Tensions are rising shortly before renewed talks between the US and Iran, with representatives from Tehran and Washington set to negotiate on Thursday in Geneva over Iran's nuclear program.

In political and security policy circles, there is increasing talk of a "military countdown" should no agreement be reached.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that US President Donald Trump is considering limited military strikes against Iran as a first step to exert pressure on Tehran to accept his demands on a nuclear deal, while trying to avoid a spiral of escalation that could lead to all-out war.

At the same time, it is said that if Iran continues to refuse to comply with US demands, the Trump administration could also consider a much broader military campaign aiming to weaken or overthrow the leadership in Tehran.

Iran has stated in a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres that it does not want to start a war. However, if the country is attacked militarily, it will respond "resolutely and appropriately" within the framework of its right to self-defense.

Risk of military escalation growing 

No one can say for sure what goals the US would pursue in the event of a war, said Menashe Amir, an Israel-based Iran expert and Farsi-language journalist at Israel Radio International.

"Perhaps even Trump himself does not yet know the definitive answer," he said. 

Nevertheless, the idea of the Iranian regime's downfall is gaining some traction in Washington. "Trump has come to the conclusion that the Middle East will never find stability without an end to the current leadership in Tehran," Amir added.

Two US officials confirmed to the Reuters news agency on February 20 that military planning on Iran is already at an advanced stage. Reported options include targeted attacks on specific individuals and measures that could even aim at regime change, provided President Trump gives the order.

However, Damon Golriz, a strategy analyst at The Hague Institute for Global Change, warns that even a limited military intervention in Iran would most likely go beyond its originally intended scope.

A regime that faces existential threats on several fronts would no longer see escalation as merely an option, but rather as necessary for its survival, Golriz pointed out.

Under pressure from massive internal unrest and international isolation, Golriz said the regime in Tehran could trigger a "chain reaction" with its regional militant proxy groups that could escalate instability in the Middle East.

Kamran Matin, a lecturer in international relations at the University of Sussex, said, however, that Trump prefers a deal with Iran to military conflict.

"A military conflict would be difficult to predict, and there is no clear exit strategy in sight. The president's advisors have also repeatedly pointed out the risks of open conflict," he told DW.

Pressure from Israel 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to persuade Trump into military action against Iran.

Last year, the US joined Israel's 12-day war with Iran by dropping bunker-busting bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israel sees the regime in Tehran as an existential threat, and would be a target for Iranian drones and missiles if the conflict were to escalate.

During a speech to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, on February 23, Netanyahu said Israel was "vigilant and prepared for any scenario."

Netanyahu warned that if the Ayatollahs' regime in Tehran makes "the biggest mistake in their history and attacks Israel, we will respond with a force they cannot imagine."

Israel-based Iran expert Amir said that Israel has "convinced Washington with extensive evidence that the region's problems can only be radically solved by overthrowing the regime."

"In Trump's latest statements, we see that he is not only addressing Iran's nuclear program, but also the oppression of the Iranian people. This could indicate a fundamental change in the American president's doctrine," he added.

These political and military signals increase the pressure on the upcoming talks in Geneva, which many observers consider to be the last chance for a diplomatic solution.

Regime change in Iran easier said than done

However, analysts are skeptical that the current developments will eventually lead to a secular democracy in Iran.

Lecturer Matin said that the US National Security Strategy released in November suggests that the era of "nation-building" is over and that the US's focus has shifted from the Middle East to China.

Without a clear political alternative for Iran, an agreement with the existing regime is more likely the preferred option for the US, he said.

Analyst Golriz also said that it is doubtful that US military strikes would lead to Iranian democracy.

"The steadfastness of the Tehran regime after killing more than 30,000 protesters without any significant internal defections illustrates how far away a democratic transition still is," he said.

If the Islamic Republic were to be toppled, Golriz said a more likely scenario would be the emergence of an authoritarian military government or, in the worst case, total state collapse and regional conflict.

This article was translated from German 

Edited by: Ole Tangen Jr