A letter and an attack, two tools for the same purpose America carried out military operations on Iranian soil at the same time that the president of this country is talking about the possibility of an agreement with Iran. This behavioral contradiction is actually perhaps the best illustration of Trump's current strategy. Yesterday, on the eve of election day, contrary to the threats of the last few weeks about the resumption of military operations after the elections, Trump said that he is in no rush to decide on the continuation of the war and even emphasized in a message that the agreement with Iran "can happen". At the same time, he has threatened in the past that if an agreement is not reached, the United States may attack targets including some nuclear sites in Iran. The problem is not that Trump hesitates between "war" and "peace"; The problem is that he kept both options active at the same time with one goal. The only goal is to crush Iran's resistance. Washington wants Iran to know that if Trump's alleged diplomacy fails, the military tools are ready; And at the same time he wants to assure Tehran that the road to an agreement has not yet been closed. The attack on Kesham is also understandable from this point of view. The operation was limited enough not to necessarily lead to full-scale war, but real enough to indicate that a military threat has not been ruled out. Trump probably wants to write the result of the game in his name before the game is over. If an agreement is formed, he can present it as the achievement of his pressure and power; If no agreement is reached, it could justify a military strike as a result of failed diplomacy. Even a limited operation can be presented in its political narrative as an exercise of American power. From this perspective, the US midterm elections are not just a local event; it has become a turning point in the case of Iran. Read the full text at the link below:

A letter and an attack, two tools for the same purpose America carried out military operations on Iranian soil at the same time that the president of this country is talking about the possibility of an agreement with Iran. This behavioral contradiction is actually perhaps the best illustration of Trump's current strategy. Yesterday, on the eve of election day, contrary to the threats of the last few weeks about the resumption of military operations after the elections, Trump said that he is in no rush to decide on the continuation of the war and even emphasized in a message that the agreement with Iran "can happen". At the same time, he has threatened in the past that if an agreement is not reached, the United States may attack targets including some nuclear sites in Iran. The problem is not that Trump hesitates between "war" and "peace"; The problem is that he kept both options active at the same time with one goal. The only goal is to crush Iran's resistance. Washington wants Iran to know that if Trump's alleged diplomacy fails, the military tools are ready; And at the same time he wants to assure Tehran that the road to an agreement has not yet been closed. The attack on Kesham is also understandable from this point of view. The operation was limited enough not to necessarily lead to full-scale war, but real enough to indicate that a military threat has not been ruled out. Trump probably wants to write the result of the game in his name before the game is over. If an agreement is formed, he can present it as the achievement of his pressure and power; If no agreement is reached, it could justify a military strike as a result of failed diplomacy. Even a limited operation can be presented in its political narrative as an exercise of American power. From this perspective, the US midterm elections are not just a local event; it has become a turning point in the case of Iran. Read the full text at the link below: