By Ismail Al Sharif
“We are in an advanced position, and we will decide when the war will end,” said Kazem Gharibabadi, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister.
President Donald Trump, in coordination with the Zionist entity, is igniting a regional war with Iran which is an unprecedented event in the region. Analysis of the true motives behind this fateful decision vary. One school of thought believes the strategic objective lies in controlling Iranian oil wealth and containing growing Chinese influence. Another links this to the Epstein affair, based on claims of Zionist pressure threatening to expose him to sensitive information.
A third school believes that Trump is tied to political commitments made to Miriam Adelson, who generously funded his election campaign. Some go even further, alleging that Trump, known for his transactional negotiating style, received substantial financial compensation for engaging in this war. In a related context however, recent reports indicate that Trump himself has blamed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and several close advisors for instigating this latest military adventure.
Whatever the true motives behind igniting this war, one path seems almost certain to end it: Trump will hold a press conference declaring a unilateral and absolute victory. The precise timing of this declaration remains uncertain.
But the decision to cease hostilities does not rest with Trump alone; it is contingent upon the agreement of two other key parties: Tehran and Israel.
Israel shows no desire to end this war, as it is the primary beneficiary of its continuation. It systematically seeks to dismantle the structure of the Islamic Republic and sees no harm in the regime’s collapse leading to widespread chaos engulfing Iran and the entire region.
If Trump fails to restrain Netanyahu, the latter will not hesitate to continue his military operations even after any official American declaration of a ceasefire. This may explain why Trump declared that any settlement to end the conflict would only be possible with Netanyahu’s consent and explicit blessing.
However, the Zionist entity might feign acceptance of a ceasefire while its Mossad intelligence apparatus works behind the scenes to fuel separatist and rebellious sentiments among ethnic minorities within Iran, such as the Kurds and Balouchis, potentially threatening the cohesion of the Iranian state from within. In response, Tehran would have no choice but to continue targeting the entity, which would then retaliate swiftly, potentially drawing Trump back into a cycle of military confrontation.
Adding to Trump’s predicament is the possibility that he might ultimately declare a ceasefire unilaterally, without any fundamental change to the structure of the Iranian regime, and without extracting any genuine concessions from Tehran regarding halting uranium enrichment, dismantling its missile program, or severing its ties with regional allies—the very pretexts used to launch the war.
Even more dangerous is the fact that the Islamic Republic’s resilience and its emergence from this crisis with its system intact will make it a unique and exceptional model: The first country to challenge American hegemony and emerge unscathed. This could encourage other countries suffering under the weight of Trump’s policies or ambitions—such as Venezuela and Greenland—to adopt resistance as a path, even if they lack Iran’s military capabilities.
It seems to me that President Trump may be following in the footsteps of his predecessor, George W. Bush, when he famously declared victory in 2003 from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which was then—as it is today—at the eye of the American military storm. It is worth recalling here that Bush’s speech was a highly symbolic and premature declaration, one that was quickly contradicted by events, as the war on Iraqi soil continued for nearly a decade afterward.
The war has exhausted Iran and burdened it with immense hardships, making it seriously seek a cessation of hostilities. However, it simultaneously finds itself in direct confrontation with American will. Iranian officials have made it clear that any agreement to a ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations is contingent upon receiving firm guarantees from Washington and Tel Aviv that the aggression will not be repeated. Should Tehran manage to withstand and overcome this phase, it is likely to add to its list of demands one of which is the lifting of some of the sanctions imposed upon it.
Therefore, it appears that the Iranian strategy is essentially based on a policy of systematic attrition; simultaneously exhausting the United States and Israel by driving oil prices to high levels and closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s vital energy artery. This would impose heavy economic burdens that might ultimately compel Washington to reconsider its calculations and agree to a ceasefire.
In short, Trump will not be in a position to deliver a victory speech in the next week or two, and any such declaration without genuine cooperation from Israel and Iran will amount to nothing more than empty rhetoric devoid of any real substance on the ground. There is no doubt that President Trump has put himself, his country, and the entire region in a very complex strategic predicament, from which the way out may not be as easy as those who made the decision to go to war imagine.
This analysis was originally written in Arabic and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com
CrossFireArabia
