jordan pulse -

​By: Dr. Rashid Al-Shashani
​Moments before it was due, a strike was canceled that was supposed to end the Iranian regime's ability to maneuver, if not end with its downfall. The nature of combat has never led us to monitor these threats seriously. We know very well that a strike at this time—following another that did nothing a day earlier—would have been nothing more than a high-cost "stone-breaking" excursion with no hope of benefit, especially as we observe Trump’s Secretary of War speaking to his soldiers while dressed like a sports team captain, with a military culture far inferior even to that.
​Trump wanted—as we have pointed out previously—to escape his responsibility and shift it to countries that have no interest in the war, especially given the failure to involve Europe in such a path, the lack of any useful input from China and Russia regarding the matter, and his disappointment with the Kurds.
​After Trump unsuccessfully exhausted his idea of diluting the mediation party by spreading it across several countries and linking it to their interest in avoiding the targeting of their lands or interests—and repeatedly playing this note until it broke—his anguish gave birth to the idea of announcing an imminent agreement. It seems this idea benefited from the theory of the shepherd who sounded the warning whistle about the wolf, as it was supported by a collection of news items, such as: "planes leaving for Geneva for logistical arrangements," "perhaps the President will attend, but Vance is the one who will," and "mediators' assurances of the Iranian side's acceptance... etc."
​Trump found this to be effective, especially with the villagers' certainty in Trump's honesty every time he shouted to escape the wolf, especially when we know that the president of one of these countries quickly rushes to make statements whose consequences for his own country he does not grasp, merely because of comments on social media, let alone tweets from the President of the most powerful country in the world.
​Why did Trump involve Vance?
​Lurking for the strike that Trump desires—as we have previously indicated—and complicating the communication loops to distance himself from direct contact while granting him flexibility in handling, Trump left the door open for an illusory agreement that might happen by some surprise. If it reaches the point of two teams meeting, its productive level will not exceed the level of the Pakistan negotiations. But if the biggest surprise occurs and Iran accepts the surrender that Trump presented as an agreement—using this as a new form of evasion—then Trump has taken a precaution: the possibility of him going to the signing that he loves, when he draws the full map of his notebook with it before holding it up, just as he used to hold up victory signs.
​More importantly, he keeps the reins of power in his own hands. On one hand, the opportunity to achieve peace remains exclusively in his hands. On the other hand, he casts the blame on the mediating parties, which have smoothly transformed into a party that must bear the responsibility for Iran's intransigence and pay the full price of the process.
​On another note, Trump fears things spiraling out of control in the cartoonish conflict between Netanyahu and Erdoğan, especially with the complex scene of Syrian intervention in Lebanon. Trump fears such a spiral becoming a calculated victory for the Democrats, especially Obama—the knot of all Trump's knots. Trump does not favor dealing with Netanyahu except through the lens of Obama's rivalry with him, just as is the case with Erdoğan. For this reason, Trump replied that he had no information on the matter when asked about the possibility of a war breaking out between Israel and Turkey.
​Trump deals with these people for the sake of opposing Obama, not for the sake of their own interests. That is why he tries to play games that keep him away from the need for failed fire strikes, for which Obama mocked him when he said that he did not have to kill a human being in order to conclude the agreement with Iran. Obama was more capable than Trump of managing such tricks, yet he did not deal with Iran in this manner.
​Not to mention that these mediating countries have collectively become a weight in terms of moving their positions, which now see harmony with Trump's policies as costly. This has led them to soften their dryness toward Iran in favor of understanding with each other. In such a reality, it became necessary to an interest from the direction of their mediation—which will end in failure—after the interests that Trump was able to isolate one by one clash.