The Hidden Motives Behind Intensified U.S. Threats Against Iran
The prospect of an American military strike against Iran has become a daily headline across most U.S. and Gulf media platforms. These reports are often crafted with subtle manipulation, aiming to portray Iran as desperately seeking dialogue and negotiation, while the United States appears resolute in its pursuit of a military option. This portrayal, however, starkly contradicts the facts on the ground and the recommendations of American political and strategic experts to the U.S. administration—suggesting that the narrative serves broader political purposes with multiple dimensions.
There is no doubt that Washington is leveraging the current geopolitical moment to advance its interests through these intensified threats. The timing of this rhetoric aligns with ongoing U.S. aggression in Yemen, the Zionist enemy’s unrestrained assault on Gaza with open American support, and a broad American campaign to instill fear in Iran and the wider resistance front.
The Zionist entity, too, is capitalizing on the moment by escalating its attacks on Syria—destroying military infrastructure, seizing more territory, and increasing its violations in Lebanon. These actions unfold amid a deafening Arab silence, a noticeable detachment from Syria’s new ruling authorities, and what appears to be a state of paralysis within the Lebanese government. The Lebanese resistance continues to offer the government ample opportunity to prove its theory that settlements and the removal of occupation forces can be achieved without armed resistance. This approach seeks to establish a national defense strategy that formally acknowledges the resistance as a fundamental pillar—only after all other options have demonstrably failed.
In this context, it is crucial to examine America’s concealed objectives by addressing two essential questions:
1. If the U.S. is confident in Iran’s weakness, why hasn’t it acted militarily?
If Washington truly believes—as some U.S. and Israeli media claim—that the resistance has suffered a decisive defeat, Why does the Israeli military hesitate to overrun Lebanon, establish a buffer zone, and occupy the south, even with an all-encompassing American mandate granted to Netanyahu? And why does the U.S. itself hold back from launching strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, relying instead on daily threats and suggestions of an imminent attack?
The ongoing war in Yemen provides key insights. The intense American campaign has failed to deter Ansar Allah from targeting Israeli territory, attacking U.S. aircraft carriers, or downing American drones. Nor has it succeeded in extracting any concessions from the Yemeni side.
Given that the U.S. categorizes Yemen as part of the so-called “Iranian arm” or a member of the resistance axis, one must consider the implications of confronting Iran itself—the core of the axis, armed with both offensive and defensive power, capable of reaching deep into the Gulf region where American bases lie. Iran’s missile and drone arsenal has already proven its effectiveness in penetrating Israeli territory, as demonstrated in Operation Truthful Promise 2.
Washington understands that Iran will not remain passive in the face of any reckless military move and that it possesses significant deterrent capabilities. This is why the Trump administration pursued a “maximum pressure” strategy—political and economic—while limiting military action to mere posturing for leverage.
Moreover, the cost of military intervention is anything but minor. It’s a burden the U.S. may not be willing—or able—to carry, especially if the outcome mirrors the situation in Yemen. A report by CNN recently underscored this dilemma, citing sources who revealed that U.S. operations against Ansar Allah had cost nearly $1 billion in under three weeks, with limited impact. The report also suggested the Pentagon may need to request additional funding from Congress to sustain its campaign in Yemen. The report explicitly stated: “We destroyed some sites, but that did not affect the Houthis’ ability to continue attacking ships in the Red Sea or downing U.S. drones.”
This raises a critical question: What would be the cost of targeting Iran—both in terms of initiating the attack and enduring Iran’s comprehensive, multidirectional retaliation? That cost would only increase if the Zionist entity were to join the conflict.
2. Why do U.S. official statements contradict strategic policy recommendations?
Setting aside the media’s psychological warfare and propagandistic framing, U.S. think tanks—whose experts testify before Congress and provide policy papers to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the executive branch—offer recommendations that emphasize diplomatic engagement. While they view military threats as useful tools for leverage and alliance management in the region, their core message stresses that diplomacy must be central.
These policy briefs argue that while military power and sanctions are essential parts of the overall strategy, they are insufficient on their own. Instead, it states that the U.S. should empower its diplomats, enhance coordination with allies and regional partners, restore aid programs, foster regional stability, maintain a robust military presence, and uphold firm security commitments throughout the Middle East.
One of the key warnings against a strike on Iran involves the ripple effects such an operation would trigger across the U.S. military’s global posture. Extended or altered aircraft carrier deployments disrupt vital maintenance schedules, delay training, and cut into the rest periods essential for troop readiness. Such disruptions inevitably affect future deployments to other strategically important regions—especially the Indo-Pacific, where countering China is a declared top priority for the U.S.
Prolonged deployments also heighten risks to service members and may erode morale, which could have long-term implications for military effectiveness.
Among the more striking recommendations was one calling for support of emerging leadership in Damascus and Beirut, under the guise of stabilizing these nations and curbing Iranian influence. This recommendation warrants scrutiny. In Syria, the intended goal appears to be the complete dismantling of its military capabilities, reducing the country to a weakened, fragmented state—ultimately serving U.S.-Israeli strategies aimed at isolating the resistance and leveraging Syria’s position for economic gain.
The subdued tone and internal policies of Syria’s new leadership suggest tacit alignment with this vision.
In Lebanon, it would be perilous for the state to embrace these recommendations. Doing so would transform it into a functional proxy, strip it of sovereignty, and effectively render it an occupied territory. The Zionist entity’s exploitation of the ceasefire and the resistance’s strategic patience reveals much about its intentions: the swift push for gas exploration in maritime zones overlapping with Cypriot and Lebanese waters indicates an Israeli assumption that the resistance has backed down from the “Karish” deterrence equation—an assumption based on the illusion that the balance of power has shifted.
The region is approaching a decisive crossroads. The U.S. maneuvering and its push to extract concessions from Iran aim to dismantle the resistance axis, fragment its fronts, and pressure Tehran into abandoning its support for resistance groups. This would allow each front to be isolated and eliminated in turn. Yet Iran firmly rejects any negotiations under threat or coercion. Likewise, the resistance fronts—though patient—have not, and will not, capitulate. Their endurance is strategic, and their arsenals remain full of surprises—surprises likely to expose the flaws in both Israeli and American calculations