By Rami Yitzhar
Inyan Merkazi — www.news-israel.net
For seventy-two tense hours, the
In less than seventy-two hours, the world shifted from bracing for a U.S. strike on Iran to watching President Donald Trump walk into the United Nations Security Council — a venue he neither fears, reveres, nor typically uses. What looked like the prelude to a kinetic operation abruptly transformed into a diplomatic maneuver that forced adversaries and allies to reassess the battlefield, the timing, and Trump’s strategic intent.
Global intelligence agencies remain split on whether Trump paused under pressure — or simply shifted the battlefield.
Middle East held its breath.
Airlines halted night operations over Israel, European leaders briefed their parliaments, and Tehran quietly evacuated several command facilities. The expectation was clear and nearly universal:
The United States was about to strike Iran.
It wasn’t speculation.
It was sourced — and European chancelleries admitted it openly.
Germany’s Chancellor stated that “a U.S. operation is imminent,” and Lufthansa suspended its night flights to Tel Aviv accordingly. Intelligence services across NATO aligned on the same assessment.
And then — in a twist that confounded friend and foe alike — instead of missiles, the world got microphones.
President Donald J. Trump walked into the United Nations Security Council.
A Move So Unexpected It Forced Analysts Back to the Whiteboard
Trump does not admire the UN.
He does not rely on the UN.
And he certainly does not need the UN to justify military action.
That is precisely what makes his sudden pivot so jarring.
If Trump were retreating, he would not have chosen the most theatrical and least predictable venue on Earth. And if he were escalating, he would not have signaled diplomacy so loudly.
The dissonance was global — and it was intentional.
The Carrier Question — and the Military Logic No One Wanted to Discuss
A quieter, less emotional layer lurked beneath the headlines:
there was no U.S. carrier strike group in optimal position for a sustained operation.
A punitive strike can be conducted from afar.
A transformational strike requires force posture, ISR coverage, and maritime redundancy.
Trump bought time.
Not because he feared the strike — but because he wanted it positioned within the correct decision window.
People obsessed with ideology miss this point.
People obsessed with power do not.
Why Timing Matters More Than Firepower
Iran was at its most fragile moment in years.
Not because of America — but because of Iranians.
Young protesters defied the Revolutionary Guard in dozens of cities, chanting for freedom and the death of dictatorship. Had the U.S. struck too soon, the Islamic Republic would have gained the one thing it no longer had:
a unifying national narrative.
Autocracies do not collapse under sanctions or speeches.
They collapse when they are busy killing their own children and can no longer rebuild legitimacy.
Trump understood something that many hawks refused to acknowledge:
“Bomb too early — and you may accidentally save the regime.”
That was the paradox Washington rarely admits in public.
Tehran’s Miscalculation — and Why It Stings
Iran’s leadership expected the familiar American binary:
- Immediate punishment, or
- Retreat under diplomatic pressure
What they got instead was a third scenario:
Strategic Delay + UN Exposure + Military Repositioning
This left Tehran in the worst possible situation:
✔ unable to claim victory
✔ unable to present martyrdom
✔ and forced into a global conversation on human rights at the Security Council — a place they hate almost as much as Trump does.
The Economic Dimension No One Mentioned Out Loud
While CNN debated morality and Fox debated deterrence, global markets debated something else:
risk pricing.
Energy traders in Singapore noted the absence of panic premiums.
European insurers prepared for a scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz becomes a bargaining chip rather than a battlefield.
Trump, intentionally or not, created a pause in which:
✔ oil did not spike
✔ markets did not collapse
✔ and Iran could not weaponize supply lines
In geopolitics, that is called pressure without panic — and it is extremely rare.
Europe’s Dilemma: Disdain Meets Admiration
In Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, the reaction was almost psychological:
They dislike the method — but cannot ignore the effectiveness.
Europe favors predictability.
Trump favors leverage.
And leverage has a habit of humiliating predictability.
Israel’s Read — Brutal but Accurate
In Israel’s security establishment, analysts offered the most concise interpretation:
“No one should rescue the Iranian regime from its own people.”
