Of these four, the relatively least bad from the perspective of Trump 2.0’s interests are talking and escalating, the first if its interests are taken at face value and the second if ulterior ones are at play.
A cynic might conclude that the US has sidelined its main LNG competitors through the Ukraine and Iran "special operations", while hobbling it's global industrial competitors via high energy prices.
Andrew: "If Trump 2.0 really wants to demilitarize Iran, then it mostly succeeded apart from not fully destroying its missiles"
That's not serious and is not what people generally understand by demilitarization. Demilitarization would be something like a nation only having small arms or something, not still being able to strike and retaliate conventionally almost wherever it deems necessary in the whole region, even Diego Garcia!
Andrew: "obtaining Iran’s highly enriched uranium, would then be pursued diplomatically."
Will never happen unless Iran is defeated. If anything, Iran will hold on to it and build their deterrent which it should have done a long time ago.
Andrew: "the US would end the conflict (telling Israel that it’s on its own if it doesn’t stop too) and withdraw its forces from the Gulf Kingdoms"
Fairy tales. Iran will have as much guarantees of not being attacked as Gaza or Hezbollah not being attacked at will. The US will never withdraw its imperial troops from the Middle East unless it's forced to Vietnam/Afghanistan style.
Andrew: "US would insulate itself by retreating to “Fortress America”, where it might even thrive"
For an empire built on expansion by feeding on the wealth of other nations to remain viable, it will likely mean implosion.
Good insights. I wanted to make the exact same comment as it pertains to the "Iran has already demilitarized" statement (I really disagree with this one. If Hezbollah still hasn't demilitarized after all these years, then Iran a country with serious military capabilities is far from it", and the "US would retreat to Fortress America" statement. US will never retreat unless it is made to do so.
May I suggest that, as others (e.g. Mearsheimer and Walt) noted long time ago, the US foreign policy in the Middle East is controlled by the settler-colonial entity in Palestine.
In which case, whatever 'Trump interests' might be, or whatever 'Trump might be tempted to do', or any hypothetical 'Trump improvising' is irrelevant. A reasonable analysis needs to be based on something completely different.
One of the reasons why I don't subscribe to the hypothesis of Israel controlling US policy in the Mideast is that Israel and Russia coordinated their activities in Syria from 2015 onward with the start of the latter's anti-terrorist intervention while Russia and the US continued to compete there.
I have yet to read any cogent explanation these 10.5 years -- and I've actively sought this out through targeted Google keyword searches and on social media -- for why Israel, if it supposedly controls US policy in the Mideast, wouldn't sought to encourage Russian-US coordination in Syria too.
The obvious explanation - and I have seen this asserted in various sources - is that Israel also has significant influence over Russia, though not as much as it does over the US.
It's not obvious nor true in my honest opinion. Putin closely aligns with Israel on many sensitive issues for two reasons: first, he sincerely believes that this advances Russia's national interests (with a heavy emphasis on the Russian-speaking diaspora serving as a living bridge between them), whether one agrees with his calculations or not; and second, because he's a proud lifelong philo-Semite (most of his friends from childhood till today are Jewish) and he conflates (again, regardless of whether one agrees with it) his philo-Semitism with pro-Israel sentiment.
Just recently, we've also seen Israel bomb the Russian Cultural Center in South Lebanon that was located in a residential building and an RT journalist coming under fire (Israel did warn ahead of time that the bridge would be bombed), and Russia officially complained about the latter.
Russia also very harshly criticizes Israel on certain matters like the Third Gulf War, the 12-Day War, and the Gaza War. I know that talk is cheap, but it's still more than the US does (obviously since the US also has similar interests as Israel does in the region), so I don't consider Russian foreign policy to be under Israeli influence.
You also have Russia arming Assad, not to mention Iran, including reported intel aid for targeting US assets as well as drone warfare training. None of that pleased Israel, especially not its help to Iran, which is yet another example showing that the reality is a lot more nuanced than claimed.
I did specifically say it’s a weaker degree of alignment. I’m mainly saying it’s a logically possible explanation, against your claim that no possible explanation exists.
I haven't seen the explanation cogently articulated anywhere. Maybe someone's done so, but I just haven't stumbled upon it and I do indeed look for such content since I've written extensively on Russian-Israeli relations from early 2017 onward, and my first significant analysis on the subject got me viciously canceled by Alt-Media.
If Russia is less significantly influenced by Israel than the US is, then I just don't understand why Israel would align with Russia in Syria but not have the US align with Russia there either. I also don't understand why Israel would refuse to sanction Russia after 2022 yet its supposed US subordinate sanctioned it. Israel also hasn't significantly helped Ukraine (unconfirmed rumors abound but haven't been indisputably confirmed).
I responded to someone else above who was very rude (I appreciate you being polite!) and shared several other examples challenging the hypothesis of Israel controlling the US, including the JCPOA, various incidents under the Biden Administration, and others. I believe that AIPAC is indeed powerful, but I don't believe that they're omnipotent.
"I don't subscribe to the hypothesis of Israel controlling US policy in the Mideast"
Crikey! What else would have caused bi-partisan willingness to be the principal genocide enabler for the whole world to see, and the world's public enemy #1 in the last 24 days?
Do you think the cause of your doubt (an absence of evidence, not even an evidence, when limited cooperation can be explained by e.g. mutual aversion to Turkey) is stronger than Mearsheimer's and Walt's scholarship on the subject?
I really don't like your attitude and you're going to have to change it if you truly want to have a respectful change of contrarian ideas unless you're just another "anti-Zionist activist" very rudely trying to impose your ideology on me.
For starters, the US and Israel don't always see eye-to-eye as I documented and analyzed below:
* 16 January 2023: Israeli Protesters Are Functioning As Useful Idiots For A Unipolar Color Revolution
"Anti-Zionist activists" insist that this is all "5D chess to psyche out the public", but I see no reason to believe that; rather, it most certainly appears as though these two have their differences at times.
Second, "arguments from authority" should always be considered in good faith if shared in good faith, but nobody is obligated to automatically believe them. Citing "big names" only impresses low-IQ individuals and is actually very low-IQ in and of itself.
Third, you didn't even try to explain why Israel wouldn't have the US coordinate with Russia in Syria when Israel itself is doing this. That's the "kryptonite" of this hypothesis: it cannot account for close Russian-Israeli relations in parallel with terrible Russian-US ties.
You're welcome to respond, but if you have that smart alec attitude again, you're going to be blocked. I don't like it, anyone who's followed my work for even just a brief period of time knows that I don't like it, and I therefore consider it extremely disrespectful.
You're only getting a second chance in order for me to have yet another documented example of me responding to "anti-Zionist activists" in good faith, them spitting in my face afterwards, and everyone seeing how vile many on your side have become since October 7th.
Another relevant point casting doubt on your hypothesis is the Biden Admin's efforts to cause trouble for Orban, who's staunchly pro-Israeli and arguably Israel's top partner in Europe, if Israel really supposedly controlled the US.
There's also the Biden Admin's association with various "anti-Zionist activists" and related figures, obviously to Israel's consternation, so why would it even allow that if it controlled them? The "5D chess master plan of psyching out the public" explanation is insulting so please don't rely on it.
And then there's the JCPOA, which Israel was firmly against, yet it went ahead anyhow. Why would Israel allow that? Why wouldn't it just have its American puppet, as your hypothesis presents the US as being, consistently implement maximum pressure on Iran?
What needs to be remembered, in the scorch earth scenario, are the numerous 2nd and 3rd order impacts on "Fortress America". For example, it will be impossible for Taiwan to survive in this scenario without returning to China's fold voluntarily within a couple of months, which meant the then utterly friendless US can kiss goodbye to advanced chips, never mind REE...
"Fortress America" is a mirage in our globalised world.
Another Substack suggested that Israel uses the threat of using Samson Option to blackmail the US to keep up its support. If that is the case, Israel will never be on its own, assuming, of course, that nuclear weapons do what it says on the tin and are not just dirty bombs, like those used in the fire bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The left leaning media has been banging the drum over these same 4 possibilities in one form or another for 3 weeks now. Blah, blah, blan...
Imagine dropping Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great into a modern battlefield and then handing them a binder full of rules constructed by committees along with constant press oversight and public polls. Thumbs up vs. thumbs down? They wouldn’t recognize it as war - they’d recognize it as a system designed to limit the ability to win wars!
Hegemonic power and empires aren’t built on hesitation, unanimous approval or clean optics. They are built on speed to battle, shock and awe, superior logistics,superior technology and the ruthless desire to win.
Modern warfare is constrained at every level - legal frameworks, public opinion, coalition politics, media/pundit critiques and the reality that “winning” often means stabilizing, not defeating. There is too much debating and too much exposure of the particulars in public. Blame the internet and 24 hour news for this All discussion and photos of a war should be blocked from public consumption as it used to be
Bottom line:is war is still hell. Trample the weak, hurdle the dead, get the job done!
Yeah thank god we are living far from the times of Alexander the Great. International law is deeply flawed, especially in its lopsided application, and despite living in times where the laws of warfare are under great duress, thank goodness these laws exist at all. By all means, continue living in your fantastical period of empire from thousands of years ago.
A cynic might conclude that the US has sidelined its main LNG competitors through the Ukraine and Iran "special operations", while hobbling it's global industrial competitors via high energy prices.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"
-- Rahm Emanuel
Andrew: "If Trump 2.0 really wants to demilitarize Iran, then it mostly succeeded apart from not fully destroying its missiles"
That's not serious and is not what people generally understand by demilitarization. Demilitarization would be something like a nation only having small arms or something, not still being able to strike and retaliate conventionally almost wherever it deems necessary in the whole region, even Diego Garcia!
Andrew: "obtaining Iran’s highly enriched uranium, would then be pursued diplomatically."
Will never happen unless Iran is defeated. If anything, Iran will hold on to it and build their deterrent which it should have done a long time ago.
Andrew: "the US would end the conflict (telling Israel that it’s on its own if it doesn’t stop too) and withdraw its forces from the Gulf Kingdoms"
Fairy tales. Iran will have as much guarantees of not being attacked as Gaza or Hezbollah not being attacked at will. The US will never withdraw its imperial troops from the Middle East unless it's forced to Vietnam/Afghanistan style.
Andrew: "US would insulate itself by retreating to “Fortress America”, where it might even thrive"
For an empire built on expansion by feeding on the wealth of other nations to remain viable, it will likely mean implosion.
Good insights. I wanted to make the exact same comment as it pertains to the "Iran has already demilitarized" statement (I really disagree with this one. If Hezbollah still hasn't demilitarized after all these years, then Iran a country with serious military capabilities is far from it", and the "US would retreat to Fortress America" statement. US will never retreat unless it is made to do so.
> Unmentioned, however, is that Russia or India could realistically mediate.
I'm very skeptical that anyone can mediate between Trump and anyone else.
This issue is not skill, or relationships. The issue is that Trump is duplicitous.
May I suggest that, as others (e.g. Mearsheimer and Walt) noted long time ago, the US foreign policy in the Middle East is controlled by the settler-colonial entity in Palestine.
In which case, whatever 'Trump interests' might be, or whatever 'Trump might be tempted to do', or any hypothetical 'Trump improvising' is irrelevant. A reasonable analysis needs to be based on something completely different.
One of the reasons why I don't subscribe to the hypothesis of Israel controlling US policy in the Mideast is that Israel and Russia coordinated their activities in Syria from 2015 onward with the start of the latter's anti-terrorist intervention while Russia and the US continued to compete there.
I have yet to read any cogent explanation these 10.5 years -- and I've actively sought this out through targeted Google keyword searches and on social media -- for why Israel, if it supposedly controls US policy in the Mideast, wouldn't sought to encourage Russian-US coordination in Syria too.
The obvious explanation - and I have seen this asserted in various sources - is that Israel also has significant influence over Russia, though not as much as it does over the US.
