It’s been 38 years since Donald Trump published “The Art of the Deal,” a collaborative effort with journalist Tony Schwartz who later described modern history’s most consequential vanity project as “the greatest regret of [my] life.”
Over those almost four decades, Trump’s refined his “art” such that, as his second term running the world enters its second year, his dealmaking strategy can be summed up in just eight words: Do what I say or I’ll kill you.
It’s not very nuanced, but it is effective. Time was, the worst thing that might befall you for refusing a Trump deal was a visit from Michael Cohen. Creepy as that’d be, it’s not the blood-curdling prospect of having your door kicked down by elite commandos donning night-vision goggles at 2 in the morning and being spirited away blindfolded, with your wife, to a US warship.
One thing you can’t say about Trump is that he’s bluffing. He’s not. On anything. Not this go-around. That doesn’t mean he’ll ultimately follow through on every threat, but it does mean that no threat’s idle, including and especially the ultimatum he gave Iran earlier this week.
As noted briefly (and with a tinge of dark humor) here on Wednesday, Trump’s patience with the regime in Tehran ran out in recent days, and while it wasn’t immediately clear why, new reporting suggests that in-between plotting on Greenland and, critics worried, instigating a civil war in Minneapolis, Trump was back-channeling with Iran through the usual conduits in Oman.
Long story short, Trump told Ali Khamenei that the US is willing to meet with regime officials, but only if the theocracy agrees ahead of time to a series of preconditions including, according to sources who spoke to CNN, “a permanent end to uranium enrichment, halting all support for proxies in the region” and “new curbs” on the IRGC’s ballistic missile program.
Iran’s willing to engage on the nuclear issue, and the proxy funding’s almost a moot point given the decimation of Hezbollah’s military ranks and the Quds’ degraded logistical capacity and accompanying infeasibility of directly managing Khamenei’s pet militias in Iraq. But Trump’s demand that the IRGC place limits on the range of its ballistic missiles has so far been a non-starter.
If you’re Iran and you stop stocking missiles with the range to hit Israel, you’re even more defenseless than Israel proved you to be last year, when the IDF showed the IRGC’s aerial defense capabilities to be for all intents and purposes non-existent.
If you have no defense, all you’ve got going for you is offense — just ask a 2000s-era West coast NBA franchise. Trump’s effectively demanding Iran give up its offense too, along with surrendering any hope of attaining a nuclear deterrent.
Apparently, Iran told Steve Witkoff the missile program’s not up for negotiation, even if, in refusing to discuss it, Tehran’s chancing another round of US airstrikes. Once Iran made it clear it doesn’t intend to bargain away the longer-range missiles, Trump stopped responding. (Abbas Araghchi’s iMessages are apparently just a long string of blues with no greys — “Are you there?” “Hello?” “Still want to meet?” “I’m at Starbucks.”)
And so, we’re right back where we were on January 12: With the world on tenterhooks pondering a US operation to cripple or oust the regime.
Araghchi knows they might be in trouble. He ramped up the rhetoric on Thursday. The IRGC has “their fingers on the trigger,” he said, promising an “immediate and powerful” response “to ANY aggression.”
With apologies — and without wanting to perpetuate Trump’s bombast — allow me to mock Araghchi: Yeah, that’s what you said on June 11, and look how that turned out.
For his part, Khamenei threatened Tel Aviv through one of his ventriloquist dummies, who said US strikes would be tantamount to “starting a war.” Maybe. And if so, Iran’s war record would quickly go to 0-2-1. That is: No wins, two losses (to Israel last year, and Trump in a hypothetical 2026 conflict) and one tie (with Iraq in the 1980s).
Multiple US media outlets on Thursday said Trump’s actively considering strikes, and he’s made no secret of his intent. “It’s time to look for new leadership in Iran,” he said, during an interview with Politico earlier this month.
It’s not far-fetched (at all) to suggest the US has at least tried to communicate with elements inside the IRGC to assess whether the newly-inaugurated Venezuela model’s an option for a post-Khamenei Iran. I think it is.
Secular military rule would be bad news for the Iranian people, but as discussed at some length in “For The Islamic Republic, It’s All Over But The Crying,” the organizational disparity between the IRGC (which is basically synonymous with the state) and the protest movement (which has no face, no guns and, as far as anybody can tell, no plan for what to do in the event they achieve the critical mass necessary to overrun the military) is chasmic.
Like the military-security apparatus in Venezuela, the IRGC has a vested interest in cutting a deal that gives up the face of the government in exchange for a shot at running the show with “input” from the Trump administration. One issue the US would need to overcome in that scenario is the generational split within the military, but a lot of the old guard (or “old Guards,” if you like) is dead now, and not of old age.
Anyway, the odds of a US operation to effectuate some manner of shift in the regime’s position remain elevated, to put it politely. Trump isn’t bluffing. He’s now arguably more addicted to the use of military power than he is to publicity, and strikes on Iran would scratch both of those itches.
The president is fulfilling his dream of a world separated into regions. The Russia, US, China carve-outs are obvious but it looks like DJT is looking to add another = the Middle East run by Bibi and MBS with helpful input from Jarod Kushner. Eliminating any threat to his vision thus needs to be squelched.
Thinking in terms of “Spheres of Influence,” it’s interesting to watch Trump get involved in something that’s so clearly inside Russia’s primary sphere (as was the case with Syria). A lot of it goes back to Israel: Russia seems to have quietly realized that when it comes to Israel, there’s too much political support for Israel in America for Russia to meaningfully push back. Losing their Syrian proxy, however, likely saved Russia money and didn’t cost them too much (though I’m sure Russia’s military planners truly mourn the loss of their Mediterranean port at Tartus). Iran has been an important pillar though, supplying the Russian war machine with drones and missiles, to say nothing of being their last toe-hold in the Persian Gulf. The relative lack of support for Iran from Russia–even if only rhetorical support–surprises me. It suggests that Russia is even more overstretched by their Ukrainian commitments combined with the impact of Western sanctions than people seem to think.
I do not disagree at all.
But the problem remains, among Iran, Iraq and Syria, you are talking about many many 10s of millions of Islamic persons that will not setttle for that kind of arrangement.
So to force it, whose boots on the ground?
US – forgettabout it.
Bibis army, with the Hasid’s in reserve – I don’t think so.
MBS has nothing, and no influence, unless you need a former bureaucrat chopped up into pieces and Fedexed somewhere in some really really nice Louis Vuitton luggage.
Apparently he would like Africa to simply resign the world and disappear.
It probably doesn’t measure up to Stormy Daniels, but at least Donny can blow off some steam by throwing America’s economic and military might at any country not willing to kiss the ring. A good extraction or extrajudicial snuff job can do wonders for the libido.
OSINT (FlightAware) shows IRAN07, a governmental aircraft, departed Rasht and landed in Moscow about 6 hours ago, around 01:00 UTC on January 30th. While not definitive evidence, this is exactly the plan that has been confirmed as Khamenei’s bail-out plan if things get too heated.
If IRGC were going to make their move, this would be the weekend to do it.