Israel has lived long enough in the region to recognize that timing kills more dictatorships than bullets.
Russia and China — Forced Into Public Defense
One of Trump’s boldest strokes was not aimed at Tehran at all —
but at Moscow and Beijing.
By dragging the issue to the Security Council, Trump forced both to defend Iran on camera, with veto power as their only shield. Neither power enjoys defending the execution of students or the suppression of women on live diplomatic broadcast.
This was not diplomacy.
This was a trap.
The Trump Doctrine — If There Is One — Is Built on Surprise
People who despise Trump insist his moves are impulsive.
People who study power insist they are opportunistic.
The truth is simpler:
Trump makes others reveal their positions before he commits to his own.
This offends diplomats.
It terrifies generals.
And it confuses academics.
But in statecraft, confusion is a weapon.
Does Trump Blink? Or Does He Reload?
There are now three realistic outcomes:
- Iran cracks internally and Trump claims victory without firing a shot.
- Iran resumes executions once U.S. carriers arrive — giving Trump moral and kinetic justification to strike.
- Iran negotiates under duress, granting Trump an unprecedented diplomatic win.
In all three scenarios, Trump improves his position.
That is not how blinking works.
The Puzzle That Refuses to Resolve
The world loves clean narratives:
hawks vs. doves, war vs. peace, strong vs. weak.
Trump rejects these binaries.
He plays on time, not tension.
On leverage, not sentiment.
On position, not popularity.
And that leads to the final — and perhaps most important — conclusion:
With Trump, almost nothing is accidental. And that is why the puzzle is more fascinating than ever.
“In a world where strategic clarity is rare and signals are muddled, Trump’s choices continue to defy easy categorization — and in that very ambiguity lies his greatest leverage. Whether history judges this as caution or craftiness, the global puzzle of his Iran approach will be dissected for years.”
By Rami Yitzhar
Inyan Merkazi — www.news-israel.net
MerkaziTV
מפגשים ורעיונות בענייני היום וברומו של עולם
מבזק > The Trump Puzzle: Tactical Withdrawal or a Deliberate Feint?
The Trump Puzzle: Tactical Withdrawal or a Deliberate Feint?
By Rami Yitzhar
Inyan Merkazi — www.news-israel.net
For seventy-two tense hours, the
In less than seventy-two hours, the world shifted from bracing for a U.S. strike on Iran to watching President Donald Trump walk into the United Nations Security Council — a venue he neither fears, reveres, nor typically uses. What looked like the prelude to a kinetic operation abruptly transformed into a diplomatic maneuver that forced adversaries and allies to reassess the battlefield, the timing, and Trump’s strategic intent.
Global intelligence agencies remain split on whether Trump paused under pressure — or simply shifted the battlefield.
Middle East held its breath.
Airlines halted night operations over Israel, European leaders briefed their parliaments, and Tehran quietly evacuated several command facilities. The expectation was clear and nearly universal:
The United States was about to strike Iran.
It wasn’t speculation.
It was sourced — and European chancelleries admitted it openly.
Germany’s Chancellor stated that “a U.S. operation is imminent,” and Lufthansa suspended its night flights to Tel Aviv accordingly. Intelligence services across NATO aligned on the same assessment.
And then — in a twist that confounded friend and foe alike — instead of missiles, the world got microphones.
President Donald J. Trump walked into the United Nations Security Council.
A Move So Unexpected It Forced Analysts Back to the Whiteboard
Trump does not admire the UN.
He does not rely on the UN.
And he certainly does not need the UN to justify military action.
That is precisely what makes his sudden pivot so jarring.
If Trump were retreating, he would not have chosen the most theatrical and least predictable venue on Earth. And if he were escalating, he would not have signaled diplomacy so loudly.
The dissonance was global — and it was intentional.
The Carrier Question — and the Military Logic No One Wanted to Discuss
A quieter, less emotional layer lurked beneath the headlines:
there was no U.S. carrier strike group in optimal position for a sustained operation.
A punitive strike can be conducted from afar.
A transformational strike requires force posture, ISR coverage, and maritime redundancy.
Trump bought time.
Not because he feared the strike — but because he wanted it positioned within the correct decision window.
People obsessed with ideology miss this point.
People obsessed with power do not.
Why Timing Matters More Than Firepower
Iran was at its most fragile moment in years.
Not because of America — but because of Iranians.
Young protesters defied the Revolutionary Guard in dozens of cities, chanting for freedom and the death of dictatorship. Had the U.S. struck too soon, the Islamic Republic would have gained the one thing it no longer had:
a unifying national narrative.
Autocracies do not collapse under sanctions or speeches.
They collapse when they are busy killing their own children and can no longer rebuild legitimacy.
Trump understood something that many hawks refused to acknowledge:
“Bomb too early — and you may accidentally save the regime.”
That was the paradox Washington rarely admits in public.
Tehran’s Miscalculation — and Why It Stings
Iran’s leadership expected the familiar American binary:
What they got instead was a third scenario:
Strategic Delay + UN Exposure + Military Repositioning
This left Tehran in the worst possible situation:
✔ unable to claim victory
✔ unable to present martyrdom
✔ and forced into a global conversation on human rights at the Security Council — a place they hate almost as much as Trump does.
The Economic Dimension No One Mentioned Out Loud
While CNN debated morality and Fox debated deterrence, global markets debated something else:
risk pricing.
Energy traders in Singapore noted the absence of panic premiums.
European insurers prepared for a scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz becomes a bargaining chip rather than a battlefield.
Trump, intentionally or not, created a pause in which:
✔ oil did not spike
✔ markets did not collapse
✔ and Iran could not weaponize supply lines
In geopolitics, that is called pressure without panic — and it is extremely rare.
Europe’s Dilemma: Disdain Meets Admiration
In Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, the reaction was almost psychological:
They dislike the method — but cannot ignore the effectiveness.
Europe favors predictability.
Trump favors leverage.
And leverage has a habit of humiliating predictability.
Israel’s Read — Brutal but Accurate
In Israel’s security establishment, analysts offered the most concise interpretation:
“No one should rescue the Iranian regime from its own people.”
Israel has lived long enough in the region to recognize that timing kills more dictatorships than bullets.
Russia and China — Forced Into Public Defense
One of Trump’s boldest strokes was not aimed at Tehran at all —
but at Moscow and Beijing.
By dragging the issue to the Security Council, Trump forced both to defend Iran on camera, with veto power as their only shield. Neither power enjoys defending the execution of students or the suppression of women on live diplomatic broadcast.
This was not diplomacy.
This was a trap.
The Trump Doctrine — If There Is One — Is Built on Surprise
People who despise Trump insist his moves are impulsive.
People who study power insist they are opportunistic.
The truth is simpler:
Trump makes others reveal their positions before he commits to his own.
This offends diplomats.
It terrifies generals.
And it confuses academics.
But in statecraft, confusion is a weapon.
Does Trump Blink? Or Does He Reload?
There are now three realistic outcomes:
In all three scenarios, Trump improves his position.
That is not how blinking works.
The Puzzle That Refuses to Resolve
The world loves clean narratives:
hawks vs. doves, war vs. peace, strong vs. weak.
Trump rejects these binaries.
He plays on time, not tension.
On leverage, not sentiment.
On position, not popularity.
And that leads to the final — and perhaps most important — conclusion:
With Trump, almost nothing is accidental. And that is why the puzzle is more fascinating than ever.
“In a world where strategic clarity is rare and signals are muddled, Trump’s choices continue to defy easy categorization — and in that very ambiguity lies his greatest leverage. Whether history judges this as caution or craftiness, the global puzzle of his Iran approach will be dissected for years.”
By Rami Yitzhar
Inyan Merkazi — www.news-israel.net
שתפו את המאמר
רמי יצהר
הורידו עכשיו את האפליקציה שלנו בחינם!
ותהנו ממגוון תכנים בזמן אמת לנייד שלכם