jordan pulse -

Dr. Rashed Al-Shashani
This isn't the first time Trump has rattled the world with talk of an imminent, "devastating" strike, only to announce its cancellation moments before an "unscheduled" deadline. He isn't serious about it, of course. To understand why Trump behaves this way, we need to ask a different question: does Trump actually need this strike?
The answer starts from a simple reality — Trump remains unable, so far, to deliver a decisive blow in the Iran conflict, and equally unable to force Iran into concessions. Given that, we should look for what benefit Trump hopes to gain by repeatedly announcing his intent to strike.
Alongside this pattern sits an idea that never fully goes away for Trump — carrying out a ground operation — paired with another: stirring unrest inside Iran itself. Knowing this, it's clear Trump isn't short on ways to stir up a different kind of anxiety, one that might open a door he'd be glad to walk through when it comes to that ground offensive. This internal stirring wouldn't happen inside Iranian territory itself, but in neighboring countries — where talk of withdrawing U.S. troops has become an almost daily occurrence, the latest example being a review of withdrawing forces from Kuwait.
The underlying plan would be to push neighboring countries into confrontation with Iran, in a way that forces Iran to commit its fighting forces to ground battles — battles in which the U.S. military could break apart Iran's military positioning, disperse its control, expose its movements and real capabilities, and, most importantly, locate the covert force the Iranian regime relies on, one that U.S. and Israeli intelligence have yet to fully map.
For this battlefield scenario to feel safe enough to pursue, Trump needs to reassure allies that the risks of these battles will stay contained, so long as they remain under the central military control of his forces — forces that would feed intelligence to agencies surrounding Iran, prompting them to warn each other about suspicious movements originating from their own territories.
This would guarantee friction both between these countries and within each of their internal factions, all while securing financial, political, and popular cover — especially given Russia and China's apparent indifference to these maneuvers by Trump.
The real danger isn't in any of the above on its own — it lies in Trump's effort to position neighboring countries to move against Iranian factions or Iran-aligned forces, as part of this broader entrapment strategy. Certain factions' apparent motives for targeting neighboring states could be read through this lens, alongside the possibility of Israeli infiltration of these factions — whether through cyber means, alongside human intelligence, similar to the earlier pager-device breach.
Warnings issued by U.S. embassies across the region fall within the boundaries of this Trump strategy, and they aren't separate from the situation with Syria's Kurds, whom Erdoğan is trying to bring under the authority in Syria, believing Trump genuinely supports such a move. Trump's praise for Erdoğan — and for Netanyahu — isn't out of affection, but as a jab at Obama. He wants the Kurds unified, but not in Syria — rather, aligned against Hezbollah, whose elimination would itself be a blow to Iran, in addition to using Iraq's Kurds in the same way to strike Iran. Within this same context, one can read potential strikes against Houthi militias — strikes Saudi Arabia has specifically asked Washington to avoid directing at itself.
This tension between Erdoğan and Trump isn't just about Trump recognizing that Erdoğan plays every side, particularly in his relationship with Iran and its proxies, especially Hamas and Hezbollah — it also factors in when Trump assigns Erdoğan's efforts to "infiltration" within the idea we're discussing, while assigning Netanyahu to "confrontation" whenever the battlefield calls for it.
In sum: the strike Trump called off, supposedly out of a "compassionate heart for the world's sake," was never truly on the table to begin with — except insofar as it served this broader strategy, had the opportunity arisen. Trump could well have taken responsibility for a limited strike to pave the way for neighboring countries' intervention, while also reining in Israel from a reckless move against the chokehold Trump himself has imposed — keeping Israel locked in a position where it can neither decisively act nor move in any direction, for fear, on Trump's part, of Israeli overreach.
Note: this is an opinion piece presenting the author's personal analysis and interpretation of events — not verified reporting.