As the flames of war in Gaza begin to fade gradually, despite the fragility of the ceasefire, global attention has once again turned to the Middle East. This shift comes amid escalating US military pressure against Iran in recent days and the growing sound of American war drums.
The central question remains whether the United States is heading towards a full scale war aimed at changing the Iranian regime, or whether these military deployments are intended solely to coerce Tehran into reaching a political agreement that would see it abandon its nuclear programme, ballistic missile capabilities, and regional allies.
To address this question, it is necessary to examine several political dimensions related to the new direction of US President Donald Trump, particularly following what is described as his success in apprehending Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This assessment must also consider Iran’s position, the broader Middle East, and their impact on the stability of the global economy through the security of the world’s most critical oil supplies.
It is equally important to account for the expected roles of China and Russia in the event of a US Iranian war, a conflict both Tehran and Washington have sought to avoid for nearly five decades.
Trump’s recent statements towards Iran have been controversial. At times, he has threatened regime change and the targeting of Iran’s political leadership, especially following recent popular protests inside the country. At other moments, he has declared his desire to reach a nuclear agreement that would spare Iran a devastating fate.
The difficulty of predicting Trump’s decisions
President Trump is known for his exceptional ability to confuse political opponents attempting to anticipate and interpret his next moves, whether in domestic or foreign policy.
He developed this skill through a long personal career in business and media, most notably in a well known television programme in which he consistently preserved elements of surprise and media spectacle. This approach attracted the attention of tens of millions of viewers in the United States and beyond.
Trump’s statements and military decisions have often carried a dramatic media dimension, such as the assassination of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, or the arrest of Venezuela’s president. This political media drama is further intensified by the president’s frequently contradictory positions and statements.
During his first term, Trump issued fiery threats against North Korea’s leader, referring to him as the rocket man and warning of unprecedented firepower. This confrontational and undiplomatic tone quickly shifted to a rare meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and the exchange of what were described as brotherly messages.
Despite North Korea making no concessions on its nuclear programme or meeting the political demands of the Trump administration, Trump soon abandoned his hard line approach. Today, North Korea rarely features in his political rhetoric.
In another striking contradiction of US politics, controversial statements have recently targeted Denmark and Canada, with efforts to persuade the former to sell Greenland to the United States and the latter to join the American union as its fifty first state.
The same pattern is evident in Trump’s approach to Iran. At times, he threatens regime change and the targeting of political leaders, particularly after recent protests in Iran. At other times, he signals an interest in a nuclear agreement that would avert destruction.
This unpredictability functions as a double edged weapon. On one hand, it enables the US president to retain the initiative in political and military manoeuvres, aiming to extract the highest possible concessions. On the other, adversaries may overinterpret his actions, potentially dragging the United States into a war or armed conflict it does not wish to enter.
Iran is not Venezuela
There is little doubt that Trump’s confidence in his personal capabilities following the Venezuelan operation, carried out without restraint from other international powers such as China and Russia, has emboldened him to confront Iran. This move seeks to rid the United States of a long standing adversary, one whose hostility spans nearly five decades.
This time, Trump’s political demands on Iran appear significantly higher. They include the complete dismantling of its nuclear programme, the abandonment of its regional allies, and the surrender of its missile arsenal.
Trump has also expressed support for Iranian protesters, urging them to continue efforts to overthrow the regime and promising assistance in achieving that goal. He may believe that targeting certain Iranian leaders could accelerate the collapse of the system and empower domestic opposition forces.
However, Trump must recognise that Iran is not Venezuela, and the Middle East is not South America. Iran possesses a deeply entrenched military doctrine, substantial military capabilities, and extensive combat experience gained through wars and interventions. These strengths have endured despite a suffocating economic blockade since the birth of the Islamic Republic in the late 1970s.
Iran could, with relative ease, ignite conflict in the Strait of Hormuz and target global oil trade. Around 20 percent of the world’s seaborne oil passes through this vital waterway, a disruption that would severely paralyse the global economy.
While the Venezuelan government largely capitulated to Trump’s demands and accepted a fait accompli to avoid direct military confrontation with the United States, Iran’s political history and strong national sentiment suggest a very different response if its senior political leadership were targeted.
At the same time, the risk of the Iranian system collapsing from within appears greater than the threat of external attack. This is due to severe economic conditions affecting large segments of the population, in a society with a long history of mass popular uprisings.
The regional environment surrounding Iran also appears keen to avoid the devastation of war. Gulf states have officially stated their absolute rejection of allowing their territories to be used in any US military attack on Iran.
Türkiye is also working vigorously to de escalate tensions between Washington and Tehran in order to sustain nuclear negotiations. The success of this Turkish mediation depends on Iranian flexibility and on uncovering the true objectives behind Trump’s military escalation.
Meanwhile, Russian and Chinese positions to date appear more opposed to US military intervention in Iran than they were in Venezuela, reflecting the strong economic and military ties that bind Tehran to both powers.
The mysterious secret
There appears to be a hidden dimension, with matters being managed behind the scenes between the United States and Israel regarding Iran. This may include intelligence communication with certain Iranian military figures seeking power within the country, aimed at orchestrating a military coup supported by anti regime revolutionary forces and shielded by the US military presence in the region.
This scenario may seem like excessive political speculation. However, when considering the scale of Israeli intelligence penetration inside Iran and the capacity of hostile intelligence services to exploit recent protests amid harsh economic conditions, such a scenario may represent the least costly option for the United States in seeking to remove the Iranian system.
It appears that President Trump is determined this time to achieve his political objectives in Iran, exploiting what is described as an unprecedented weakness in the current system. This could occur either through direct military pressure to extract fundamental concessions, or through air strikes accompanied by internal regime change.
Recent shuttle diplomacy may help defuse the crisis between Iran and the United States and lead to agreement on general principles related to Iran’s nuclear programme and missile capabilities. Such an outcome would allow Trump to declare to the American public that military pressure and the threat of force are the only means of compelling America’s adversaries to submit to its political demands.
In any case, the dramatic US Iranian confrontation appears to have entered a critical phase, with its threads currently held by President Trump. Yet, ultimately, destiny rests in the hands of Allah alone.
