23 Feb 2026
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/the-strategic-dilemma-at-the-heart

...

Before we get into the nitty-gritty, one thing should be said. Most people tend
to always jump immediately into extremes when making predictions: either Iran
will completely humiliate and destroy the US forces, sinking every aircraft
carrier; or the US will totally level Iran, slaughter the entire leadership, and
establish an Iraq-like dominion over the entire country.

In reality, when we analyze historical precedent we can see that neither often
happens. Most commonly the case is that neither side commits fully, and a lot of
messy, ambiguous damage is done from which both sides emerge as self-proclaimed
victors. Trump prefers things "easy" and is likely to pull out of any kinetic
conflict as soon as he's able to grab that one shiny PR motif that gets him his
victory laurels. For instance, should he succeed in taking out the Ayatollah or
other senior leadership, he could immediately declare a win and wind down
hostilities.

This is likely the main reason behind Trump's refusal to even name objectives
for the brewing conflict: there are no real pre-determined objectives, he's
intent on achieving anything at all that has the cachet of success so he can
retroactively label it as the objective he had all along. This allows him to
again annoint himself a "genius" for having achieved what he wanted. Should
Iran's leadership prove too difficult to root out, Trump may simply wait until
the US hits some other juicy military targets which can be glamorously
emphasized on TV, then declare those as having been the objectives all along,
again touting victory and that "Iran's nuclear potential has been destroyed".

We know that Trump's real motivation for the Iran strikes is not US's own
intelligence regarding some nonexistent Iranian potential, but rather the
pressure from Israel. That means for Trump the main operative goal is to somehow
satisfy his Israeli superiors and relieve the pressure, rather than achieving
any one particular military objective. As long as he can give them a good
"college try" and prove his loyalty with a thrashing of Iran, he may deem his
debt paid and pull the plug. Israel, of course, will never be fully satisfied
until Iran is entirely destroyed, but this is simply how the game works: Trump
relieves pressure by striking Iran even if it doesn't entirely satisfy
Netanyahu. After some kinetic fanfare, Israel is left with less credible
leverage of its own, particularly when Trump is able to twist headlines to
"prove" how far his "devastating" strikes were able to set Iran back, which
Israel would then be unable to credibly gainsay without directly challenging his
narrative.

It should also be noted that some are convinced Tucker Carlson has just
single-handedly saved Iran from destruction by outing Israel's true plans in his
interview with ultra-Zionist Mike Huckabee, US's ambassador to Israel. Recall
that Carlson was detained in Israel in quite unfriendly fashion as he's been
internally deemed a kind of enemy of the state for exposing Israel's propaganda:

...

In the interview, Huckabee implied to Carlson his belief that Israel is entitled
to conquer the entire Middle East, as per its biblically chosen stature.

This sent a firestorm of outrage throughout the Middle East, with the ministries
of every major country writing an 'open letter' of protest:

Cont'd ...