Speculation out of the US tonight that President Donald Trump is considering an extremely dangerous and complex military operation.

In a bid to remove the nuclear threat from the Islamic Republic in Iran, the President could order American troops to raid two Iranian nuclear sites, Natanz and Isfahan, and seize their stockpile of enriched uranium.

It is suspected that Iran is currently holding 1,000 pounds of enriched uranium which is critical for making nuclear weapons.

The world is generally of the opinion that as the global sponsor of Islamic terror, Iran cannot be permitted nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the President is under extraordinary pressure to bring the war in Iran to a suitable close. Nations are demanding the Strait of Hormuz be secured and oil production across the region restored.

Global supply lines remain in chaos and countries such as Australia, at the very end of the queue, are facing price surges and potential rationing.

Putting boots on the ground in Iran would be a risky political move for the President, with more casualties likely.

Reaching, securing, and raiding nuclear facilities inside Iran is considered a high-risk scenario, even with a weakened regime running low on ammunition.

Reports released several days ago suggest Iran has a million troops ready to repel a US ground invasion.

Of course, this is not an attempt to overthrow a country but rather a targeted attack on two nuclear facilities, which changes the risk calculation. The problem is that Iran is a suicidal entity manned by soldiers who believe in martyrdom. They are orders of magnitude more dangerous than Japan’s Kamikaze pilots.

Despite no decision being made, 50,000 American troops are amassing in the region including Navy SEALs and Army Rangers. At least some are expected to be used to secure the strategic position of Kharg Island.

Iran’s new military commanders are drawing up a parliamentary plan to permanently block the Strait of Hormuz in violation of international law.

Their pledge to disrupt freedom of movement and extort tolls would give America everything it needs to take the strait by force. Hence Trump’s little joke about it being the ‘Strait of Trump’ over the weekend.

There appears to have been a strategic shift from ‘freeing Iran’ by sparking a regime change to ridding Iran of enriched uranium and diminishing its regional influence.

Military targets are being assessed by America while Israel wages its own war of revenge against Islamic terror groups in Lebanon and Iran. At the same time, other Arab countries who have wrongly come under attack from Iran are discussing a significant escalation to keep missiles away from their skyscrapers. They have no interest in joining Gaza as a pile of rubble.

It is very unlikely that ‘victory’ for America will come in the form of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi returning as the Shah.

The son of the last Shah of Iran has told America to ‘stay the course’ and promised to ‘Make Iran Great Again’ (MIGA) when he comes to power. How that would work in practice is less clear.

Donald Trump is insisting today that the killing of several levels of Iranian leaders and executive government officials constitutes a ‘regime change’.

Speaking on Air Force One, Trump said: ‘We’ve had regime change. If you look already because … one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead. The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we’re dealing with different people than anybody’s dealt with before. It’s a whole different group of people. So, I would consider that regime change … we can’t do much better than that.’

It is doubtful this definition matches the expectation of the Iranian monarchists. What the President is describing is regime chaos from which the Ayatollahs can recover thanks to their never-ending supply of theocratic extremists.

Compare this to when Trump told the people of Iran that their ‘moment of freedom’ is at hand.

This is not Trump’s fault. For many reasons, the expected groundswell of anti-government fighters never materialised. Trump has done more than expected to give an organic uprising a leg up. When push came to shove, they did not show. Not even with the Supreme Leader killed on day one.

Albanese is on the outside thanks to his previous mishandling of the US President and Labor’s generally antagonistic track record toward Republican goals.

Instead of doing deals with the oil-rich America, whose supplies are not subject to the Middle East war or Asia’s refinery crunch, Albanese is instead seeking clarity over the expected duration of the war.

A question, it should be obvious, no one has an answer to.

Albanese says he wants ‘more certainty’ from an uncertain conflict, something that is normally referred to as a ‘fool’s errand’.

‘I note the President today has said that there has been regime change. I think the President is in a position whereby he can claim that he has achieved the objectives that he set out to.’

Did our Prime Minister miss the rest of the conversation about retrieving enriched uranium? Or the need to stop Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz permanently? Or the troops gathering to take Kharg Island? Or the Houthis stepping into the war on Iran’s orders? Or Israel advancing to occupy parts of Hezbollah-held Lebanon?

Does this sound like a conflict that has reached its conclusion?

‘I want to see a recognition of the economic damage that this conflict is continuing to result in. I want to see an end or a de-escalation to the conflict. This has had a devastating impact and that tail will continue for some time. Quite clearly there is a need to see an end point. I think that’s what people want to see.’

Well, if the Prime Minister had been able to offer more strategic value to America, even if directed into a mutually beneficial Pacific standing, we might be privy to the next stages of the war.

If you read Churchill, you will learn that war presents enormously beneficial economic opportunities to nations distant from the frontlines and rich in raw materials.

That’s us, if the Prime Minister is listening.

We should be doing deals and surging our economy, not sulking in a corner, wallowing in our own government’s dire failures.