By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Officials assess that President Trump is inclined to launch a broad military strike on Iran soon, after Tehran failed to meet American demands in negotiations, believing the Iranians are attempting to stall. In Israel, the working assumption is that Iran would fire missiles at the country even if it did not participate in potential U.S. strikes, leading to preparations for war and the highest level of defensive alert. While the exact timing remains unknown and dependent on the President, signs indicate that action could come within days, though several considerations could delay an attack. The United States is preparing for a prolonged confrontation, with possible objectives including regime change through a series of strikes over several weeks. Israel has also raised its alert level and military preparations amid growing indications of a possible joint U.S.-Israeli strike.
Read the original article here
Israel is currently on high alert, with officials keenly assessing the possibility of an imminent US strike on Iran. This heightened state of readiness has led to the postponement of a critical security cabinet meeting, underscoring the gravity of the perceived threat. The notion of “imminent” strikes has become a recurring theme, leaving many to question the precise timeframe involved – is it a matter of hours or days?
The strategic implications of such an action are being dissected with intense scrutiny. Some observers point to historical patterns, noting that certain geopolitical events, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, occurred after major international gatherings like the Olympics. This historical context fuels skepticism regarding official pronouncements of “imminent” conflict, suggesting a wait-and-see approach until concrete actions are taken.
Concerns are being raised about the potential for increased American military involvement on a global scale, particularly in the lead-up to midterm elections. There’s a sentiment that despite past pronouncements and criticisms of previous administrations’ foreign policies, the current administration appears poised to engage in significant military actions, rather than pursuing diplomatic solutions. This perceived contradiction between rhetoric and action is a point of considerable discussion.
The logistics of a potential strike are also being examined, with questions arising about the positioning of naval assets, such as carrier groups, and the movement of military aircraft. This suggests that if a military operation is indeed being contemplated, significant preparatory steps are already underway. The underlying objective of any proposed action against Iran is also being debated, with some speculating that the demand might be for Iran to instigate a self-directed, structured change in its leadership, an outcome many deem highly unlikely for any sovereign nation to accept.
A significant portion of the discourse centers on the possibility that military action against Iran is being considered primarily as a diversionary tactic, intended to shift public attention away from sensitive domestic issues, such as the Trump-Epstein files. This perspective suggests that the timing of any potential strike, perhaps after market closures on a Friday, is strategically chosen to maximize its impact as a distraction.
The intensity of the alert within Israel is palpable and is forcing many to pay close attention. There’s a strong feeling that any perceived opportunity will be seized to divert attention. The notion of “boots on the ground” and liberating Iran from its current regime is expressed, with a clear distinction drawn between the current political structure and a perceived historical Zoroastrian identity.
However, a counter-argument suggests that a full-scale military engagement is not the intended outcome. Instead, this viewpoint posits that the current display of force is an American maneuver designed to pressure Iran into accepting a deal. The absence of a broad international coalition for such an operation is noted, with some countries urging restraint. The potential for this to become a protracted conflict, drawing parallels to Vietnam, is a significant concern, especially given the potential for retaliatory attacks on American bases in the region.
There is also a prevailing sentiment that military operations against Iran would not align with the pursuit of peace, particularly concerning any accolades that might be bestowed upon leaders involved. The idea that a national emergency might be sought to postpone elections further fuels the narrative of distraction. The scale of alleged transgressions, involving both domestic and international actions, is being weighed against the potential consequences of escalating conflict.
The discourse also touches upon the idea that certain leaders might be motivated by self-preservation, even if it means initiating global conflict to shield themselves and their allies from scrutiny. This perspective highlights the potential for political motivations to override rational decision-making, particularly when faced with significant personal and political pressure. The possibility of a planned military action being a calculated move to address domestic crises is a recurring theme.
The question of what follows Iran in terms of potential military engagements is also being raised, with historical land grabs and the pursuit of strategic assets being mentioned. The ongoing debate about Iran’s nuclear capabilities continues, and the potential for recurring military actions until a definitive resolution is reached is a possibility being discussed.
There is a strong undercurrent of distrust regarding the motivations behind proposed military actions, with many believing that the desire for personal glory and the avoidance of domestic fallout are key drivers. The fear of public backlash, especially if a conflict escalates into a prolonged and costly engagement, is also acknowledged as a factor influencing decision-making.
The current regime in Iran is also seen as facing internal pressures, which could make them more susceptible to external actions or internal dissent. The intensity of the current alert is significant enough to warrant serious attention, but there’s a continuous cycle of “imminent” threats that can wear down military personnel and foster resentment. The potential for miscalculation in such a high-stakes environment is a constant danger.
Ultimately, the situation is viewed as a complex interplay of geopolitical tensions, domestic political pressures, and the ever-present possibility of miscalculation. The postponement of the Israeli security cabinet meeting signifies the immediate and pressing nature of these concerns, as the region braces for potential developments that could have far-reaching consequences.