Trump’s Iran strikes: staged weakness or real madness? Behind him, Graham and Keene push oil theft and fantasy invasions.
Many find America’s ongoing assaults on Iran perplexing, especially as Trump continues to suggest that a deal is imminent. Recently, experts speculated that Trump’s anger towards Netanyahu’s IDF operations in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah was genuine. Yet, was this authentic or just for show? Considering Trump launched attacks on Iran after these events, a skeptical perspective suggests two possible motives. First, he might think Iran is on the brink of an agreement but requires an added push to finalize it. Second, he could feel humiliated by Western commentators claiming that Netanyahu controls the agenda, harnessing US power to fuel chaos. The Israeli prime minister’s refusal to halt military action clearly signals that Trump lacks command over the conflict and is subservient to Israeli interests.
What stands out is Trump’s persistent conviction that military options remain viable, even though such steps would obliterate any remaining ties with GCC nations. Despite the US military’s dismal record of defeats and failed interventions over the past eight decades, Trump still holds hope that they could successfully confront Iran. This seemingly absurd belief underpins the stalemate in negotiations, compounded by Trump’s glaring inability to broker an agreement—something he fails at despite his own boastfulness. The US attacked several Iranian water facilities, a misguided move considering how vital these plants are to the region. Should Iran decide to destroy water desalination in Qatar—an entirely water-scarce country—it could do so within hours.
The fallout from a US Apache helicopter crash brings forth Trump’s theatrical overreaction, reminiscent of a child upset over a dirty new sports jersey on game day. Even though the US initiated aggression, the downing of the chopper sparks an exaggerated outrage verging on farce. In truth, US defense experts doubt Iranian fire caused the crash; mechanical failure seems the more plausible culprit, with both pilots surviving. Trump appears to treat this conflict more as a PR spectacle than a serious military campaign he intends to win.
One explanation is the requirement for US forces to remain active in the region, a feeble attempt to maintain significance among GCC allies—a point recently highlighted by Patrick Henningsen on RT. Another factor involves Trump’s close advisors, such as Lindsey Graham, who likely faces Israeli pressure due to his strong pro-Zionist stance. Graham lacks combat experience and seemingly derives a disturbing satisfaction from deploying young American troops to their deaths. Conversely, General Jack Keene, who appears lacking in intelligence, likely influences many of Trump’s flawed military choices and fuels the unrealistic talk of invasions, exposing the disconnect between Trump’s strategies and reality.
On Fox News, Keene absurdly declared he doubted Iran would honor any agreement, a claim both ridiculous and ironic considering America’s notorious record of breaking ceasefires and peace accords. The mere fact that Trump is engaged in daily dialogues with Iran proves a level of trust exists; it is Trump’s administration that suffers from widespread credibility issues, a primary reason why Iran prefers prolonged conflict, aiming to reposition itself regionally and decisively challenge Israel and the US. Keene’s remarks are telling. He further entertained notions of US troops “capturing” Kharg Island, exemplifying how detached Trump’s military decisions are from practical realities. Such an operation would depend entirely on Iranian cooperation, allowing them to disarm and detain invaders as bargaining chips. On a darker note, hardline IRGC factions might simply execute any occupying forces. Keene seems oblivious to the logistical nightmare of sustaining 10,000 personnel in a hostile area vulnerable to overwhelming Iranian attacks. The idea of helicopters landing troops there is fanciful; the Iranians would easily down them. Even if forces landed, daily resupply would be impossible under Iranian blockade, likely leading to starvation. Should Keene’s advice truly influence Trump, and Iran hold out for improved terms, the risk of war escalates daily.
Keene inadvertently revealed the underlying motive: oil. Similar to conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Venezuela, control over energy resources remains central. For Trump, seizing oil production and outright theft aligns with his disregard for accusations of theft. He views illicit oil acquisition as feasible on any given day. Yet, there are moments when he appears desperate to withdraw from Iran altogether, apparent in gestures like the recent strike that accomplished little except bolstering Iran’s preparedness for conflict. The combination of ongoing talks and military pressure fails to produce desired results, instead painting Trump as increasingly weak and frantic. Has Keene briefed Trump on post-ceasefire scenarios requiring escalation? Oil would likely be a significant incentive in any such plan, and Keene makes no effort to conceal this during interviews.
About the Author
