In diplomatic exchanges with allies and regional powers, US officials are delivering a blunt warning to Iran: accept Washington’s conditions or prepare for a comprehensive campaign to dismantle Iran’s political system. Donald Trump’s envoys reinforce his stance that every option remains on the table.
The world has every reason to be worried, and many have the right to resist. Trump is a political gambler. The kidnapping of Venezuela’s president from his home did not give Washington control over the world, nor did it grant it the authority to decide the fate of nations.
This trajectory has triggered deep regional anxiety. Trump, faced with failure, is likely to escalate under his belief that power alone determines outcomes. The cost of the gamble would be borne by the people of the region, while Washington would retain the option of withdrawal once the damage is done. Iraq and Afghanistan remain the clearest precedents.
Even Israel, the most vocal advocate of Washington’s strategy and its principal operational partner, is uneasy. Tel Aviv fears a long war with unpredictable consequences. Its reservations are not about whether confrontation should occur, but about how it should be waged. Israeli officials insist on full partnership in planning and execution, convinced that they possess the deepest understanding of the Iranian file. Yet Netanyahu faces a dilemma: no one can guarantee control over a campaign driven personally by Trump.
Trump, faced with failure, is likely to escalate under his belief that power alone determines outcomes.
Trump’s conception of war is built around a fantasy of cost-free domination. He speaks of a “clean war” — one in which the United States loses no soldiers and its military infrastructure remains untouched. He has instructed his generals to deploy an overwhelming force to eliminate both risks. Where intelligence fails, he believes firepower must compensate. In this logic, there are no red lines, no ceilings, and no political constraints. Weapons are treated as tools unconstrained by consequence.
At the core of the US-Israeli vision lies an ambitious objective: provoking an internal rupture inside Iran itself. Washington has been sending signals to influential figures and institutions that it is prepared to deal with any authority willing to meet its conditions, regardless of ideology. The only requirement is compliance. The goal is for Iran to become dependent, its economy tied to US leverage. Trump has gone further, attempting to entice potential successors with promises of regional and international influence.
Meanwhile, the military machine is moving. Since the latest alert phase, US forces have been preparing the operational theatre: large-scale deployments, heavy armament, and a tightening presence around Iran’s western and southern flanks, with eastern corridors activated if required. The build-up is centered on air and missile power, with naval forces assuming a growing role as a forward platform.
Israel is expected to provide field intelligence, sabotage operations, targeted assassinations, and potentially direct combat participation. Inside Israel, there is little political hesitation about war. Security agencies are already operating on the ground, building an extensive human and logistical target bank. Israeli officials have signaled their readiness to absorb the costs, provided the campaign continues until Iran’s political system collapses.
The goal is for Iran to become dependent, its economy tied to US leverage.
Israel has also offered to shield US forces by launching parallel operations in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen should Iran’s allies enter the war — a scenario Washington fears most. While Israeli planners claim confidence in managing these fronts, they have grown increasingly wary of strategic surprises.
Inside Iran, the leadership is operating on the assumption that the confrontation may reach its most extreme form. Preparations are unfolding along two tracks: strengthening defensive capabilities against a large-scale assault and tightening internal security to prevent domestic destabilization.
This posture is now visible across the country. Urban and rural populations alike understand that the state views the moment as an existential test. There are no signs of serious currents within the system calling for accommodation with Trump. Even factions that once favored de-escalation now find themselves politically cornered. They understand that opposition to current policies does not translate into a desire for regime reversal, and that Iranian national identity is incompatible with external tutelage. Iran’s central institutions show no inclination to subordinate themselves to foreign power.
Crucially, Washington itself is not seeking a negotiated settlement. Many inside Iran are convinced that the objective is not reform, but submission — and that any alternative authority would be engineered to function as a client regime, no different from others across the region.
In effect, Iran now stands in confrontation with the United States, alongside Israel and Europe. Yet Tehran has deliberately refrained from revealing how it would respond if war were unleashed. No one can reliably predict the scale or form of its retaliation. Comparisons with past confrontations are being drawn, but there is no certainty that old models still apply. Meanwhile, Iran’s allies and those who understand the catastrophic consequences of regime collapse in Tehran remain on constant alert. They know precisely when, where, and how to act, particularly if an imminent existential threat emerges against the core of the front resisting US dominance.
With Trump, volatility is policy. He is prepared to reverse course within hours and escalate without warning. This is the pathology of empires in the late stage of power.
Ibrahim Al-Amine
source: Al Akhbar