Friday 30 January 2026

According to new reporting from The New York Times

President Trump is now weighing A significantly expanded set of military options against Iran, options that go well beyond what the White House was considering just two weeks ago. And this is the key development. Those options now reportedly include the possibility of U.S. boots on the ground, and surgical Special Forces raids on targets inside Iran. However, it's important to know that no decision has yet been made, no orders have been given, and there's no indication of imminent action. But the scope of what's being discussed inside the administration has reportedly widened in a meaningful way. Up until now, the focus had largely been on air strikes, standoff weapons and pressure tactics designed to coerce Tehran back to the negotiating table. What's changed is that the Pentagon has now presented the president with a broader menu, one that includes covert ground operations aimed at further degrading Iran's nuclear and missile programmes or potentially destabilising the regime itself. U.S. officials say that these discussions are taking place in a different context than earlier this month. Even as the protest, movement inside Iran was violently crushed, Teran didn't back away from its nuclear ambitions or its support for proxy forces across the region, and that has renewed debate inside the administration about whether pressure alone is sufficient. Options under review included renewed round of air strikes against nuclear or missile infrastructure, familiar territory of course, to generally the least escalatory of the choices being considered. A second option would involve targeting Iranian military or leadership key sites in a way designed to create internal turmoil and weaken the supreme leader's grip on power, though officials privately acknowledge that there's no clear answer to what comes next if that were to succeed. But the most consequential an riskiest option is the possibility of inserting U.S. special operations forces into Iran to destroy or severely damaged nuclear facilities that may not have been fully eliminated in previous strikes. Now, that's not a hypothetical capability. American forces have trained for missions like that for decades. The question is not whether it can be done, but at what cost. President Trump has long expressed deep reservations about putting American troops on the ground in Iran. He's repeatedly cited the failed 1980 hostage rescue operation as a cautionary tale, and officials say that episode still weighs heavily on his thinking. At the same time, the president has contrasted that failure with what he views as the success of U.S. operations in Venezuela, where sustained military pressure ultimately led to the capture of Nicolas Maduro. But senior administration officials rightly acknowledge that Iran is a very different enemy than Venezuela. Air defences, geography and population make any operation considerably more complex and more dangerous. There are also legal and political questions hanging over any potential action. Limited strikes have often been carried out without explicit congressional authorization but a broader campaign, particularly one involving regime targeting or ground operations, would raise far more serious questions about war powers and presidential authority. Regionally, the stakes are high. Israel is pushing hard for renewed strikes on Miron's ballistic missile programme, which intelligence officials say Tehran has been rebuilding. In part, with China's help. For its part, Iran has warned that any U.S. strike would be treated as an act of war and has threatened to retaliation against Israel and US bases in the region. Meanwhile, the US military continues to position forces in the region.

Russia pauses airstrikes on Kyiv through february 1st after a personal request from president trump

Turning to the war in Ukraine, there is a notable pause underway in Russia's air campaign against Kyiv, one that reflects active US pressure but stops well short of signalling any broader shift in the war itself. According to multiple reports, Russian President Putin has agreed to halt airstrikes on Kyiv through the 1st of February. Following a direct request from President Trump. The pause comes amid brutal winter conditions and in the wake of some of the heaviest aerial assaults of the war on Ukraine's energy infrastructure. The Kremlin confirmed Friday that the decision was made at Trump's urging, framing the move as a step meant to create favourable conditions for further negotiations. But it's important to be clear from the outset this is not a ceasefire and does not suggest a wider diplomatic breakthrough. It could be, in fact, yet another example of Putin stringing the international community along while his troops continue their grinding assaults on the battlefields. According to a report from Reuters, the pause applies specifically to air strikes on the Ukrainian capital. Russian attacks on non-energy related infrastructure have continued in other parts of the country and there's been no change to moscow's broader military posture or its core demands in the war. Still, the timing is significant. The decision comes after weeks of relentless Russian strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, attacks that knocked out power across wide swaths of Kyiv during some of the coldest weather of the winter. Ukrainian officials have warned repeatedly that energy disruptions, not battlefield losses, now pose the greatest immediate risk to civilians, as well as to the larger war effort. In that context, even a limited pause is significant. Ukrainian President Zelenski said Kyiv is ready to reciprocate by halting its own attacks on Russian oil refinery infrastructure to campaign that Ukraine has quietly expanded in recent months. But Zelenski was careful not to oversell the moment, calling it, “an opportunity rather than an agreement”. He also confirmed that there were no strikes on Ukrainian energy facilities overnight, suggesting the pause, for now, is being observed. But scepticism in Kyiv remains high, and with good reason. Ukrainian officials remain wary that Moscow could be using the pause tactically. Using pressure on the capital while maintaining leverage elsewhere on the battlefield. From Moscow's perspective, temporarily halting attacks on Kyiv’s energy system carries relatively little cost. It tests Ukrainian restraint and helps Russia manage international optics as diplomatic talks remain technically alive. It's one of the clearest examples yet of President Trump seeking to use directed diplomatic leverage to extract a specific concession from Moscow and of Putin responding to that request, albeit in a limited fashion. It also reflects A broader effort by Washington to test whether energy related restraint could serve as a building block toward wider deescalation, even if a comprehensive peace deal remains distant. It also gives Ukraine time to stabilise their grid, restore essential services and reinforce their air defences. Speaking with reporters on Friday, Zelenski said Ukraine's air defences have been severely depleted at a critical moment. He blamed European allies who he said had recently delayed payments to the U.S. under the current weapons purchase arrangement, which meant U.S. supplied Patriot air defence missiles failed to arrive ahead of heavy Russian strikes earlier this month. Those delays he said, directly contributed to Kyiv's vulnerability during recent attacks that crippled the power grid. That vulnerability helps explain Ukraine's openness to temporary restraint, despite their deep scepticism of Putin's real motivations. Looking ahead, the diplomatic picture remains fluid. He said the next round of U.S. brokered trilateral talks with Russia could still take place in early February, but he cautioned Friday, that the talks, which were originally expected to resume in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, could be postponed.