jordan pulse -

By: Dr. Rashid Al-Shashani
What condition will Iran accept in the 60-day negotiations that it had not previously agreed to?!
And why did Trump ignore Iran's declaration of victory, along with the terms of an agreement that effectively signal his acceptance of defeat?!
A child whose wishes have been prolonged until he reached eighty—this is an apt title for Trump's announcement yesterday ending his war with Iran. "You returned empty-handed, as if you never went to war" serves as a perfect conclusion to this declaration, capturing his true image better than those who originally coined the proverb. Before highlighting his successive and contradictory remarks on this matter, we must recognize one reality: "Anxiety" alone will rule the coming days, recalling our previous assertions regarding the future of the region.
The "Exit Strategy" Maneuver, Air Strikes, and Retaliation Calculus
This escape plan has altered its course multiple times—not day by day, but moment by moment. The latest instance was the recent strike in Beirut—carried out by Israeli hands with American backing—confirming a coordinated effort between the two sides. The operation relied on a precise "high-value target" strike triggered by a sudden intelligence breakthrough, produced by the series of espionage operations we explained earlier. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Iran itself orchestrated this setup, given its skill in navigating such traps; Trump sought a "turning point" that might exempt him from this announcement, but the attempt fell short of that scale.
The strike remained confined to alternative American calculations, which centered on demanding that Iran withhold retaliation. This placed Iran before two options:
The First: To retaliate—having already issued threats—thereby relieving Trump of declaring defeat and shifting the focus to a parallel escalation.
The Second: To refrain; which would deal a psychological blow to its most crucial proxy at the core of its loyalty. This creates an atmosphere of anxiety, opening gaps that could fracture the ranks. Conversely, if Iran chooses to respond after the declaration, it provides Trump with a pretext to dissolve his commitments under this announcement once the strategic variables shift.
The Frontline Dilemma and the Chaos of Small Armies
The conditions Trump wishes to alter are not the work of skilled craftsmen; they are the chaotic product of his own making—driven by his ignorance of the long-term consequences of his actions. If we direct our attention toward a comprehensive ceasefire across all fronts, we must ask why Israel, first and foremost, paid such a heavy price, especially given the outrage within the Israeli public over giving Iran and its proxies a free hand to rebuild their infrastructure.
Even if we accept the premise of fracturing ranks—which Trump ranks high among his strategic weapons—we reaffirm, based on our prior insights, that Iran will be unable to control these groups. This outcome is not beneficial to the US as Trump believes; on the flip side, Israel will also lose the ability to control them once they break free from unified command and centralized dependence, shifting instead toward forming small localized armies here and there. Yet, this is less significant than the impending collapse of Trump's regional projects, where he relied on "red-dot targets" to erase Iran’s footprint.
As for the fine details of controlling Iran's weaponry and its nuclear capabilities, Trump knows internally that this is an impossible task lacking any viable mechanism, even at a low level of efficiency. Consequently, he is attempting to establish a "patchwork" institution composed of his peace council, where he holds an elevated leadership role detached from direct re-engagement. To achieve this, he is pleading for an international monitoring mechanism to shoulder the burden—one led not by the IAEA, but by the coalition of nations he dragged into mediation.
G7 Disarray and Entangling Europe in the Strait of Hormuz
Under this arrangement, Europe has been left to face the logistical nightmare of reopening the Strait of Hormuz and clearing mines, after its condition for a ceasefire to ensure safe maritime transit was "illusorily" met. This is not Europe's primary concern; instead, it will find itself solely responsible for ensuring the strait is never closed again while Trump sits back as a spectator.
The initial signs of this friction emerged during the G7 summit, where proceedings were marked by clear disarray. It was obvious that schedules were cleared to allow Trump to celebrate his birthday, including a private dinner at the Palace of Versailles, particularly amidst his frosty relationship with Macron—who consistently fails to resolve crises—and the introduction of the Middle East conflict as an agenda item entirely foreign to the traditional nature of this summit.
The Specter of a "New Arab Spring" and the Trajectory of Chaos
We must not overlook the active efforts by various factions across multiple regions to revive the paths of a new Arab Spring. The latest of these efforts took place in Paris, whose president long antagonized Trump before shifting toward appeasing him, in an attempt by political Islam movements to recapture the thread of events. Under these circumstances, we do not view Trump's political maneuvering with new regional factions—previously aligned with such movements—as a preventative measure against the worst outcomes. Furthermore, with the political opposition in Israel turning against Netanyahu, anxieties rise regarding the maneuvers of the Obama faction, a group Trump did not fail to criticize for its failures even during his own exit announcement.
Trump's declaration has tossed all his efforts to broker a Lebanese-Israeli agreement, along with the internal political turmoil accompanying it in both nations, directly into the wastebasket. It has wiped out all calculations of malice and spite in the Iraqi landscape, heightened security anxieties in Syria, overlooked ongoing developments in Gaza, and proved incapable of disarming Hamas. This retreat does not stem from a capacity to bypass these crises; had he possessed the capability, situations would not have reached this boiling point. Instead, he has found comfort in distancing his country from the theater of action, relying on the capacity of chaos to generate its own outcomes. This was not an analytical reading of the reality his hands set in motion, but the execution of an idea long tucked away in the journals of this octogenarian.