Donald Trump Archives - Page 5 of 36

Trump’s War Drums ‘Dampen’

CrossFireArabia
February 2, 2026

EDITOR’S NOTE: This editorial is written by Abdul Bari Atwan, chief editor of the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website, on 2 February 2026, on the eve of increasing US military presence sorrounding Iran.

The fact that the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei appeared three times in open and public meetings, chatting to ordinary Iranians recently, sends a shocking message to US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It shows Khamenei still has the first and final word in Iran, and is not hiding in an underground bunker for fear of assassination; he has not relinquished his leadership and spiritual powers, as some Arab and Western media outlets have promoted in deliberate leaks part of the psychological warfare against Iran, coinciding with the US military buildup in the region.

In contrast top Israeli politicians and military officials are rushing to Washington fearing that President Trump will back down from his aggression threats and replace the military option for a peaceful, negotiated one and reaching an accord that does not include Israeli demands and conditions. Israeli Chief of Staff General Eyal Zamir made a surprise visit to Washington recently and met with senior US military leaders, accompanied by his own top military commanders, including the Israeli Air Force Commander.

Frankly however Trump may have already lost this war, just as he lost face and credibility by failing to follow up on his threats and translate them into aggressive actions on Iranian soil as he has resorted to sending mediators, with the latest being his friend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to reopen negotiations with Iran after realizing his naval buildup and aircraft carrier deployments is not yielding results, nor are they intimidating the Iranian leadership into surrendering. Thus, he may be defeated either way, whether he goes to war or resorts to a political and diplomatic solution to the cri

The key to understanding this confusion and perhaps American retreat, and the postponement of military strikes, lies in the threatening message sent by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Trump during his meetings with the numerous Iranians on the anniversary of the late Ayatollah Khomeini’s death. The most prominent point was his assertion that “Iran does not initiate wars, but if it is subjected to aggression, it will confront it with all its might and inflict devastating blows on the enemy.” More importantly, he stated “this war will be a broad regional conflict, it will not be swift, decisive, or short-lived,” nor “clean”— meaning, free of casualties.

A “regional war” means all countries, movements, and military factions aligned with the “axis of resistance” will participate, starting with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and Ansar Allah in Yemen. American bases in the region, particularly on the Arabian side of the Gulf, will be legitimate targets, as will all the American soldiers stationed there and whose numbers exceed 70,000.

What terrifies Israel most is not only Trump’s failure to proceed with his aggression against Iran, but also the possibility of reaching an agreement that contradicts all three of Israel’s objectives:

First: Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, halting all Iranian uranium enrichment at high levels, and surrendering all its existing stockpile (480 kilograms) to a neutral country. Second: Halting the development and launch of Iranian missiles, and dismantling all long-range missiles, whether hypersonic or multiple-warhead, capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory, particularly Haifa and Tel Aviv, as demonstrated in the 12-day war last June.

Third: Completely ceasing all financial and missile support for resistance movements, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon and its Iraqi counterpart, factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces such as Harakat al-Nujaba, and Ansar Allah in Yemen.

A Reminder

Everyone should be reminded the return of 5,000 American soldiers in coffins to Washington, killed by the Iraqi resistance after the 2003 invasion, forced the then-President Barack Obama to acknowledge defeat and withdraw 160,000 American troops from Iraq in November 2011. This was made to minimize losses. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that any aggression against Iran today would result in four times that number of American casualties, if not more, in the initial days of the attack. This is due to Iran’s resolve, advanced missiles and drones, and other secret weapons that might be the biggest surprises of this war, should it start.

Perhaps the decline in oil prices, the collapse of gold and silver prices, and the dollar’s shocking depreciation in global financial markets are among the most prominent indicators confirming what was stated above: The diminishing likelihood of war, Trump’s reluctant inclination towards diplomatic solutions and negotiations, and his initial admission of his failure to achieve a military victory to avoid losses and the protracted regional war threatened by the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Time will tell.

Analyses

Donald’s War Bells

Dr Khairi Janbek
February 2, 2026

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When talking about the stand off between the US and Iran, in fact, anything can happen on the kaleidoscope of endless talks to an endless war. Usually it is possible to predict the reaction of one collective or another with some knowledge, but impossible to predict the reaction of an individual no matter what knowledge is available.

This is especially the case if this individual is Donald Trump. He makes it his business to be unpredictable and depending who tells him what and whether he likes it or not; but at least we can attempt to drive some inference from the situation, a situation which finds the current American president who heavily criticized his predecessors for dragging the United States into protracted wars with dubious results.

