Trump Reveals “Red Line” for Iran

President Trump made headlines again this weekend with a statement that felt both familiar and unsettling: The United States does have a “red line” when it comes to getting involved with Iran – and if the regime continues killing its own people, the President says America is prepared to respond with “very strong options.”

That phrase alone is enough to make a lot of Americans pause.

As reported:

Tehran said on Monday it is keeping communications open with the U.S. as President Donald Trump weighed responses to a deadly crackdown on nationwide protests, which pose one of the stiffest challenges to clerical rule since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Trump said on Sunday the U.S. may meet Iranian officials and he was in contact with Iran’s opposition, while piling pressure on its leaders, including threatening possible military action over lethal violence against protesters. . . .

U.S.-based rights group HRANA said it had verified the deaths of 572 people - 503 protesters and 69 security personnel. Since the protests began on December 28 and spread around the country, 10,694 people have been arrested, the group said.

Reuters was unable to independently verify the tallies. The flow of information from the Islamic Republic has been hampered by an internet blackout since Thursday.

Iran’s leaders, their regional clout much reduced, are facing fierce demonstrations that evolved from complaints about dire economic hardships to defiant calls for the fall of the deeply entrenched clerical establishment.

Trump made it clear that this wouldn’t necessarily mean boots on the ground, but it would mean hitting the regime “very hard where it hurts.” We’re told the military is reviewing options. The President is receiving hourly updates. This is not casual rhetoric – it’s deliberate, measured, and serious.

When Americans hear words like “red line,” “strong options,” and “determination,” it’s hard not to think of Iraq. It’s hard not to remember a time when limited action slowly turned into endless war, nation-building, and trillions of dollars spent, with thousands of lives lost without there ever being any clear resolution.

At the same time, it’s impossible to ignore what’s happening inside Iran. Even by conservative estimates, more than 500 protesters have been killed by the regime in just the past few weeks. Internet blackouts have made it difficult for the truth to get out, though tools like Starlink have helped pierce the regime’s attempt to silence its own people. This is now the longest and most sustained uprising Iran has seen in years – and it’s still growing.

President Trump said the red line would be crossed if the regime continued killing civilians the way it has in the past. However, many would argue that the line has already been crossed. Iran’s response was predictable but telling. Their foreign minister insisted they are “not warmongers,” yet claimed they are prepared for war – while also expressing openness to “fair negotiations.” That sounds less like confidence and more like a regime trying to hold on to power as it loses control at home.

One thing is clear: This Administration is not bluffing. President Trump pointed to recent history – including Venezuela, and the strike on Soleimani – as evidence that when this White House draws a line, it expects to be taken seriously. This isn’t an Administration that rushes to war, but it also isn’t one that issues empty warnings.

And supporting the Iranian people does not automatically mean occupying their country. It doesn’t mean rebuilding their government or trying to impose Western democracy by force. The Iranian people are educated, resourceful, and historically proud. Iran was not always ruled by a brutal theocracy obsessed with exporting terror. The tragedy is how much wealth and potential have been stolen, crushed, or squandered on Hamas, Hezbollah, assassination plots, and repression.

History also warns us about power vacuums. We’ve seen what happens when evil regimes fall and something worse rushes in to replace them. Syria is a painful reminder that “regime change” is never clean or predictable. That’s why this moment demands humility – not bravado.

A few callers to the broadcast this morning voiced concerns about whether U.S. involvement in Iran would embolden our adversaries elsewhere. For instance, would Putin see this as an opportunity in Ukraine? Would China feel justified to move on Taiwan? Are we prepared to confront multiple global crises at once? Those are fair questions – and they deserve an honest debate.

President Trump is clearly walking a narrow line here, and he knows it. Targeted action instead of endless war. Deterrence instead of occupation.

But a red line, once drawn, matters. You can’t wipe it away and draw a new line if your adversary tests your resolve. America learned that lesson the hard way in Syria when a red line was ignored and credibility evaporated. If a President says, “This cannot continue,” and then allows it to continue, the consequences often grow far worse.

So do the American people believe the United States has a moral responsibility to act when a regime slaughters its own people? Or do we believe restraint – even in the face of brutality – is the wiser course after decades of war fatigue?

This isn’t a simple choice. It’s not an ideological purity test. It’s a moment that forces us to weigh history, morality, national interest, and human cost, all at once.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included more analysis of President Trump’s words regarding the “red line” and whether the U.S. will have to step in and deal with the Iranian regime. We were also joined by the head of the ACLJ’s Jerusalem office, ACLJ Senior Counsel for International and Government Affairs Jeff Ballabon, to discuss the disturbing rise in antisemitism here in the United States.

Watch the full broadcast below: