Martin Jay – Strategic Culture Jan 17, 2026
Hundreds of thousands took to the streets in Tehran and other Iranian cities, in a show of support for the Ayatollah Khamenei
Is Trump serious about what many believe are impending airstrikes on Iran? From his administration’s perspective, the campaign against Iran is achieving its intended results: sowing chaos that is destabilizing the regime, while flooding the internet with fabricated videos depicting atrocities by Iranian security forces. This is not to say the regime is not killing protesters – it is. But producing fake news via social media clips may have the opposite effect: Tehran could exploit the CIA/Mossad disinformation campaign as cover, using the “fog of war” to intensify its crackdown with even higher casualties, reasoning it has little left to lose.
Western media, of course, is not reporting the substantial domestic support the Iranian regime retains in its defiance against Israel and America. Major outlets ignored recent pro-government demonstrations that brought over a million people into the streets. Iranians are savvy; even those dissatisfied with their government recognize the game being played by Israel and the U.S. and refuse to fall for it.
Trump is using this period to negotiate with Tehran, but it’s worth noting that for a real bombing campaign to take place, the U.S. would need at least one – ideally two – aircraft carriers in the region. Currently, there are none there, nor any known to be heading to the Persian Gulf, despite the area’s centrality to Trump’s strategy.
Professor John Mearsheimer, one of the sharpest foreign policy voices given airtime, doubts Trump has the courage to launch a full-scale attack using U.S. forces for three key reasons.
“I think what will deter [Trump] is the fact that the Iranians might shut down the Strait of Hormuz,” he said recently. “Secondly, the Israelis and Americans don’t have the capability to prevent Iranian ballistic missiles from pounding Israel. And number three – of great importance – for what purpose are we doing this? What are we going to accomplish? If we use military force, what’s the happy ending for us? The answer is: there is no happy ending for us.”
Notably, the professor does not conflate Israel’s interests with America’s. For Israel, toppling the Iranian regime would be its greatest victory since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. For America, the benefits of serving Israeli interests to that degree are far less clear – it would grant a tiny nation unprecedented power in the Middle East, inevitably creating more problems for the West. Would Israel then proceed to annex parts of Lebanon, Iraq, or Jordan? Growing tensions with powerful Arab states like Saudi Arabia suggest the region could reach a breaking point, which is why the Kingdom and others have already pleaded with Trump not to strike Iran – the implications are beyond his grasp.
Trump’s eyes, however, are fixed on a new regime – or one coerced into accepting his demands – that could offer Western investment opportunities and oil deals. His public rhetoric about human rights and killings is absurdly disingenuous; he doesn’t care. It’s merely a convenient pretext to sell a future attack to a gullible public.
An attack is likely because there is no realistic halfway compromise Tehran would accept. Iran has already rejected Trump’s demand to wind down its nuclear program and uranium enrichment. What else could his team ask? To stop selling oil to China? That’s equally unrealistic and would only make the regime appear weak amid domestic unrest. One potential compromise might involve a change in government and a dilution of the Supreme Leader’s powers – a shift many Iranians could support if it meant a more pragmatic, less corrupt administration. A modern, West-leaning government that tones down threats to Israel in exchange for sanctions relief would be a win-win for Trump and Iran – but not for Israel.
Yet such an outcome is improbable. What seems almost certain is that Trump will be pushed into a corner of his own making and, rather than lose face, will authorize strikes on Iran’s military infrastructure. The consequences will be immediate – and neither he nor his advisors have properly contextualized them. Iran will not repeat its mistake of June 12 last year by leaving Turkey and GCC countries out of the conflict; instead, it will obliterate Israeli military infrastructure within 48 hours. Trump fails to grasp that this is a trap: he will be dragged into a war with Iran because there will be nothing left of Israel’s air force or ground facilities. He may assume that even if Iran blockades the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. forces could clear it in hours. He might be right – but at what cost?
