Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.