caine’s position could be particularly influential, because he’s Trump’s top military adviser and is highly respected by the president.
Behind the scenes: Just as with the planning for the operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, Trump has empowered a small brain trust to think through problems in Iran and present him with a range of options he can exercise at a time of his choosing that maximizes leverage and minimizes risk, a U.S. official said.
- While Caine was all-in on the Venezuela operation, he has been more cautious in the discussions around Iran, two sources said.
- Citing that contrast, one source described Caine as a “reluctant warrior” on Iran. Caine sees the stakes of a major operation in Iran as higher, with a greater risk for entanglement and American casualties, thetwo sources said.
- One source said Caine was not advocating for a strike but will support and execute on any decision Trump makes.
- Another source with direct knowledge of Caine’s thinking said the chairman is not skeptical about a military campaign but “clear-eyed and realistic” about the chances for success and about what could come next after war starts. A senior official also denied Caine had expressed skepticism.
What they’re saying: “In his role as military advisor to the President, Secretary of War, and National Security Council, the Chairman provides a range of military options, as well as secondary considerations and associated impacts and risks, to the civilian leaders who make America’s security decisions. The Chairman provides these options confidentially,” Joint Staff spokesperson Joe Holstead told Axios.
- The White House declined to comment.
The intrigue: Caine has been the only military leader briefing Trump in recent weeks on Iran.
- CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper hasn’t been invited to the meetings Trump convened on Iran and hasn’t spoken to the president since the crisis started in early January.
- Cooper’s predecessor, Gen. Erik Kurilla, briefed both Trump and former President Biden on Iran.
- A senior administration official confirmed Trump hasn’t spoken to Adm. Cooper.
Zoom in: Vice President Vance has also raised concerns about entanglement during internal deliberations in recent days.
- One source confirmed the VP had been raising questions about the risks and complexity of the operation with military and national security officials, but denied he was outright opposed to striking Iran.
- Vance hopes the talks in Geneva on Thursday will produce a diplomatic breakthrough, but is not optimistic about the odds of a deal — a position shared by many other top officials.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been “sitting on the fence” rather than advocating strongly for or against a strike, according to two sources.
- Rubio has historically been hawkish on Iran, but he has been focusing more of his energy in recent weeks on Venezuela and Cuba.
Driving the news: Witkoff and Kushner are planning to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Thursday in Geneva.
- Both have advised Trump that time is on his side and that his hand will get stronger with every day that passes.
- Their message is that Trump should see what he can get from the Iranians, and pull the trigger if and when he decides diplomacy has lost momentum.
- A source with knowledge said Trump has been leaning towards launching a strike for several days, but agreed to give Witkoff and Kushner a bit more time for negotiations. Another source said Trump insisted on more negotiations by Witkoff and Kushner because he wants to make sure all avenues are “exhausted.”
The other side: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is one of the main advocates in favor of military action in Trump’s extended circle. He lamented in an interview with Axios on Saturday that many of Trump’s advisers were counseling him not to bomb Iran.
- Graham urged the president to ignore them and move forward with a strike, including in a phone call the two had on Sunday.
- Graham and other strike advocates around Trump — mostly outside of the administration — are concerned that as time passes, momentum will be lost and Trump will have to settle for a bad deal.
Another person advocating for strikes is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has been growing more concerned since meeting Trump ten days ago that the U.S. will stand down.
- A U.S. source who met Netanyahu last week said the prime minister left the meeting with Trump feeling he’d been unable to pull him towards his position.
- “Is he still with us?” Netanyahu asked, according to the source.
The bottom line: “Everyone has a job to do and does their job. Rubio isn’t figuring out what planes to fly. Caine isn’t worrying about diplomatic fallout. The decision to strike, when and how or if at all, has not been made,” a senior administration official said.
@Axios
