Having amassed theheaviestUS air power in the Middle East since the disastrous 2003 Iraq invasion,President Trump is now considering an initial, limited strike on Iran to force it to bow to the maximalist demands of Israel and the United States.The idea is based on two deeply questionable premises:
Reported by theWall Street Journal,the single-strike scenario is an alternative to the idea of a sustained, weeks-long military campaignthat would not only target nuclear sites, but also state and security facilities. The Pentagon has beenactively planning for such an onslaught, and one official toldReutersthat the administration fully expects such a campaign would trigger Iranian retaliation and a series of strikes and reprisals that last far longer than last summer's 12-day war that was initiated by Israel.
While Israel-catering warmongers like to portray Iranian leaders as unstable religious zealots,the Iranian government has demonstrated enormous restraintin the face of decades ofeconomicand military warfare. In addition to last year's war started by Israel, other extreme provocations have included the 2020 US killing of Iranian general and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, an April 2024 Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Syria, and a long-running series of Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.
However,the era of Iranian strategic restraint may be over."Unlike the restraint Iran showed in June 2025, our powerful armed forces have no qualms about firing back with everything we have if we come under renewed attack,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchiwrotein January.
Elsewhere, Iran has said that, "in the event that it is subjected to military aggression, all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate targets." More pointedly,Ayatollah Khamenei has conjured imagery of US sailors being condemned to a watery graveby Trump's initiation of war:
The Americans constantly say that they’ve sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware. However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.
The risk of spiraling escalation is compounded by another variable:Iran's increasingly close ties to Russia and China. Underscoring the dangerous potential of US conflict with major powers,the three countries recently kicked off joint naval drillsin the key oil transit chokepoint Strait of Hormuz, as well as the Gulf of Oman, and the northern Indian Ocean. President Putin aide Nikolay Patrushev framed the exercises as part ofRussia's drive to advance a "multipolar world order on the oceans...We willtap into the potential of BRICS, which should now be given a full-fledged strategic maritime dimension."
As wenotedon Tuesday, it's unlikely that Chinese or Russian militaries would engage with US forces, buttheir presence raises the risk of accidental engagements, and complicates the US Navy's maneuvering of ships and firing of weapons in the crowded waters.
Attacking Iran would certainly put an end to the latest US-Iranian negotiations, which have thus far comprised two rounds of talks in February, the first in Oman and the second in Geneva. Though Iran initially struck some positive notes about the Geneva talks,both sides ultimately voiced dissatisfaction with the discussions.
Vice PresidentJD Vance said Iran failed to take seriously Trump's demandsthat Iran end all enrichment of uranium, and limit the range of its conventional ballistic missiles, including the hypersonic missiles that proved to be a potent counterforce after Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran last summer just days before another round of nuclear negotiations were to take place:
Source: ZeroHedge News