In this sense, the operative term is a short and decisive war, which is unclear in terms of what duration in order to be decisive about what? From the term, short and decisive, President Trump seems to know what he wants, which we can pontificate on in a myriad of possibilities, however, and for all intents and purposes, it can only mean a campaign of targeting the current leadership, civilian, military and security, coupled with targeting Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities.

Alternatively, for a leader obsessed with reality show image, he wishes to drag Iran to the negotiations table, which is not supposed to appear as a negotiations table, rather a table which will show a supposedly humiliated Iran, accepting the terms of the Washington administration: Those terms being a peaceful nuclear programme under close international supervision, no missile development programme, and stopping its support to its current regional proxies.

But the snag in all those plans,seems to be based on the reports indicating that the president has been told, that in order for the war to be decisive, it’s not likely to be a short one, which puts Trump in the conundrum of dragging the US into a protracted war on many other fronts, ranging from Iran to Iraq to Yemen. One is not saying at all that the US military cannot handle it, rather how costly will be the confrontation with Iran and its proxies be to achieve a decisive objective, which Trump desires to achieve in a short war?

In effect, if he does go to war at this point the objective has to change, and the meaning of decisive has also to change, meaning it would have to be regime change, knowing only too well, that there is no viable political alternative to the Mullahs except the Shah of Iran, which Trump doesn’t seem to be too keen on, and no one else in the region; for they are not much qualified to deal with day of regime change in Iran.

Also from an economic point of view: How long can a standing navy fleet stay on alert for war. The matter is not only psychological, but rather financial, as the moving of such a sizable war machine costs millions of dollars, now, if there are sponsors for this big operation and whom are willing to pay the expenses, then the US navy, similar to its Venezuelan operations, can encircle Iran and confiscate its oil shipments in the high seas , but if the US is paying for this big operation, then it won’t be long before we hear about a war breaking out.

Analyses

Gulf Escalation: A Blaze Awaits The Region

CrossFireArabia
January 29, 2026

By Dr Marwan Asmar

With the Abraham Lincoln destroyer entering Middle East waters, everyone is gearing up for another US–Israeli war on Iran—the second in less than eight months.

Anxiety is gripping the region from the Gulf to Iran and all the way to Israel. Foreign states are warning their citizens in these countries to leave, while some airlines have suspended flights to the region. Once again, the Middle East is on a war footing, with fears that a wide conflict could erupt at any moment.

With an additional 7,000 US troops moving to the region, along with jets and fighter planes, the buildup is being described as the biggest “get-ready” military move since 2003, when the US launched its major war on Iraq and reshaped the region. Today, Middle Eastern countries are jittery about the current situation and the possibility of looming instability.

US President Donald Trump is not helping matters. He says he is weighing all options but keeps everyone guessing about his next move. He has warned that if the Iranian government continues its iron-fisted crackdown on protesters, the US could intervene militarily and wage another war on Tehran—much to the delight of the Israeli government, which is reportedly playing a behind-the-scenes role in encouraging unrest in Iran.

Although Trump is raising the war tempo and increasingly saber-rattling through military entrenchment, he is also sending mixed signals. He is not as boisterous as he was when he launched US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June 2025. What he really wants is to push Iran back to the negotiating table and secure a lasting deal on its nuclear programme. He claims Iran’s facilities have been dealt a significant blow and may never recover, but this seems unrealistic, given how far Iran has advanced in nuclear enrichment.

While Trump describes Israel as a “role model” ally and urges Arab countries to follow suit—a claim many find laughable—Washington appears to be diverging from Tel Aviv over objectives on Iran and may even be at odds with it. Analysts say Israel wants strikes, even multiple ones, to change Iran’s regime and is less concerned about the chaos that could follow.

The United States, by contrast, appears more cautious. US officials do not necessarily want a new regime in Iran, uncertain of what might replace it. They prefer the logic of “the devil you know rather than the devil you don’t.” Washington wants a regime it can work with, despite ideological differences, notwithstanding Trump’s bombastic rhetoric, which Tehran may exploit if it chooses to play the “Mr Nice Guy.”

One analyst suggests Trump wants tangible gains from Iran, preferably access to its oil resources through US petroleum companies, but this may be a pipe dream.

If that fails, Trump is likely to push for a revamped nuclear deal to replace the 2015 agreement, which reached its term in September 2025 and is up for renewal. He wants a deal stamped with a distinctly “Trumpian” identity, even though many issues are already settled. Needless to say, Trump wants to claim credit for clinching the deal.

Today, the region stands on the edge of a precipice. It is touch-and-go. Many experts argue that a Middle East war is not imminent because it is neither politically nor economically feasible. Yet logic often takes a back seat in Trump’s world, especially with Israel pushing for a new wave of attacks on Iran, this time targeting its ballistic missile programme.

