In my past life as a consultant, one of the things I would do regularly was eliminate certain legs of analysis because a stringent look at limiting factors, aka boundary conditions, said they were likely to be irrelevant.

It seemed useful to work through that sort of exercise now. Readers can, indeed should, contest certain assumptions which could change the boundary conditions and therefore the conclusions. But please provide evidence if you disagree with take on where the boundaries lie!

Our take is that despite Trump having postured so much about Iran needing capitulate to the US or face a promised overwhelming attack as to make it hard to back down, he will find a way to do just that. He is running into too much opposition, aka, reality. Trump likes big shows or noise and force producing fast, easy wins that he can puff up into being more consequential than they are. Our guess is that he will use a pretend revival of JCPOA-type negotiations to temporize, as in he will insist he has his finger on the trigger as he moves naval assets out of the theater. Trump and even more so the hawks will still keep planning for a big later attack. The continued low odds of success even with some sort of better-worked-out scheme means Trump is unlikely to hazard that before the midterms.1 The wild card would be Iran being (again) lulled into complacency. After the negotiation duplicity right before the 12 Day War and the just-failed, admitted regime change operation,2 that seems unlikely.

Trump now looks to be at an impasse. His team has sent demands to Iran that come from Netanyahu and are maximalist: give up any nuclear enrichment, even for peaceful uses such as medical and give up long and even intermediate range missiles, which comes close to making themselves defenseless. Per Aljaazera,the US demands are:

• Iran must not build nuclear weapons, and it must abandon even a civilian nuclear programme.
• Iran must not enrich uranium at all – not even to very low levels that would be useless for military purposes.
• Iran must hand over any enriched uranium it already has.
• Iran must curb the number and range of its ballistic missiles.
• Iran must end its support and links with armed resistance groups across the region.

Alexander Mercoursis depicted this requirements as reminiscent of the July 23, 2014 ultimatum by Austria-Hungarian empire to Serbia, as in clearly designed to be rejected, which it was.

Consider:

Iran has greatly hardened its posture. Before, as we indicated, like Russia before the start of the Special Military Operation, it was conflict-averse, and therefore preferred to try to find negotiated solutions, on which the West repeatedly cheated. Russia concluded that the continued provocations, perhaps most of all President Zelensky asking for nuclear weapons at the mid-February Security Conference and no one rejecting the idea then or afterwards, as the final straw. The latest regime change effort has similarly led Iran to see the conflict as existential. The Supreme Leader has warned that a US attack would trigger a regional war. Iran has now vowed that any attack on Iran will be met with a ferocious response, including strikes on Israel and US bases in the region and closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The US and Israel do not have and will not in any realistic time frame have adequate air defenses. Larry Wilkerson said he would have depicted Israel as having the best air defenses in the world prior to the 12 Day War and was shocked to see how badly they performed. The US used up 1/4 of its THADD missiles during that conflict. And Iran allegedly has hypersonic missiles, against which the West now has no effective protection.3

Despite all the noise about the overwhelming US force in theater, the naval assets can at most engage in a few days, as in less than a week, of intense fire. See Retired Royal Navy Commodore Steve Jermy for details:

The US’ ability to launch air strikes from elsewhere in the region will be constrained. In the 12 Day War, Israel fired into Iran nearly entirely from outside its airspace. Readers can correct me, but the only time hostile planes came into Iran was in the pre-negotiated incursion in connection with the “obliteration” strikes on nuclear sites. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are refusing to let the US use its airspace for an attack on Iran. From what I can tell, Turkiye has not said it will deny US access (the Incirlik airbase is essential) but is visibly very uncomfortable with its position.

Erdoğan is hosting Iran’s foreign minister in a desperate bid to revive talks and stall what may be an inevitable confrontation.

The stakes are regional. If the Islamic Republic collapses, power dynamics shift. Oil access is being floated as leverage, but Tehran’s refusal to… pic.twitter.com/5zLCfJ41Nd

— Tousi TV (@TousiTVOfficial) January 31, 2026

Turkiye has in the past told the US “no,” such as in 2024. It is possible that Turkiye might try being half-pregnant, such as allowing the US to conduct surveillance only.

