Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement that “we have reached an agreement with Iran on 15 points” sparked a wave of hope on a global scale. A sense of relief was observed not only in diplomatic circles but also in the energy and financial markets. However, this optimistic mood did not last long. While the Iranian side stated that no talks had taken place, military activity on the ground painted a picture that contradicted the rhetoric of peace. At this very point, the fundamental question is: Are these statements a sign of a genuine quest for peace, or are they part of a larger strategic preparation?
The ongoing conflict between the U.S.-Israel axis and Iran has evolved into a war of attrition rather than a classic war of superiority. Wars where neither side can establish a clear “superiority of position” are called wars of attrition. In such wars, the winner is typically the side that can endure the longest. Iran’s population and the fact that the war is taking place on its own territory provide it with significant advantages. In contrast, the U.S. is conducting operations from thousands of kilometers away, while Israel lacks strategic depth due to its limited geography. Furthermore, neither side can completely prevent the other’s attacks. While Iran remains defenseless against U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, Israel and the U.S. appear to lack sufficient defensive capabilities against Iran’s missile attacks.
It is noteworthy that the U.S. is deploying military forces to the region simultaneously with Trump’s peace statements. The deployment of the 82nd Airborne Division, along with Marines and additional warships, paints a picture that does not align with the pursuit of peace. Moreover, the nature of the deployed military units is a separate point of contention. The prominence of ground-force-based deployments over units directly targeting Iran’s missile capabilities creates a military inconsistency as well. This is because, under current conditions, a ground operation against Iran does not appear technically feasible. This situation also points to a divergence of views within the U.S. While the White House seeks a political way out, the Pentagon’s moves on the ground suggest a different strategy.
The prolongation of the war is generating not only military but also economic and political costs for the U.S. Rising oil prices, increasing inflation and social unrest are among the factors putting pressure on the Trump administration domestically. As the November elections approach, it is inevitable that these costs will directly impact Trump’s political future. For this reason, the call for peace can be interpreted not merely as a foreign policy move but also as a domestic political necessity. However, due to the influence of power centers within the U.S., such as the Epstein files, pressure from Israel and the Jewish lobby, and global arms companies, President Donald Trump appears to be caught in a vise regarding the war with Iran.
One of the most decisive factors on the ground is the role of Israel, which wants the war to continue. In the current process, it is evident that Israel holds significant sway over the U.S., both in terms of military operations and strategic direction. Therefore, even if the U.S. were to seek to establish a peace table, Israel’s potential provocations could easily derail the process.
Additionally, one must consider the stances of China and Russia regarding the Iran war, as they view the U.S.’ loss of power on the ground due to the war as an advantage for themselves. Another key factor is that Iran does not wish to end the war without sufficient guarantees against Israel, which it views as an existential threat, and without its demands being met.
When all these factors are considered together, the possibility of establishing a peace table has not completely vanished. However, this possibility is extremely fragile, riddled with contradictions, and dependent on numerous variables. Therefore, at the current stage, the likelihood of “peace” is as high as the possibility that this could be a “stalling maneuver” to buy time for a larger-scale preparation.