It's not obvious nor true in my honest opinion. Putin closely aligns with Israel on many sensitive issues for two reasons: first, he sincerely believes that this advances Russia's national interests (with a heavy emphasis on the Russian-speaking diaspora serving as a living bridge between them), whether one agrees with his calculations or not; and second, because he's a proud lifelong philo-Semite (most of his friends from childhood till today are Jewish) and he conflates (again, regardless of whether one agrees with it) his philo-Semitism with pro-Israel sentiment.
Just recently, we've also seen Israel bomb the Russian Cultural Center in South Lebanon that was located in a residential building and an RT journalist coming under fire (Israel did warn ahead of time that the bridge would be bombed), and Russia officially complained about the latter.
Russia also very harshly criticizes Israel on certain matters like the Third Gulf War, the 12-Day War, and the Gaza War. I know that talk is cheap, but it's still more than the US does (obviously since the US also has similar interests as Israel does in the region), so I don't consider Russian foreign policy to be under Israeli influence.
You also have Russia arming Assad, not to mention Iran, including reported intel aid for targeting US assets as well as drone warfare training. None of that pleased Israel, especially not its help to Iran, which is yet another example showing that the reality is a lot more nuanced than claimed.
I did specifically say it’s a weaker degree of alignment. I’m mainly saying it’s a logically possible explanation, against your claim that no possible explanation exists.
I haven't seen the explanation cogently articulated anywhere. Maybe someone's done so, but I just haven't stumbled upon it and I do indeed look for such content since I've written extensively on Russian-Israeli relations from early 2017 onward, and my first significant analysis on the subject got me viciously canceled by Alt-Media.
If Russia is less significantly influenced by Israel than the US is, then I just don't understand why Israel would align with Russia in Syria but not have the US align with Russia there either. I also don't understand why Israel would refuse to sanction Russia after 2022 yet its supposed US subordinate sanctioned it. Israel also hasn't significantly helped Ukraine (unconfirmed rumors abound but haven't been indisputably confirmed).
I responded to someone else above who was very rude (I appreciate you being polite!) and shared several other examples challenging the hypothesis of Israel controlling the US, including the JCPOA, various incidents under the Biden Administration, and others. I believe that AIPAC is indeed powerful, but I don't believe that they're omnipotent.
"I don't subscribe to the hypothesis of Israel controlling US policy in the Mideast"
Crikey! What else would have caused bi-partisan willingness to be the principal genocide enabler for the whole world to see, and the world's public enemy #1 in the last 24 days?
Do you think the cause of your doubt (an absence of evidence, not even an evidence, when limited cooperation can be explained by e.g. mutual aversion to Turkey) is stronger than Mearsheimer's and Walt's scholarship on the subject?
I really don't like your attitude and you're going to have to change it if you truly want to have a respectful change of contrarian ideas unless you're just another "anti-Zionist activist" very rudely trying to impose your ideology on me.
For starters, the US and Israel don't always see eye-to-eye as I documented and analyzed below:
* 16 January 2023: Israeli Protesters Are Functioning As Useful Idiots For A Unipolar Color Revolution
https://korybko.substack.com/p/israeli-protesters-are-functioning
* 27 March 2023: The US-Backed Color Revolution In Israel Just Reached Crisis Proportions
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-us-backed-color-revolution-in
* 28 November 2023: Why’s WaPo Blowing The Whistle On Bibi’s Years-Long Faustian Bargain With Hamas?
https://korybko.substack.com/p/whys-wapo-blowing-the-whistle-on
* 2 December 2023: Did The New York Times Just End Bibi’s Political Career?
https://korybko.substack.com/p/did-the-new-york-times-just-end-bibis
* 16 March 2024: Alt-Media Is In A Dilemma After Biden Endorsed Schumer’s Call For Regime Change In Israel
https://korybko.substack.com/p/alt-media-is-in-a-dilemma-after-biden
"Anti-Zionist activists" insist that this is all "5D chess to psyche out the public", but I see no reason to believe that; rather, it most certainly appears as though these two have their differences at times.
Second, "arguments from authority" should always be considered in good faith if shared in good faith, but nobody is obligated to automatically believe them. Citing "big names" only impresses low-IQ individuals and is actually very low-IQ in and of itself.