A longer take by Patricia Marins from last week:

The American naval force is still insufficient for a direct frontal attack on Iran. At best, this would be an attack carried out only by the US and Israel-if Israel even decides to get involved.

No Gulf country is going to join in, and the reason is simple: nobody wants to see missiles raining down on those gleaming skyscrapers in Dubai, for example. I’m not exaggerating, but is necessary just two ballistic missiles hit Dubai, and the Sheikh Mo will cry and ask to stop.

There will be no Qatar, no UAE, no other state within range of Iranian missiles. Another key issue is that these states are far more concerned about the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the impact on their exports.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if Iran closes the strait in a combat scenario, it won’t be for just one, two, or three days. It will be prolonged and will brutally drive up oil prices…..

Iran has a paper-thin air force, but naval warfare is very much in its interest, because modern naval warfare is built around stealth subs, UAVs, UUVs, USVs, and long-range anti-ship missiles, all areas in which Iran has specialized in recent years. This is a much better scenario for Iran than the one in June 2025.

Iran will have no difficulty mapping and acquiring maritime targets. It is one of only six countries that possess operational HALE drones: the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, China, North Korea, and Iran. Russia and India are still working on prototypes.

Iran has at least 100–200 HALE drones, as shahed 147/149 either armed or SAR/ISR purposes. They don’t match American resolution levels, but they are more than capable for naval target acquisition from high altitudes.

Confirming Marins’ assessment, from John Kirakou on his Friday DeProgrammed show, staring at 8:30:

John Kirakou: I’ve just in the last three or four weeks, I’ve developed some friendships in in three Middle Eastern royal families thanks to podcasts. But anyway, I’ve I’ve been in like close touch with these with these princes and and they’re wellplaced princes. They’re not just, you know, playboy princes living in Beverly Hills and driving Lamborghinis. These are serious people.

And I learned yesterday that the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Egyptians, and the Emiratis all went to the president by phone and said, “Please don’t attack Iran.” The Egyptians went so far as to say that it would lead almost immediately to a region-wide war, which is the last thing that anybody wants.

Ted Rall [crosstalking]:Yeah, I agree with that with that analysis.

John Kirakou: I think so, too. More importantly….

**Ted Rall **: And the proxies will be triggered.

John Kirakou: Oh, yeah. The Israelis went to the president yesterday and said, “Don’t attack Iran.” Not out of the goodness of their hearts that they’ve had some kind of change of uh change of position, but because they have not been able to replace all of the Iron Dome missiles that they used in the last go-round with Iran.

It is blindingly obvious that closing the Strait of Hormuz is easily within Iran’s capabilities. The live-fire exercises that started yesterday were to drive that point home to morons in the peanut gallery and put Mr. Market on edge. Trump has made it abundantly clear that he is very much fixed on trying to keep oil prices low. and Mr. Market is one of the few things that will put him in reverse gear fast.

The 12 Day War showed the hyper-belligerent Israel is remarkably intolerant of civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. In addition, as much as Israel very much wants to destroy Iran as a competing power, unlike Iran, it does not regard this fight as existential. By contrast, as Alastair Crooke has stressed, Shia can take remarkable pain. Martyrdom is a deeply-held cultural value. Iran lost one million in its protracted war with Iraq. He has told long-form the story of Shia responses to being told by the Caliphate that they could no longer worships at their mosques. They persisted, losing fingers, then toes, then hands, then feet.

Not as often discussed is that the US is also loss-intolerant. In a fine talk with Danny Haiphong, former Army Ranger Greg Stoker pointed out that the US deployment does not resemble any sort of normal approach (he didn’t use the word “shambolic” but his “I don’t think they have a concept of a plan” was pretty close). He also noted that Secretary Rubio admitted in Senate hearings that the US has 30,000 to 40,000 potential targets in theater in the form of vulnerable armed forces. If the US were preparing for the risk of a regional war, it would be moving troops not immediately needed for combat operations out of harm’s way.

China is now openly supporting Iran militarily. From Defense News in China Sends Type 055 and Type 052D Stealth Destroyers Toward Iranian Waters For Joint Drills with Iran and Russia (emphasis theirs):

China has deployed some of its most advanced naval surface combatants toward the Middle East as part of preparations for upcoming joint naval exercises with Iran and Russia, a move that officials and analysts describe as a direct response to recent U.S. naval exercises in the same region.

