The talk of the war on Iran … intentional Israeli intimidation

Talk about launching a pro-self military attack on Iran in Israel, whether the potential attacker is said to be Israel itself, the United States, or even a faction of the Takfirist factions. The circulation and transmission of any news, analysis or comment of this type is an Israeli combat tool that Tel Aviv has used excessively in the last two decades against its enemies, especially Iran.

Similar to what is presented on the occasion of the changes in the region and the world, the talk about the war against Iran is recreated, although this time on the occasion of the loss of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, the elections and the exit of his White House administration. The question that he created himself, or that created by the exploiters of American international change, is this: Will Trump launch a war against Iran for the rest of his term?
The reality is that Trump’s personality is the carrier of extremist hypotheses that cannot be accepted, which made the hypothesis of the military attack on Iran more common, and perhaps with a degree of credibility that is not rejected by the general conscience of the citizenry. of the region and the world. More than that, there is talk of the possibility that Israel, and this is where the person of its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could exploit the remainder of Trump’s term to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is a hypothesis that enters the context of the first hypothesis and accompanies it.
The first hypothesis, which is the madness of Trump and the war against Iran or other international arenas, originates from the American media and leaks from American sources about the Trump administration itself. It was reported, citing administration sources, that he “feared” that the outgoing president would take extremist action, taking advantage of the period he has left. The objective of the leak, as it was discovered at the time, is related to the controversy that was generated, and continues, about the electoral results between the republican and democratic rejection and acceptance, and a wide public division around them . Basically, the leak and other things that are consistent with it are linked, apparently, from the most probable estimates, to an attempt to scare the other party and prevent him from taking action against Trump at the end of his term, leading to his opponents consequently, to an agreement that would grant him subsequent legal immunity that would have been in the context of tax evasion, which is considered one of the main crimes in the United States, which would allow him to stand in the 2024 elections.

The reality is that Trump’s personality is the bearer of supposedly unacceptable extremists

Will launching a war against Iran increase Trump’s chances in the next election in four years? Is this war in line with the policy of keeping the United States out of the armed conflicts that concern you to conclude your term with it, besides the more important question: what prevented Trump from launching a war against Iran, was available to him and he had his reasons and excuses, and now he found no objections? Does this war increase your chances of preventing you from being prosecuted or running for president in 2024 for the presidential election, and increase your chances of winning?
The second hypothesis that accompanies the first, which is that Netanyahu uses the remainder of Trump’s mandate to wage war against Iran, is an Israeli hypothesis, and it was found in the context of and as a result of the first. The intimidation of war is an Israeli combat tool that does not leave Tel Aviv, whether the talk and intimidation are based on a solid or a flimsy foundation, and it is an integral part of the Israeli strategies that have been followed since the establishment of the entity, whether the intimidation and intimidation of war is the enemies of Israel or its allies, including the American patron as well. To the Hebrew state.
Similar to the first hypothesis, the question comes with answers to the same hypothesis: Was Trump preventing Israel, if he could wage war against Iran to destroy its military facilities, to allow it now to wage its war? Basically, is Israel capable of that and can it bear the consequences? Is it also capable of achieving the result set for such a war? These are three questions whose answers must be clear before talking about the acceptance or non-acceptance of the war by the United States.
This hypothesis is being talked about in a way that has become normal and automatic by Israel and its media, although intimidation has an Israeli function and objective that transcends the contexts that may appear, starting with those “intimidating” reports. .
On the Israeli side, to talk again about war and military attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, related to something other than Iran, which is the next US administration, which is estimated to be in a different position in its approach to the Iranian arena compared to the Trump’s approach, with talking about the possibility of resorting to negotiations and arrangements similar to an agreement. The year 2015, from which Trump withdrew and in its wake intensified the economic pressure on the Islamic Republic.
The war speech is a preventive measure – preventive for any settlement steps that the new US administration may take, whether it aims to curb the settlement initiative without regard for Israel and its demands, or whether it is related. with the need to emphasize the terms of the next agreement, so that it is not similar to the 2015 agreement, with the administration of former President Barack Obama. And the exaggeration, here, with the military option, is a necessity and a duty according to Israeli strategies, in the pre and post pressure that accompanies the steps of an agreement with Iran by the American ally.
Therefore, care needs to be taken when releasing analysis and estimates based on the immediate circumstances of targeted statements and leaks, from this or that side, specifically the Israeli side that is subject to threats and intimidation to the extent that it has become a habit to follow in the face of various assumptions, fears and scenarios, whether of the friend. And the ally, or on the part of the enemies.

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here