Iran Archives - Page 5 of 16 - CrossFireArarbia

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

News

Araghchi: US Contacts Maintained Now!

CrossFireArabia
January 12, 2026

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Monday evening that contacts between him and US envoy Steve Witkoff “continued before and after the protests, and are still ongoing.”

Iran is “ready for all options,” Araghchi told the Qatar-based Al Jazeera television.

The top diplomat expressed hope that Washington would choose “the wise option,” amid ongoing exchanges between the two sides.

“Some ideas are on the table with Washington and are currently being studied” by Tehran, he said, without giving further details.

However, he stressed that “it is not possible to combine the ideas proposed by Washington with its launching of threats against our country.”

On the possibility of a direct meeting with Witkoff, Araghchi said “there are ideas being discussed,” according to Anadolu.

Analyses

After Venezuela… Tighten Your Seatbelts

CrossFireArabia
January 7, 2026

By Mohammed Abu Rumman

John Mearsheimer, one of the most prominent professors and theorists of international relations and a founder of the so-called “structural realism” school, believes that the “Venezuela operation” (arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife) is not the end, but rather the beginning of major transformations taking place in the international system. While it reflects a significant tactical and military success for the United States, it also constitutes a major strategic failure, in terms of the inability to accurately predict the repercussions of this operation on the image of the United States and its role in the world, and the mobilization and consolidation of forces hostile to it regionally and internationally in response to the proposed American behavior.

One of the most important points raised by Mearsheimer is his prediction that the Venezuelan process will serve as a key and fundamental dynamic for the transition from the current unipolar international system, which emerged after the end of the Cold War, 35 years ago, and in which the United States and its Western allies dominated international politics, to a multipolar system. This multipolar system has already begun to take shape in one form or another in recent years, with the other two main poles being China, which clearly possesses significant economic, military, and cyber capabilities, and Russia.

On the other hand, the European continent is currently suffering from numerous problems, including its complicated and strained relationship with the United States, its strategic partner. It was evident from the recent US National Security Strategy announced by President Donald Trump that he underestimates Europe and its strategic power and greatly disregards the alliance between Europe and the United States.

From another perspective, it is clear there is considerable Israeli jubilation. Political analysts in Tel Aviv are clearly attempting to link this operation to the conflict with Iran, either by associating the Venezuelan regime with anti-Semitism and claiming the presence of significant activities by Hezbollah and Iranian supporters in Caracas, and/or considering what happened there, a message to the Iranian regime that new policies are being implemented at the beginning 2026, and the threat will not be limited to rhetoric only but be carried out on the ground.

This may align with Trump’s statements and leaks regarding his decision not to accept a proposal from his Middle East envoy, Steve Wittkopf, to renew dialogue with Iran. On the contrary, Trump insists on halting any dialogue with Iran, a view supported and advocated by his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who are pushing for a more stringent military and economic approach towards the Iranian regime.

This brings us back to the current Trump US National Security Strategy which served as a prelude and framework for what happened in Venezuela and anticipated US policies toward its two neighbors: Latin America and Canada. The strategy began by emphasizing the Monroe Doctrine (i.e., ensuring US hegemony and control over South America — the backyard) as the primary priority for the United States and its national security, a point we can infer from Trump’s subsequent threats against both Colombia and Cuba.

More importantly, there is a shift in the strategic perspective that dominates the Trump administration, both domestically and internationally. This refers to the question of identity, specifically the Anglo-Saxon Protestant community—which, for the Trump administration, represents its electoral base (we can here refer to Samuel Huntington’s book, “Who Are We?”, by the theorist of the clash of civilizations—a work that complements the Trump administration’s vision). While this new line, ostensibly represented by Trump, is the leading force within the Republican Party, it fundamentally reflects several new dynamics that began with the neoconservative dominance of the White House under George W. Bush.

These dynamics involve a heightened religious, cultural, and social connection to this identity, and a greater role for Christian Zionist groups and the American right wing in shaping American policies and strategic visions.

Within these parameters, ladies and gentlemen, we are entering a more difficult and tense phase, both globally and regionally. As Mearsheimer aptly describes it, this is a transitional phase in the international order, one in which America abandons its claims of democracy and human rights, international institutions become arenas of conflict between superpowers, and a state of confusion, turmoil, and regional tensions prevails, particularly in a region like the Middle East, which is already a perpetual hotspot of conflict in the world.

This article by Muhammad Abu Rumman was originally published in Arabic in the Jordan Addustour daily newspaper.

News

Netanyahu ‘Reassures’ Iran Via Putin

CrossFireArabia
January 6, 2026

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought the help of Russian President Vladimir Putin to relay reassuring messages to Iran that Tel Aviv does not intend to attack it, amid fears of a preemptive strike by Tehran, Israeli media reported on Monday.

Public broadcaster KAN, citing unnamed diplomatic sources, said Netanyahu asked Putin to convey “reassurance” messages to Iran that Israel has no plans to launch an attack.

Accoring to the outlet, the messages were recently delivered to Iran, including through phone calls between Netanyahu and Putin, amid concerns that Tehran might move to strike Israel preemptively to avert a possible Israeli attack.

KAN reported that the Russian president said last October that he had been asked to pass along a message to Iran stating that Israel was “not interested in escalation.”

Netanyahu, however, told the Knesset on Monday that Israel sent a message to Iran that if Israel is attacked, it would face “very severe consequences.”

KAN said that there was concern within Israel that a miscalculation by Iran could lead to an attack driven by fears of an imminent Israeli strike.

In recent weeks, Israeli political and security leaders have held discussions on various security issues, including the Iranian file.

Speculation has recently increased in Israeli media about a potential Israeli strike on Iran, against the backdrop of what has been described as Tehran’s “rebuilding of its ballistic missile program.”

Israel launched a 12-day war against Iran in June, with Tehran retaliating with drone and missile attacks. The US military bombed three major Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan — using bunker-buster bombs during the assault, before Washington managed to strike a ceasefire deal between the two arch-foes according to Anadolu.