Iran, however, says it is ready. It has warned it will strike US bases in the region and beyond if it detects even a hint of an imminent attack. Iranian political and military leaders insist they will not remain sitting ducks for Washington or Tel Aviv. As a result, the region is caught in an escalating poker game.

While many believe Iran and its regional allies, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, have been significantly weakened over the past two years, neither the US nor Israel can be certain of Iran’s real capabilities. This uncertainty leaves them unsure about their next move—or Iran’s.

All this makes both Israel and the United States nervous about unpredictable scenarios across the region. Everyone is waiting, tapping their fingers, bracing for what may come next.

This article was originally published in Countercurrents.org

Opinion

Trump’s Authortarianism

CrossFireArabia
January 29, 2026

By Michael Jansen

Amnesty International-USA has issued an unprecedented 46-page report on the state of that country’s domestic affairs a year after Donald Trump began his second term on January 20th. The report, “Ringing Alarm Bells,” has traced how the Trump administration’s adoption of authoritarianism is violating human rights in the US and abroad and blocking accountability. The administration’s practices increase “the risk for journalists and people who speak out or dissent, including protestors, lawyers, students, and human rights defenders,” Amnesty said.

The report describes 12 areas in which the Trump administration is undermining the “pillars” supporting the US edifice. Trump is curbing “freedom of the press and access to information, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, civil society organisations and universities, political opponents and critics, judges, lawyers, and the legal system,” and due process. The report “documents attacks on refugee and migrant rights, the scapegoating of [entire] communities and the rollback of non-discrimination protections, the use of the military for domestic purposes…[and] the expansion of surveillance without meaningful oversight.” The adoption of such practices domestically extends to external affairs where international laws meant to protect human rights are being undermined.

Amnesty gave examples of abuses, several are included below. “Students are arrested and detained for protesting on college campuses” and communities are invaded and terrorized” by masked federal agents who are not held accountable. Such activities are “being normalised” across the country. Palestinians who are legal US residents and take part in anti-Israeli protests over Gaza have been targeted, arrested, detained and threatened with deportation.

To exact vengeance against critics, Trump has used the levers of power to “retaliate against, threaten, and coerce elected officials, federal employees and prosecutors, and universities and media outlets.” Trump has used job dismissal, suspension, investigations, withdrawal of security clearances, and denial of federal funding and contracts to attain his objectives in this campaign.

Trump has used state and federal military forces to police protests and support unlawful immigration enforcement. Black and brown demonstrations and restive localities have been disproportionately targeted. After trying to leave the area where there was an anti-deportation protest, Renee Good was shot to death in her car by a federal agent in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called her a “domestic terrorist” before any investigation had begun. The local authorities waited for a federal investigation to take over the probe into this incident which has been widely publicised and politicised.

Trump has threatened to invoke the 19th Insurrection Act, a law authorising military deployment to quell Minneapolis protests against his aggressive campaign to identify and deport “illegal” migrants although US citizens have been mistakenly swept up and detained in this effort.

Trump’s Justice Department opened a criminal probe into Minnesota state Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of impeding federal immigration operations. Walz charged the Republican administration of “weaponizing the justice system against your opponents.”

Meanwhile, on the international level, Trump has demanded that Denmark hand over to the US Greenland, an integral part of the Danish Kingdom, and threatened European countries backing Denmark with 10-25 per cent tariff punishments. Greenland is not only a strategic island, but it has deposits of precious metals. Denmark and 85 per cent of Greenlanders and 75 per cent of US citizens reject Trump’s bid although he has continued to voice his demand and issue threats against opponents and critics.

He has called for Canada to become the 51t US state despite rejection by the government and citizens. Trump argues that the US must re-acquire the Panama Canal, a choke point in the East-West trade route which connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The canal was built by US engineers between 1903-1914 and was held by the US until handed over to Panama on December 31st, 1999. He falsely claims Russia and China menace both Greenland and the Panama Canal. Trump uses imagined threats to forge new global realities. However, other leaders, countries and populations prefer not to undermine and fracture the status quo which has maintained peace over and in Greenland and Panama as well as between global actors.

The writer is a columnist for the Jordan Times

Analyses

Historical Kick: Weighing The Hit Against Iran

CrossFireArabia
January 14, 2026

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a reprint of an article written by me and posted in 2008 about Israel gearing up to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities. Perceptive is the fact it took Israel and and the USA 17 years, in June 2025, to make a direct hit on Iran and its nuclear facilities. Today, US President Donald Trump, and with the current protests in Iran, is weighing the options for another direct on Iran. However Tehran said it will retaliate with more launches on Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities just as it did last year as well on as US military bases. The reprint is made here with the same title, Weighing the hit against Iran as it appeared in the Media Monitors Network.

