On the map of America’s war on Iran in the coming days

U.S. President Donald Trump has drawn a “map” for resuming war on Iran as a real pressure tool to impose what he wants in the “negotiating deal.” He asked Iraqi Prime Minister Dr. Ali al-Zaidi to make Iraq a “bulwark” against Iranian influence, as was the case under former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He also asked Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to “deal with” Hezbollah militarily in Lebanon. In the same vein, he is pressuring the Gulf states to be part of the coalition against Iran. He is also exerting pressure on European countries to emerge from their “state of neutrality” and send their warships and drones to participate alongside the United States in the mission of opening the Strait of Hormuz. Beyond that, he is dispatching dozens of aircraft to Ben Gurion Airport to refuel U.S. warplanes in the air, while also placing 100 American warplanes at Israel’s disposal. Further tightening the war atmosphere is the use of Crete airport as a launch point for the most advanced U.S. aircraft.

The American “war climate” is accompanied by President Donald Trump with an implicit threat to both Moscow and Beijing should they supply Iran with weapons, ammunition, and intelligence. He is also signaling to President Vladimir Putin that he has no objection to supplying Ukraine with everything it needs in weapons and missiles to continue a painful war backed by Washington, contrary to all previous American reassurances to him.

In a sign from President Donald Trump that he is brandishing the threat of a comprehensive war on Iran, he says that within two minutes he can bring Netanyahu and Israel into the war. It is as though he is saying that the party holding the real decision over Israel is the United States and the White House, not the other way around. This is a point that minister Jean Obeid had inferred in a political reading from the fact that U.S. Middle East envoy Philip Habib had told President Amin Gemayel in the 1980s: “Do not carry out everything Israel tells you. It is not necessary for there to be complete alignment between the American and Israeli positions.” In this context, this is a point taken into account by Lebanese President General Joseph Aoun, who fully understands the nature of the region’s complexities, the difficult circumstances surrounding it, and the possibility of “destructive adventures” from which he seeks to keep Lebanon removed.

It is notable that the U.S. president is forcefully pushing to combine the military and diplomatic options while raising the ceiling of his demands toward Iran. He does not rule out the possibility of using frozen Iranian assets and funds to compensate ship owners if Iran continues targeting vessels attempting to cross the strait against its wishes. He also objects to any “understandings” between Iran and the Sultanate of Oman regarding the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the strait is “international” and that freedom of navigation there is the rule. A Western European diplomatic source interprets this to mean that President Donald Trump will move toward war in the coming days unless he senses “Iranian flexibility” and a willingness for a new reading of the “memorandum of understanding” that takes American reservations into account, specifically regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The aforementioned Western source concludes that at the heart of the U.S. president’s strategy is control of straits and sea lanes and, more broadly, holding the “seas card,” on the basis that the United States is a “maritime state” through its deployed fleets, its control over trade routes, and its “encirclement” of rival states, whoever they may be—especially after it took control of NATO countries’ decision-making, subordinated Western Europe, and dragged it toward what it wants, should it choose, in its war on Iran.

For its part, Iran is preparing for all-out war while keeping windows open to mediators in their difficult mission. What Iran is currently watching with great concern is whether Washington is preparing for a ground war, with Israel and the Iranian opposition abroad in Albania and Kurdistan alongside it.

In all cases, the translation of the war option lies in futile subsidiary wars for which the countries of the Middle East will pay the price.