Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1512330596-scaled

Iran attack may be next in Trump's farewell bag of tricks

New clues indicate the worst, and if true then it's folly, and an obvious attempt to obstruct the incoming White House.

Analysis | Washington Politics

No one thought President Donald Trump would leave quietly. But would he go so far as to start a military confrontation with Iran on his way out? 

Recent military movements by the Pentagon in the Middle East (ostensibly to deter Iran from attacking American troops on the anniversary of the assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani), combined with Israeli media reports that Saudi Arabi and Israel are pressing Trump to bomb Iran before he leaves office, has fueled speculation that Trump may be planning his biggest — and likely most disastrous — stunt yet.

Trump has made more threats of war against Iran than any other country during his four years as President. As late as last month, he ordered the military to prepare options against Iranian nuclear facilities. Though the New York Times reported that Trump’s aides derailed those plans, U.S. troop movements in the past few weeks may suggest otherwise. 

Since October, the Pentagon has deployed 2,000 additional troops as well as an extra squadron of fighter planes to Saudi Arabia. It has also sent B-52 bombers on missions in the Persian Gulf three times, kept the USS Nimitz close to Iran, and announced that it is sending a Tomahawk-firing submarine just outside of Iranian waters. Moreover, Israel — whose officials have confirmed to several U.S. newspapers that it was behind the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh last month — has sent a nuclear-equipped submarine to the Persian Gulf.

Officially, all of these military maneuvers are aimed at “deterring” Iran, even though Israel assassinated an Iranian official in Iran and not the other way around. “The United States continues to deploy combat-ready capabilities into the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility to deter any potential adversary, and make clear that we are ready and able to respond to any aggression directed at Americans or our interests,” said Marine Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie, chief of U.S. Central Command, according to the Washington Post.

Not surprisingly, Tehran has interpreted the measures as threats and provocations, similar to how the United States would perceive Iranian warships posturing off Florida’s coast.

What has further raised fears of an imminent military confrontation is the Trump administration’s reported refusal to allow the Biden transition team to meet with defense intelligence agencies. The move has not only caused furor in the Biden team but also raised eyebrows internationally. 

Tobias Ellwood, Conservative British MP and Chair of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, speculated on Twitter that Trump was blocking Biden’s intelligence briefings “because he has a couple of significant operations up his sleeve which may get the green light before 20 Jan.” 

Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, found Trump’s conduct “strange,” and asked if there had been “recent changes related to planned or possible imminent operations?”

What makes matters worse, and suggests that rather than seeking to deter Iran, Trump may be setting the stage for a war of choice, are statements by senior Pentagon officials asserting that the Iran threat is exaggerated. One senior defense official with direct involvement in this issue told CNN that there is "not a single piece of corroborating intel" suggesting an attack by Iran may be imminent.

If Trump is seeking a confrontation with Iran during his last weeks of his Presidency, what could be his motivation? Two things need to be made clear first: Whatever his reason, he is likely miscalculating. His entire Iran policy has been a disastrous failure and he has shown no ability to learn from his mistakes during these past four years. Secondly, his track record suggests that the more desperate he gets, the more reckless he becomes. Desperately seeking to cling on to power, he is exploring all ways to overturn the elections, even toying with the idea of calling for martial law. The disgraced General Michael Flynn, who Trump pardoned this month, has even suggested that Trump should deploy the military in 'swing states' to 'rerun' the election.

Could Trump seek to start a military confrontation with Iran in hopes of creating enough chaos as to prevent Joe Biden from taking office in January? There is no reason to believe such a gambit would work, yet the insanity of the idea is not a convincing reason as to why a desperate Trump wouldn’t try it. 

At a minimum, he would have the backing of large sways of Evangelical Chistians who view confrontation with Iran as the fulfillment of the prophecy of the End Times in the biblical book of Revelations, as well as that of the GOP’s biggest financial backer, Sheldon Adelson. Trump has already acquiesced to every request of Adelson (except war with Iran) — from moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, to accepting Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, to the release of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, who flew to Israel this week on Adelson’s private jet. The AP described his release as the “latest in a long line of diplomatic gifts given to Netanyahu by President Donald Trump.”

Even if confrontation with Iran won’t prevent Biden from becoming President, Trump may calculate that it will kill the Iran nuclear deal once and for all, and ensure continued support for Trump by Adelson and the Evangelicals, which in turn can help Trump strengthen his grip over the GOP even after his presidency. Israeli and Arab media reported today that Saudi Arabia and Israel has been pressuring Trump to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities before he leaves office precisely to prevent Biden from returning to the JCPOA.

Whatever his calculation may be, there is clearly a risk that the last three weeks of Trump’s presidency may be the most perilous. 


President Donald Trump, with Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo during UN global call to protect religious freedom meeting at UN Headquarters, NY., September 2019. (Lev Radin/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.