An article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal effectively suggests that the US is trying to grope its way to an off ramp, by focusing on the parlous state of air defenses as a way to buy time. From Before Any Strike on Iran, U.S. Needs to Bolster Air Defenses in Mideast:

Trump has yet to say whether and how he might use force. But American airstrikes on Iran aren’t imminent, U.S. officials say, because the Pentagon is moving in additional air defenses to better protect Israel, Arab allies and American forces in the event of a retaliation by Iran and a potential prolonged conflict.

The U.S. military could conduct limited airstrikes on Iran if the president were to order an attack today, U.S. officials say. But the kind of decisive attack that Trump has asked the military to prepare would likely prompt a proportional response from Iran, requiring the U.S. to have robust air defenses in place to protect Israel as well as American troops….

Other military preparations are continuing apace. On Thursday, six F-35s from the Vermont National Guard were seen landing in the Azores, moved from the Caribbean region to a position that is closer to the Middle East. Vermont National Guard F-35s took part in January’s operation to capture former Venezuela leader Nicolás Maduro. Some Navy EA-18G Growler electronic-attack aircraft recently left Puerto Rico and arrived in Spain.

The Thaad deployment is a particularly strong sign that the U.S. is preparing for a potential conflict, since the U.S. has only seven operational batteries, and the units have been stretched thin over the past year.

The US is over-extended. It does not have enough air defense missiles. It does not have the navy to contain Venezuela, Cuba and Iran on a long-term basis. Trump on some level understands this, hence his fondness for intense, intended to be overwhelming blows.

The most likely course is for some sort of sham negotiations to allow the US to climb down for now and for Trump to depict the mere fact of talks as a win and a proof of US domination. But don’t expect the US to relent. But as Greg Stoker pointed out, the Israeli minister of defense was in Washington last week to hand over the strike packages. Israel has not given up on Project Iran. The hawks most assuredly have not.

But it may turn out that the window for Israel and the US to subdue Iran has passed, permanently. The US is not what it once was, militarily, while Iran has survived the US attacks and is getting more help from Russia and even China. Despite determined efforts by Zionist billionaires, the US public is turning ever-more against supporting Israel in funding costs alone, let alone actual expenditure of lives. As we have long said, this was a generational problem for Israel, since younger Jews in the US don’t identify much with Israel. Greg Stoker, who is in deep red Texas and warned loudly and clearly that he does not likely citing personal anecdata, nevertheless pointed out that he’s seen a pronounced shift against Trump. Among other things, Texans understand that the Venezuela crude is of little value to the US oil industry and will mainly be shipped to the Middle East. So he sees even generally foreign-policy-indifferent conservatives turning against Trump’s warmongering.

Israel can be expected to do the obvious, which is to continue to engage in what is too politely called asymmetric warfare or more accurately called terrorism, both to try to destabilize Iran and to preserve credibility among the warmongers in the Beltway. How far that gets in the next few months will be an indicator of how much Iran has been able to ferret out and destroy Mossad networks in Iran after its 12 Day War decapitation attacks and its recent protest escalations.

Trump is admittedly becoming more and more erratic every day. He might wind up concluding he has too much manhood at stake to back down now or any time very soon with Iran. But as you can see, he has manu many reasons to try to find a way to retreat, even if he tells himself it is only temporary.

____

1 The only scenario I could see otherwise is as part of a “cancel the elections” scheme, as in attack say in October, with false flag terrorism blamed on Iran in the US, to justify the declaration of martial law or the functional equivalent under another name and set of authorities.

2 It was breathtakingly stupid and arrogant for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to crow about having trashed the Iranian currency. Recall that was what set off comparatively small, peaceful protests that the US and Israel briefly stoked into larger and much more violent ones. The US taking credit will facilitate Iran setting up mechanisms with allies who do not want a war (which now might even include the Saudis on a stealth basis) to defend the currency. It also tells local businessmen that the currency plunge was due not fundamentals but a raid, which even absent external support might blunt the effectiveness of any second attempt. The rial is so thinly traded that it would not have taken much US intervention to produce a rout….which means defending it ought not be hugely costly either.

3That does not mean they cannot ever be intercepted, but the odds are so low that it would amount to a lucky accident.