Will Israel hit Iran’s nuclear facilities, or won’t they? You would think everyone would be talking about it on the international level, and it might be the case judging from the newspaper articles that are being churned out about a possible nuke followed by regional conflagration.

In Jordan news is in full throttle: Yes Israel is contemplating a hit on Iran and it is in line with its power-hungry policies to dominate the region even if it eventually destroys itself.

Newspapers here see Israel as careless and would not only be prepared for that slippery-slope of a nuclear exchange but would use her nukes as a deterrent force to stop Iran from gaining her own nuclear capability.

Iran is not afraid, saying time and again, her nuclear development is for peaceful purposes and it will have a nuclear capability come what may regardless of what Israel is trying to do and of the international nuclear inspectors monitoring her activities which is more than can be said of Israel whose nuclear reactors and capabilities remain a state secret.

On a more personal level, I briefly talked to my wife about the possible hit in Iran, which I thought was well probable after reading the recent articles, and she just looked and said the issue is being blown out by media talk: There “won’t be war” and it is “media hype”.

Someone else just made fun of the issue. All this was going on when International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad Al Baradei was warning that if a strike does happen then it will surely turn the region into a ball-fire.

Ball-fire or not, the journalists and media were having a field day, now they say is the best time to strike because US President George W. Bush is nearing his tenure in office and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in trouble over allegation of corruption charges and accepting bribes, and so the theory states if he is going to go then he wants to go in style.

But such reports and opinions are being made when the actual devastation and the far-reaching consequences of a potential strike and the subsequent military and nuclear exchange is underplayed and even treated as a daily occurrence where people will just pick up the pieces and continue with their lives.

People, including the media are not fully aware of what a nuclear exchange would mean, in terms of the scale of human losses, of radiation, devastation, the so-called nuclear winter of darkness, the nuclear holocaust that would actually make the area, the region and the geography completely uninhabitable for many years to come.

While this maybe the case in the West with the media there long tackling these issues, especially at the height of the Cold War in the 1980s, here the media has taken more of a sedate view about tackling these subjects especially since more important issues were on the scene.

That is up till now. Seeing the issue as an extension of the Arab-Israeli conflict, today the media is using the possible strike as a point of titillating us into fright regardless of the cynicism of many people like my wife who keep saying its media scare-mongering. But, and regardless again, what is required is a real cold analysis of the situation as it exists.

Would Israel be willing to take a chance and strike, whether military or nuclear, knowing full-will that the present Iran has the long-range missile capability, and knowing also the United States is not too sure and can’t make up its mind about the strike while playing lip service to negotiation and diplomatic talk.

Iran is not Iraq; this is not 1982 when Israeli F 16s flew over the region and bombed the Ozreiq reactor being built by under Saddam Hussein. Despite the fact the Americans are in Iraq, and the Israelis are flexing their muscles against the Palestinians and frequently threatening the Lebanese and Syrians, the security and military environment in the region is changing,

New powers like Iran, Syria, Turkey and non-state actors like Hizbollah and maybe Hamas are increasingly making headways in the region and internationally, and therefore a direct hit on Iran by Israel would not be received at all well by the Europeans who already recognize Israel’s intransigence on the Middle East process regardless if they want to do something about it or not.

Today, Israel’s image is increasingly at stake, an image that has come to be increasingly tarnished since the start of the Intifada in the year 2000, and Israel would definitely not want to rock the boat by seeking to pot practice with its own nuclear war heads and missiles–guessed at 200 in the late 1990s–on states like Iran.

The other important thing to remember is that Israel values its own existence and survival; that’s why it will not practice adventurist measures to the point where it may destroy itself through nuclear striking other nations even though such would be surgical strikes or limited which are nullified for all intense and purpose.

Hence survival is not only a security argument but an ideological one that involves an entity, identity and statehood. An Israeli state even if it does survive a nuclear exchange would probably be sitting in an ocean of radiation still far to be within the parameters of Europe, and certainly too far to remain as the United States valuable ally because if all things are destroyed there would be no need to have a “trusted friend” in the Middle East.

These continue to be in the realm of possibilities and conjectures. However, and against the argument of nuclear hit on Iran is the fact that American troops are in Iraq, in the middle of what would become a “nuclear ball-fire”. This is, unless of course, Israel refuses to give warning and go for the element of surprise and unleashes its weapons against Iran in the hope of preemption, a doctrine the US used for launching its 2003 war to remove Saddam Hussein and destroy his so-called weapons of mass destruction which were subsequently proved false.