America’s true weakness is its political vulnerability to casualties. In 1993, all it took for Bill Clinton to withdraw from Somalia was the image of a dead U.S. soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu on the cover of Newsweek. How many dead Americans would it take for Trump to pull out of a war with Iran? Perhaps the reason he hasn’t sent an aircraft carrier to the region is that he knows it would be a prime target on day one – just as he has already evacuated U.S. troops from Qatar.
Whatever Trump is planning, it does not appear to be a U.S.-led operation – a naïve and ill-conceived assumption that Iran’s retaliation would spare American forces. Even if Tehran avoided direct strikes on U.S. assets, the regional and global fallout would be cataclysmic, cementing Trump’s legacy as the first U.S. president to trigger a world war through his own folly and vanity. Every Israeli government pleads with a new American president to attack Iran. Every U.S. president has resisted – for good reason. Will Trump take the bait?
“… Currently, there are none [ aircraft carriers ] there, nor any known to be heading to the Persian Gulf, despite the area’s centrality to Trump’s strategy.”
Why? Because the yankees know that these dinosaurs ( aircraft carriers ) are sitting ducks for Iranian missiles and drones.
Great posts.. .THANKS!
Unpacks ..Explains and Exposes what is really going on behind the scene
USA and Kikeland are boxed in and cornered in a 4-D Chess game.
They have lost before they even start.
100% No Win
There are Jews and Gentiles: Israelis are nearly the same thing as American Jews. It is idle to speak of “the USA”
Subject: Lawyers
In Charlotte, NC, A Jewish lawyer purchased a box of very rare and
expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among other things.
Within a month
having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and
without
yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the
lawyer
filed claim against the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost “in a series
of small fires.” The insurance company refused to pay, citing the
obvious
reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
The lawyer sued…and won!
In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company
that the claim was frivolous.
The Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the
company in which it had warranted that the
cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them
against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable
fire,” and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure
lengthy
and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the
ruling
and
paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost
in
the “fires.”
NOW FOR THE BEST PART… After the lawyer cashed the check, the
insurance
company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!! With his own
insurance
claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him,
the
lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property
and
was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a
$24,000.00 fine.
This is a true story and was the 1st place winner in the recent
Criminal
Lawyers Award Contest.
ONLY IN AMERICA
Labour spends £70million on brand-new migrant centre holding just 50 men
Story by Dan McDonald • 2h •Labour has spent £70million on a new migrant detention centre – which is only holding 50 men.
Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, on the outskirts of the Oxfordshire town of Kidlington, first opened its doors to migrants in December.
It was built to hold up to 160 rejected asylum seekers or foreign criminals awaiting deportation.
But six weeks later, it is operating at less than a third of its capacity, and none have been deported
In its first week of operation, only nine migrants were sent to Campsfield – but this figure is believed to have risen to around 50.
The £70million refurb means the centre is running at a cost of £437,000 per place – funded by the taxpayer.
Reform UK’s policy chief Zia Yusuf ( himself a migrant )has accused Labour of not being serious about removing migrants with no right to stay in Britain
Actually none have a right to stay here
NHS chemotherapy nurse demands urgent mammogram change
Story by Lauren Haughey • 2h •
A chemotherapy nurse is fighting for urgent change after witnessing a ‘rise in breast cancer cases’ among patients under 50. Gemma, a 39-year-old NHS worker, is calling for the UK to lower the age for mammogram screening by a decade, taking it from 50 to 40.
“There’s that stereotypical age isn’t there, that ‘people over 60 get cancer’ and things like that,” Gemma Reeves, from Kent, said. “But since Covid, the age of the women is just getting younger and younger.
“And it is predominantly women, I think I‘ve treated one or two men, but it is mainly women, and it’s younger women as well. The women, they’re coming in, they’ve got young families, they are working, so they are trying to navigate having chemo while working, doing the food, the shopping, everything. And looking after their kids.”