Trump's Deadline: A Dilemma or a Strategy

The fourth week of the American-Israeli war on Iran has passed without clarity on its outcomes or the extent to which the announced Israeli-American objectives have been achieved. Global losses have significantly increased for American allies both in the region and beyond, due to their direct and indirect repercussions from the war, primarily in the economic sector. There is also a lack of foresight regarding the long-term damages to supply chains, not only for oil and gas from the Arabian Gulf, but also for derivatives and essential industrial materials that enter various sectors from agriculture to technology.

The repeated deadlines set by President Donald Trump, "five days and then another ten days," indicate a picture of the Trumpian dilemma. It seems that the duration and scope of the war and Iran's response have exceeded his or his advisors' expectations, and that the immediate and long-term impacts on the American and global economy were not accounted for in his plans to initiate the war. He also faces a decline in his standing in American public opinion as the midterm elections for the U.S. Congress approach.

In my opinion, the American and Israeli administrations, with their colonial mindset, did not consider the rationality of Arab state actions, particularly in the Gulf, in their refusal to participate in American attacks on Iran or to join the war, especially after their facilities were bombed by Iran for various reasons related to the future of the region and its relationships, the nature of future risks to the peoples of the region, their vision of the nature of effective regional powers, and their economic interests. Additionally, the NATO countries' refusal to join the war when the American president requested their involvement was due to concerns over the legitimacy of the war and fears of changes to the rules of international relations, including worries about an American invasion of Greenland in the same manner as expressed by President Trump.

On the other hand, it appears that the American administration is attempting to exploit these deadlines to bring in more American special forces to deal with the islands overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, "the crisis knot," as well as those controlling the oil of "Kharq," or to manage nuclear facilities and enriched uranium affairs, on one hand, or to open the door for more Israeli-American strikes in Iran, which facilitates "negotiations under fire"—an Israeli concept for dominance and subjugating others that aligns with the American president's concept of "peace through strength," on the other hand. I believe that one of the main reasons for these deadlines is to give hope for a potential ceasefire or an end to the war, which would lessen economic impacts and rising commodity prices in the short term.

Regardless of the reasons or duration of these deadlines, the rules of the "game" of relations in the Middle East have become different from what they were before the war, witnessing a transformation in the nature of international relations not only at the political level between countries and respect for the rules of international law and the purposes of the United Nations Charter based on state sovereignty and peaceful dispute resolution over the past years but also in the nature of the international economy, its priorities, and the behavior of countries in dealing with the global market, especially in the field of energy. This threatens the ability of poor countries to access a share of the globally available oil and its derivatives, resulting in greater economic injustice with the emergence of a market for rich countries at the expense of poor countries and their peoples. This represents a shift from the arrogance of military power to the dominance of economic capacity in international relations and its direct impact on individuals' lives and livelihoods.