President Donald Trump is under pressure to clarify his vision for Iran following reports of continued attacks on Iran, resulting in the first American casualties since the start of unprovoked military attacks by the United States and Israel.

President Trump’s critics are demanding more clarity from the White House about what will happen next. Opponents and analysts say the lack of a clear plan so far risks drawing the U.S. into the kind of protracted conflict that President Trump has repeatedly vowed to avoid.

“If the administration has a strategy, frankly they haven’t revealed it yet,” said Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow and Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

“He’s going to have to move in the direction of a bigger political project, and it’s not just the military part, but he’s going to have to have a deeper conversation within his administration about what kind of regime change he can bring about.

“Then the campaign won’t be four days or four weeks or even four months. It could be much longer.”

President Trump, who has repeatedly called the 2003 invasion of Iraq a mistake, has been criticized for not publicly claiming he had launched a new attack on Iranian facilities after claiming he had “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear facilities in a series of attacks last June.

His brief remarks on Iran in last week’s State of the Union address mentioned its nuclear program and ballistic missile threat but did not mention regime change. He also stated that he would like to resolve the issue of Iran’s military threat through diplomacy.

Democrats have expressed concern that a decision to attack Iran could be made without a clear goal.

“Where the hell is this going?” Jim Himes, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee told NPR. “We can bomb Iran with the Israelis for a long time, but for what purpose?

“Is the intention to change regimes? Because there aren’t many examples where bombings have affected regime change, or frankly the U.S. military has actually done so in a satisfactory way.”

Mr. Vananka warned that there was little prospect of regime change unless the regime collapsed “under its own weight” in the face of public opposition or the United States “kept its feet on the ground,” an option he suggested was best carried out through the use of intelligence services rather than the military.

“The smart way [of implementing the latter option] The CIA will be an intelligence agency led by the same people on the ground. [that] He revealed to them who the senior leaders were hiding, where they were hiding, and when they were hiding.

“It’s about using those same assets to start creating a new set of political dynamics within the regime and essentially getting people to accept that this regime is gone, it’s not going to come back the same way.” Essentially, we need a kind of political change along these lines. That would require significant investment, and I’m not even sure the U.S. can make it happen. ”

Stephen Cash, a former CIA operative and now head of Steady State, a group of retired US national security officials, called the lack of a plan for “what’s next” “very disturbing” and suggested that Trump may be more interested in creating the conditions to interfere in the upcoming US midterm elections than in regime change in Iran.

“From the Korean War to the Cold War to Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, one thing we’ve certainly learned is that it’s not enough to start a war; you need a plan to end it,” he said.

After it was confirmed that Khamenei, the theocracy’s most powerful politician and top cleric, was killed along with numerous other senior regime officials, President Trump said those who remained wanted dialogue.

“They want to talk and I’ve agreed to talk, so I’m going to talk to them,” he told The Atlantic. “They should have done it sooner. They should have offered something very practical and easy to do sooner. They waited too long.”

But in the midst of attacks on Iran and Tehran’s retaliation across the Middle East, that may not be easy.

President Trump said most of the people who took part in previous negotiations have been killed. “Most of those people have left. Some of the people we were dealing with have left because it was a big hit. They should have been able to make a deal. They should have made a deal sooner.”

These comments appear to support Vatanka’s view that the president has “no plans for regime change” but is instead seeking “a weakened government that won’t hurt anyone.”

“If he wants regime change, there are a lot of opposition figures that he can bring into the White House and say, ‘This guy is going to be the next ruling leader of Iran,'” Vatanka said. “He doesn’t do that, which makes us think maybe he’s still thinking about doing it.” [make a deal with] It’s the same system. ”

But that idea could be blown away by Iranian retaliation, forcing President Trump to take a tougher stance to avoid being seen as weak.

Iran reportedly retaliated with a wave of attacks of its own on Sunday, killing three U.S. soldiers and wounding five others.

President Trump expressed clear support for “regime change” in a video message announcing Saturday’s airstrike, but offered little indication of how that should happen beyond urging Iranians to act.

“For years you have been asking for America’s help,” he said. said. “Now we have a president who will give you what you want. So let’s see how you react. Now is the time for action. Don’t miss out.”