Trump, who arrived with the pledge to end “endless wars,” does not, in reality, promise a less aggressive United States. On the contrary, he appears far more determined and aggressive in establishing and cementing his authority at every key juncture and potential chokepoint across the globe.<\/p>\n
In this context, he continues to rapidly augment his military presence in the Middle East. Is the deployment of aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, F-35 fighter jets, and air defense assets to the region merely a classic show of force intended to exert leverage in negotiations with Iran, or is it a preliminary preparation for a direct military operation?<\/p>\n
Two military scenarios<\/strong><\/p>\n The buildup on the ground brings to mind two primary military scenarios in which a diplomatic solution has been relegated to the background. The first is the potential recurrence of an operation previously referred to as “Midnight Hammer”\u2014a limited yet high-intensity air campaign wherein U.S. B-2 strategic bombers target Iran\u2019s northern regions in particular. This scenario represents an approach aimed at degrading specific elements of Iran\u2019s military capacity without explicitly seeking regime change.<\/p>\n The second scenario involves the United States intervening following a potential Israeli attack, assuming a position to protect Israel and manage the conflict on a regional scale. Within this framework, the current U.S. military deployment can be interpreted as a form of strategic insurance for the steps Israel might take.<\/p>\n The common denominator in both possibilities is that this military buildup is being utilized to coerce Iran into making concessions at the negotiating table. However, it remains uncertain whether this policy of pressure will remain within the threshold of controlled deterrence or rapidly evolve into a conflict from which there is no easy return. Furthermore, in a scenario devoid of “boots on the ground”\u2014which seems highly unlikely\u2014we possess no data to suggest that the outcome of a new assault would differ from those of the past.<\/p>\n From the nuclear file to regional deterrence<\/strong><\/p>\n Another striking element is the shift in focus regarding the Iran dossier, moving away from the nuclear weapons issue. The center of the debate now revolves around Iran\u2019s ballistic missile program, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the support it provides to regional allies, primarily Hamas and Hezbollah. This shift has significantly broadened the scope of Washington\u2019s demands.<\/p>\n The current U.S. approach envisions not merely a new nuclear agreement, but Iran\u2019s withdrawal from its entire network of regional alliances, the abandonment of conventional deterrence assets including ballistic missiles, and its reduction to a\u00a0de facto<\/em>\u00a0defenseless position. For Iran, this signifies not just a military risk, but an existential one; for in this context, Tehran is expected to entrust its security to the goodwill of Israel and the United States. All these factors paint a pessimistic picture regarding the potential for diplomatic efforts to yield results.<\/p>\n The Israeli front<\/strong><\/p>\n In Israeli media, characterizing Netanyahu\u2019s visit to Washington as urgent suggests this is not merely a diplomatic contact. It is highly probable that the visit was conducted to coordinate a direct military operation. While there is immense pressure on Trump to attack Iran, the likelihood of him backtracking [on his non-interventionist pledges] is very high.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, despite all its military superiority, Israel has failed to establish a dominance over Hamas that would allow its forces to walk the streets comfortably without falling into an ambush; it does not exercise\u00a0de facto<\/em>\u00a0control over the field. In such a state, to what extent is Israel prepared for a prolonged and high-intensity regional war?<\/p>\n Between madness and deterrence<\/strong><\/p>\n The emerging picture points to an extremely risky and fragile balance. The path the U.S. is pursuing is far from promising a brief and controllable conflict, as demonstrated by past war simulations. Despite this, the insistence on this course of action raises increasing questions regarding the rationality of the plan.<\/p>\n Perhaps the sole source of optimism is that this scenario itself appears too insane even for the decision-makers. Yet, history frequently demonstrates that it is precisely such forms of madness that yield irreversible consequences. For this reason, the military buildup taking shape around Iran may not remain merely a show of force; it could also mark the beginning of a process wherein miscalculations spiral into a chain reaction of catastrophe.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Trump, who arrived with the pledge to end “endless wars,” does not, in reality, promise a less aggressive United States. On the contrary, he appears far more determined and aggressive in establishing and cementing his authority at every key juncture and potential chokepoint across the globe. In this context, he continues to rapidly augment his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":13558,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[1138,319,288,812,7019,1890,628,1192],"class_list":["post-13557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-benjamin-netanyahu","tag-donald-trump","tag-iran","tag-israel","tag-military-deployment","tag-nuclear","tag-security","tag-united-states"],"yoast_head":"\n