Third, you didn't even try to explain why Israel wouldn't have the US coordinate with Russia in Syria when Israel itself is doing this. That's the "kryptonite" of this hypothesis: it cannot account for close Russian-Israeli relations in parallel with terrible Russian-US ties.
You're welcome to respond, but if you have that smart alec attitude again, you're going to be blocked. I don't like it, anyone who's followed my work for even just a brief period of time knows that I don't like it, and I therefore consider it extremely disrespectful.
You're only getting a second chance in order for me to have yet another documented example of me responding to "anti-Zionist activists" in good faith, them spitting in my face afterwards, and everyone seeing how vile many on your side have become since October 7th.
Another relevant point casting doubt on your hypothesis is the Biden Admin's efforts to cause trouble for Orban, who's staunchly pro-Israeli and arguably Israel's top partner in Europe, if Israel really supposedly controlled the US.
There's also the Biden Admin's association with various "anti-Zionist activists" and related figures, obviously to Israel's consternation, so why would it even allow that if it controlled them? The "5D chess master plan of psyching out the public" explanation is insulting so please don't rely on it.
We also have Trump 2.0 agreeing to sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia against Israel's wishes, that's another example of it not controlling the US.
Another good example is Israel recognizing Somaliland but the US having yet to do so, thus leaving Israel as the only one.
Why wouldn't Israel have the US do it first or at least jointly with Israel so that Israel didn't catch all the flak from the AU and Arab League?
And then there's the JCPOA, which Israel was firmly against, yet it went ahead anyhow. Why would Israel allow that? Why wouldn't it just have its American puppet, as your hypothesis presents the US as being, consistently implement maximum pressure on Iran?
1. Of course Trump is improvising.
2. In choosing any course of action, Trump must take whatever leverage Israel has over him into account, including but not limited to Epstein.
Here's another scenario article, this time from the conservative right instead of the liberal left.
-----
One War and 5 Scenarios to End It
by Amir Taheri
March 22, 2026 at 4:00 am
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22362/iran-war-scenarios
The Economist? Liberal leftist??
You jester.
What needs to be remembered, in the scorch earth scenario, are the numerous 2nd and 3rd order impacts on "Fortress America". For example, it will be impossible for Taiwan to survive in this scenario without returning to China's fold voluntarily within a couple of months, which meant the then utterly friendless US can kiss goodbye to advanced chips, never mind REE...
"Fortress America" is a mirage in our globalised world.
Another Substack suggested that Israel uses the threat of using Samson Option to blackmail the US to keep up its support. If that is the case, Israel will never be on its own, assuming, of course, that nuclear weapons do what it says on the tin and are not just dirty bombs, like those used in the fire bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"If Trump 2.0 really wants to demilitarize Iran, then it mostly succeeded apart from not fully destroying its missiles. "
How do you know that, just based on what Hegseth and Trump and Bibi are saying? As for the self-sufficient US, you must be kidding.
The left leaning media has been banging the drum over these same 4 possibilities in one form or another for 3 weeks now. Blah, blah, blan...
Imagine dropping Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great into a modern battlefield and then handing them a binder full of rules constructed by committees along with constant press oversight and public polls. Thumbs up vs. thumbs down? They wouldn’t recognize it as war - they’d recognize it as a system designed to limit the ability to win wars!
Hegemonic power and empires aren’t built on hesitation, unanimous approval or clean optics. They are built on speed to battle, shock and awe, superior logistics,superior technology and the ruthless desire to win.
Modern warfare is constrained at every level - legal frameworks, public opinion, coalition politics, media/pundit critiques and the reality that “winning” often means stabilizing, not defeating. There is too much debating and too much exposure of the particulars in public. Blame the internet and 24 hour news for this All discussion and photos of a war should be blocked from public consumption as it used to be
Bottom line:is war is still hell. Trample the weak, hurdle the dead, get the job done!
Yeah thank god we are living far from the times of Alexander the Great. International law is deeply flawed, especially in its lopsided application, and despite living in times where the laws of warfare are under great duress, thank goodness these laws exist at all. By all means, continue living in your fantastical period of empire from thousands of years ago.