Behind the triumphalism of Donald Trump and the perilous designs of Benjamin Netanyahu emerges a reality that the American-Israeli side struggles to admit: Iran remains a potent regional actor capable of resistance, deterrence, and imposing severe costs on its adversaries.
The latest aggressive posture of US President Donald Trump toward Iran represents far more than another display of his familiar political hubris.
It reflects the attempt by Washington to portray as total victory a conflict that continues to generate strategic uncertainty, economic fallout, and sharp political contradictions inside both the United States and Israel.
In a post on the Truth Social platform, Trump asserted that the United States no longer needs an agreement with Iran, declaring pointedly that the era of negotiations has passed.
He even advanced the provocative claim that Washington already holds hundreds of billions of dollars in Iranian funds and controls the Strait of Hormuz.
These declarations aim to project the image of an American superpower that has fully imposed its will.
Yet naval deployment in a maritime theater, even alongside the capability to restrict shipping, does not automatically equate to uncontested sovereignty.
The Strait of Hormuz remains an arena of fierce confrontation, where the geography of Iran and its military capabilities render any attempt to permanently neutralize Iranian influence extraordinarily difficult.
The Strait of Hormuz and the illusion of absolute dominance
The defining element of American rhetoric is the effort to transform the Persian Gulf into a sphere of exclusive geopolitical influence for the United States.
Trump's assertion that America "has" the Strait of Hormuz downplays a fundamental reality: Iran is a littoral state of the region possessing permanent geographic presence, naval infrastructure, missile capabilities, and strategic depth that cannot be erased by presidential decree.
Washington may command superior conventional firepower, yet genuine security across such a vital maritime artery does not depend exclusively on aircraft carriers and warships.
It hinges on preventing a protracted war of attrition, safeguarding commercial shipping, and establishing a baseline environment of regional accommodation.
Ongoing attacks and threats against commercial vessels demonstrate that reality remains far removed from the image of absolute control projected by the White House.
Precisely this dynamic constitutes one of Tehran's foremost strategic advantages.
Even against a technologically superior adversary, Iran retains the capacity to shape regional security balances and drive up the economic and political price of prolonged confrontation.
Iranian deterrence does not require conventional military parity with the United States.
It requires the ability to render any attempt at total subjugation prohibitively costly.
From diplomacy to demands for unconditional surrender
The hardening of Trump's rhetoric is accompanied by his insistence that the US must win the conflict completely rather than by "93%."
This posture exposes the central contradiction of American strategy.
Instead of pursuing a sustainable political compromise, the US leadership frames the total capitulation of Tehran as the sole acceptable outcome.
Trump also claimed that America did not start the war, accusing Iran of waging conflict against the United States since 1979.
Invoking that specific year is no coincidence.
The Islamic Revolution overthrew the regime of the Shah and decisively curtailed American influence in Tehran.
For Washington, 1979 marked the loss of a pivotal regional ally.
Within the Iranian state narrative, it represents the birth of national independence and resistance to foreign tutelage.
This historical antagonism explains why the dispute extends far beyond the nuclear program or ballistic missiles.
At its core lies the question of whether Iran will preserve its autonomous strategic identity or submit to a regional order dictated according to American demands.
Tehran has repeatedly maintained that diplomacy can function solely on the basis of reciprocity, never under the threat of military coercion.
JD Vance and fractures within the American leadership
Particularly noteworthy is Trump's decision to redirect his Vice President, JD Vance, toward domestic US affairs.
The American president announced that he instructed Vance to focus on combating alleged widespread corruption and crime in states governed by Democrats.
He singled out Minnesota, California, and Illinois, claiming billions of dollars are lost every month and that curbing such practices could help balance the federal budget.
These allegations constitute political assertions by Trump rather than a verified comprehensive picture of fiscal governance in those states.
Politically, however, the reassignment of Vance carries heightened significance given that the Vice President had been directly involved in diplomatic efforts to settle the conflict with Tehran.
At the same time, following Republican electoral losses, Vance publicly questioned the cost of the war and linked the conflict directly to his party's electoral performance.
This picture hardly reflects an American leadership united behind a coherent victory doctrine.
On the contrary, it exposes the mounting political strain generated by a military confrontation lacking an easily attainable endgame.
Netanyahu tempted by a fresh military adventure
Simultaneously, an exceptionally perilous situation is unfolding in Israel.
According to reports by Israeli public broadcaster KAN, the security cabinet under caretaker Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued directives to accelerate military preparations ahead of a potential new strike against Iran.
This development coincides with perhaps the severest period of domestic political challenge confronting Netanyahu.
Gadi Eisenkot, tasked with forming a new government, urged the caretaker prime minister to exercise restraint and avoid military operations lacking immediate and imperative necessity.
Opposition concerns center on the risk of a military escalation designed to disrupt the governmental transition process.
While exploiting an external crisis for domestic political survival remains an unproven allegation rather than a confirmed blueprint, it has entered open public debate across Israel.
The mere fact that such suspicions are voiced by senior Israeli political and military figures underscores the depth of distrust surrounding Netanyahu.
Resistance from Eyal Zamir and fears of strategic disaster
Even more consequential is the friction between the political leadership and the military high command.
According to Israeli media reports, Chief of the General Staff Eyal Zamir has voiced objections to military actions that could ignite a renewed war with Tehran.
Reports cite serious disagreements over operational necessity, timing, and the potential fallout of an attack.
Netanyahu has denied reports of a clash with Zamir.
Nevertheless, the substantive issue persists: even within the Israeli defense establishment, grave concerns exist that premature escalation could trigger an uncontrollable regional conflagration.
This does not mean the Israeli military leadership has abandoned the option of striking Iran.
It does indicate, however, that commanders recognize the hazards of launching an operation without a clear endgame, sufficient preparation, and guaranteed American backing.
Tehran is no longer viewed as an adversary that can be neutralized without severe repercussions.
Eisenkot's fragile coalition
The political deadlock is compounded by obstacles to forming a ruling coalition.
Avigdor Lieberman has ruled out either participation or parliamentary support from Arab parties in the governing alliance sought by Eisenkot.
Meanwhile, Naftali Bennett backs efforts to assemble a new government, even as disputes persist over securing the required parliamentary majority of 61 seats.
The result is a political equation that could prolong Netanyahu's tenure as caretaker prime minister.
Should Eisenkot's mandate fail, President Isaac Herzog may task another candidate with forming a government, potentially including Netanyahu.
Such an outcome could directly reshape calculations regarding Iran.
Prolonged political paralysis might reduce pressure for immediate military action, yet could equally buy time to prepare fresh offensive operations.
In either scenario, intertwining domestic governmental instability with external military escalation creates a volatile mix.
Iran faces two adversaries divided by internal contradictions
The final decision on launching a major new military campaign rests decisively with Washington.
Netanyahu may push for escalation, yet the scope of American participation will dictate his actual room for maneuver.
Here lies the deeper paradox.
Trump appears to reject diplomacy even as reservations over the war's cost mount inside his own administration.
Netanyahu brandishes the threat of force while confronting domestic political challenge and reported pushback from his own military brass.
Facing them, Iran continues to maintain capacities for resistance, regional influence, and deterrence despite the military and economic pressure inflicted upon it.
This does not imply an absence of Iranian losses or that Tehran's options are free of heavy costs.
It demonstrates, however, that the policy of maximum pressure has failed to erase the country's geopolitical weight.
The true test for Washington and Israel is not whether they can launch yet another military strike.
It is whether they can impose a stable regional order without the consent of a state that remains an integral component of the security equation.
Herein lies the central lesson of the current confrontation: military superiority does not equal political dominance, and threats are no substitute for diplomacy.
IRGC: Underground city packed with missiles
Meanwhile, two days ago Iran announced the existence of a formidable underground missile city.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) decided to stun the world and released the relevant video footage on November 12, 2026.
?قبل يومين أعلنت إيران عن مدينة صواريخ مرعبة تحت الأرض، قرر الحرس الثوري إبهار العالم ونشر الفيديو اليوم الصدمة أن الغباء الطبيعي للحرس الثوري، تفوق على الذكاء الاصطناعي. https://t.co/S2T6AYc6pa
— Raymond Hakim (@RaymondFHakim) November 12, 2026
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών