By Courtney Kube, Katherine Doyle and Keir Simmons, nbcnews.com

WASHINGTON — Israeli and Arab officials have told the Trump administration in recent days that they believe the Iranian regime may not yet be weakened to the point where U.S. military strikes would be the decisive blow that topples it, according to a U.S. official, a former U.S. official briefed on the discussions, a person familiar with the Israeli leadership’s thinking and two Arab officials.

The Israeli and Arab officials have suggested that President Donald Trump, who is weighing military action in Iran in response to the regime’s deadly crackdown on protesters, hold back on large-scale strikes for now, with some of them preferring to wait until the regime is even more strained, the sources said. They also noted the situation in Iran is rapidly developing, with the stability of the regime potentially changing quickly in one direction or the other.

The conversations, which have involved American political and military leaders, underscore the complex dynamic Trump faces as he weighs possible options for U.S. action in Iran. Trump, who is expected hold a meeting Tuesday with his national security team to review options, has threatened Iran with U.S. military action if the regime is killing protesters.

White House officials have said Trump is considering a range of possible options as protests enter their third week, including ones that don’t involve military force. Members of Trump's national security team held a meeting Tuesday morning on Iran that he did not attend, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

A spokesperson for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. declined to comment.

A White House official said in a statement, “All options are at President Trump’s disposal to address the situation in Iran. The president listens to a host of opinions on any given issue, but ultimately makes the decision he feels is best.” The official added that Trump “means what he says,” pointing to military action he ordered against Iran in June and earlier this month to capture the leader of Venezuela.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna253718

Authored by Kenin M. Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

California’s far-left Supreme Court has ordered restrictions on the speech and expressive conduct of California’s lawyers “at all times,” including during their unrelated business activities, political endeavors and personal lives.

Just before Christmas, the even more radical California State Bar imperiously advised the state’s 200,000 lawyers “Read it, declare it, mean it.” That ominous warning introduced the California Supreme Court’s Orwellian Rule 9.7 which requires every lawyer to attest that: “As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.” The license of any lawyer who fails or refuses to acquiesce will be invalidated, and any lawyer who violates the oath is subject to “appropriate fees and penalties” to be set by the Bar.

For a nanosecond, that’s an appealing concept. But, under the First Amendment, no instrumentality of government may condition an individual’s livelihood on complying with its view of “dignity” or “courtesy,” in their political or personal endeavors. Invalidating the licenses of non-compliant lawyers also violates procedural due process under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. Tying the oath to meaningless pap about a lawyer being an “officer of the court” exposes the premeditated overreach.

As a threshold problem, even in traditional usage, “strive,” “dignity” and “courtesy” are so vague that no lawyer could know what is required, violating substantive due process. Presumably, cross-dressing is now considered dignified and proper; but, what about blackface? Or using invective, mentioning a transgender person’s “deadname,” employing grammatically and biologically correct pronouns, opposing abortion on demand, wearing a MAGA hat or T-shirt, referring to the homeless as vagrants, rather than “unhoused,” or illegal aliens as invaders, rather than non-citizens? How about singing off-key?

These statements and symbols are protected by the First Amendment, and yet, aside from singing off-key, each has been used by the far left to suppress social media posts and articles, suspend and expel students, and fire employees on grounds that their traditional beliefs and expressive conduct are discourteous and undignified. In Europe, which has no First Amendment, criminal prosecutions for speech and symbols progressives find odious are rapidly increasing. Britain made more than 12,000 arrests last year, more than 30 each day, for offensive online posts.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/california-restricts-free-speech

by Tyler Durden Update(1420ET): President Trump just said something very revealing while in Michigan. He admitted he really doesn't know the death toll in Iran after a couple weeks of raging protests and violence. In classic Trump fashion, he started the morning by issuing direct threats of military intervention, but now seems to obfuscate, keeping Iranian leaders and the world guessing...

But there's reason to believe that even if Trump wanted to order some kind of 'kinetic strikes' on the Islamic Republic, it may not be imminent. Regional analyst Levent Kemal has observed: I don't think help is on the way. 

And no matter how much Trump threatens, most of the US Navy strike group is still in the Caribbean. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/iran-summons-european-envoys-shows-videos-armed-rioters-causing-mayhem