LONDON - The goal of last year’s June war on Iran was to deliver a strike that would spark unrest. The objective has now shifted toward protests paving the way for another strike. However, both objectives have failed. The driving force behind Trump’s interventions and brutality across various regions lies in the scale of US debt and America’s decline amid competition with China. 

To address this, he seeks to seize energy sources to control global economy, dominate others’ wealth, and acquire rare minerals that would grant it technological and commercial superiority. A $32 trillion debt, in his view, requires a strategy to resolve the crisis. Consequently, Trump looks for easy targets, such as the Caribbean, within his immediate sphere of influence.

Regarding the possibility of achieving results in a confrontation with Iran, given the size of the US military buildup in the region, even while the Islamic Republic is under maximum economic and political pressure, it is insufficient to topple a country like Iran through air or naval strikes, while a ground invasion is impossible. Iran’s capacity to respond by targeting US bases must be taken into account, particularly given the number of such bases abroad, some of which were evacuated as soon as a strike was announced.

Therefore, while US forces are an asset when controlling territory, they become a weakness when they can be targeted and harmed. Even if Iran were subjected to large-scale destruction affecting electronic systems, infrastructure, or communications, it would be capable of overcoming such damage and would not collapse.

An operation aimed at overthrowing the system cannot succeed through naval or aerial attacks, and a ground invasion moves from impossible to inconceivable under current realities. Only the use of absolutely prohibited weapons or weapons of mass destruction could alter the equation. But such an option would scramble the situation entirely and create conditions unlivable and contrary to US interests. This is while Iran is not an existential threat. The pretext of “protecting demonstrators and protesters” does not justify a response of this magnitude or the use of such weapons. 

As a result, the current strategy relies on psychological warfare and attempts at regime change without the force necessary for overthrow is unavailable and nonexistent.
Trump views himself as the unchallengeable decision-maker and seeks to directly steer all events that concern him, placing Iran among his top priorities. However, the cost of war is a critical factor: when costs exceed profits, waging war becomes irrational. 

Trump’s agenda is not hidden. He openly declares his desire for occupation, administration of other countries, and seizure of oil. He has effectively appointed himself ruler of the planet, beyond objection. All of this amounts to intimidation and exaggeration, and it will not be effective in the case of Iran.