Bloomberg article warns Trump against "hubris" with Iran and being drawn into Israel's agenda

SadaNews - An article published on Bloomberg's website warns that "American hubris" towards Iran without a clear plan could turn any strike into regional chaos, adding that Trump is ignorant of the Iranian reality, merely succumbing to Israel's influence, which threatens the region.

The article cautions against the dangerous ignorance of American leadership regarding Iranian society, which it threatened to bomb for the second time this year, emphasizing that President Donald Trump's lack of a "clear final plan" could turn any military strike into a comprehensive regional chaos, repeating historical failures.

Columnist Mark Champion asserts that the most important question today is not what Washington will do regarding Iran, but: how much does it really know about the country? Is it aware of the consequences of destabilizing a nation with a population of 90 million on the region and on Turkey and Gulf states? Or is it merely following Israeli desires?

Champion describes Trump's demands as "scattered," fluctuating between ending the killing of protesters after the January protests, dismantling the nuclear program, reducing ballistic missiles, and stopping support for its proxies in the region, which confuses both Tehran and the international community.

The writer believes this confusion is only a strategic success if Trump is working within a plan to distract the opponent and overthrow the Iranian regime or impose a clear end, but the reality is there is no such plan, and Iran represents a serious intelligence gap for Washington.

The writer warns against "hubris" that deceives leaders into thinking that military power alone is enough to change the political realities of nations.

The writer here references the failure of American intelligence in 1977 when then-President Jimmy Carter described Iran as a "stable oasis" just days before the outbreak of the Islamic revolution.

He warned that relying on secondary intelligence channels like Israel or another "watching" state is insufficient to understand the complexities of the Revolutionary Guard or the Iranian people's response to aerial strikes, nor to prepare for the consequences.

Champion advises American leadership to acknowledge what it does not know about Iran, warning against the "hubris" that misleads leaders into thinking that military power alone is sufficient to change the political realities of countries, reminding of Washington's historical failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The writer believes that Washington now needs to prioritize determining its objectives in Iran: Is the goal a new nuclear deal or regime change? And how will it deal with the chaos that will follow?

Difference in American and Israeli Priorities

In this context, the writer reminds American leadership that Israel's goal of overthrowing the Iranian government does not necessarily align with U.S. interests.

He clarifies that Israel views the Iranian regime as an "existential" threat, making it willing to bear the consequences regardless of how severe they may be, even if it leads to missiles on Tel Aviv, regional war, or chaos within Iran.

Washington is not in Israel's position, and it must consider the stability of the region, as well as the fears of its allies who will bear the brunt of an Iranian collapse.

However, Washington is not in Tel Aviv's position and must consider the stability of the region, along with the fears of its allies who will bear the consequences of an Iranian collapse, as Turkey fears waves of refugees, and Gulf states fear attacks on their oil facilities.

The writer concludes that the greatest danger is that with all these threats, it is likely that Trump does not have a "clear final plan" and is possibly wielding American power as if it were a "hammer" looking for nails.

The current reality raises a key question in Champion's view: Will Trump's ego be satisfied with a nuclear deal that preserves the dignity of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or will Washington escalate tensions and then pull the trigger without considering what happens after the strike?

Source: Bloomberg