Trump's border shift plan in the Middle East can be Fatal for Israel

Trump's threats focus on catering to Israel and aiming to destroy Iran, rather than the nuclear deal or Iranian oil.

Dr Pamelia Riviere 

The discussion around the U.S.'s border-shifting agenda, often seen through a neo-colonial lens, alongside Israel's ambitions in the Middle East, prompts some critical questions. What do these strategies mean for the region and the world at large?

Regardless of individual perspectives on the issue, the ongoing debate highlights a significant transformation in American attitudes towards global involvement. This shift suggests a growing divergence in opinions on international engagement, with some advocating for a more isolationist approach while others emphasize the importance of active global participation. Is this merely an isolated viewpoint, or could it signify a pivotal moment indicating that U.S. foreign policy discussions are evolving into a more complex and unpredictable phase? The implications of this shift may influence not only domestic policy but also international relations in the years to come.

Recent reports from Hindustan Times indicate that Iran has experienced a notable increase in seismic activity, raising concerns about potential nuclear developments in the context of heightened tensions with Israel and the United States. Within a week, Iran recorded 99 earthquakes, with significant tremors occurring near Isfahan, which houses an important nuclear technology center that has previously been targeted by US military operations. This surge in seismic events coincides with escalating rhetoric surrounding assassination threats and regional instability, leading to anxieties about the possibility of a broader conflict in West Asia.

Netanyahu expressed immediate concerns over military readiness to strike Iran

For nearly a week, the world held its breath, gripped by tension as American warplanes roared into action, aircraft carriers navigated treacherous waters, and fighter jets stealthily touched down in vital spots across West Asia. Whispers of war filled the air: Was President Donald Trump poised to unleash a military strike on Iran? The signs of an escalating U.S. military presence were undeniable, with F-15 fighter jets stationed in Jordan and the USS Abraham Lincoln changing its course, seemingly ready to pounce. 

Amid this atmosphere of uncertainty, reports began surfacing that President Trump had seriously mulled over launching a strike against Iranian targets. Yet, in a surprising twist, he chose to stand down at the last second, swayed by a call from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu voiced urgent concerns about the preparation—or lack thereof—required for such a high-stakes operation. Both leaders understood the potential fallout of an overt military action. 

A strike could devastate Iran but would also put Israel in peril. Moreover, it could threaten U.S. military bases scattered throughout the Gulf region, risking a conflict that could spiral into chaos. As they weighed their options, the weight of the situation loomed large, highlighting the fragile equilibrium of power in the Middle East. The world watched, suspended between hope and dread, as the fate of nations hung in the balance.

In a tense political climate, Donald Trump is reportedly pressuring Europe with threats of increased tariffs unless they agree to sell Greenland. This situation raises questions about Washington's willingness to escalate tensions and explores Europe’s potential responses, including a substantial $8 trillion initiative that could alter American investments significantly. The narrative emphasizes that dealing with a bully requires a firm stance rather than appeasement, and a detailed approach to managing relations with Trump will be provided. 

Meanwhile, the geopolitical landscape remains fraught with the looming threat of war in Iran, as the U.S. enhances its military presence in West Asia. The uncertainty surrounding possible military action persists alongside new efforts to establish peace and rebuild Gaza. Additionally, India has garnered attention by being invited to participate in discussions alongside Russia and Pakistan. The sudden, brief visit of UAE President MBZ to India raises questions about the urgency of their diplomatic dialogue.

Trump's border shift plan can be fatal

Trump's border shift plan, crossing the redlines, could have dire consequences not only for the United States but for the entire world. By adopting an expansionist approach that prioritizes national interests over diplomatic relations, Trump risks provoking tensions with other global leaders. This could lead to increased hostility, trade disputes, and a potential escalation of conflicts in regions already experiencing instability. The ripple effects of such a strategy may undermine international alliances and encourage other nations to adopt similarly aggressive stances, further complicating global diplomacy and cooperation on pressing issues such as security, trade, and climate change.

In a high-stakes scenario, Israel is considering its most extreme option: a potential nuclear strike on Iran. This audacious decision could significantly alter the geopolitical landscape, raising serious concerns regarding the unprecedented consequences that Israel might face. The future of the nation is at a critical juncture, as the ramifications of such an action could extend far beyond its borders.

In a recent episode of the podcast Lezzet Yöresi, Larry C. Johnson discussed the current military readiness of the United States in relation to potential conflict with Iran. He pointed out that despite strong rhetoric from President Donald Trump, there are no carrier task force groups in the region, making a US military strike highly unlikely at this time. Johnson emphasized the need for additional fighter-bomber squadrons and the hardening of military bases in the area, particularly at Al Udeid Air Force Base and Bahrain's naval port facility. He warned that Iran has made it clear they would retaliate immediately against US military installations and personnel if attacked, which raises concerns about the safety of smaller bases in the region. 

Johnson noted that the likelihood of Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz is high, which could severely impact the global oil supply, as 72% of OPEC oil flows through this crucial passage. Furthermore, he indicated that the US is currently lacking the necessary military assets to support a combat rescue operation should US pilots be downed in any conflict. While Johnson acknowledged that a military action could be possible by the end of March, he remarked that significant movements of US forces and resources into the area would be necessary precursor steps. He also referenced a recent US operation against Maduro, suggesting a similar approach could be considered but noting the complexities involved.

The CIA was involved in the removal of Iran's former Prime Minister

Readers who think deeply about democracy, gender equality, and the struggle for freedom in Iran under the autocratic Islamic regime must reflect on the historical context of these issues. A pivotal moment occurred in 1953 when the CIA orchestrated a coup to overthrow Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh's bold declaration that Iran's oil resources should benefit the national interest rather than foreign powers sparked this intervention. The resulting coup led to the imposition of an autocratic monarchy under Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled with an iron fist for 25 years, bolstered by unwavering American support due to his willingness to share oil revenues with the United States. During his reign, the Shah's regime stifled dissent and brutally suppressed opposition movements, leading to widespread human rights abuses and the deaths of thousands of Iranians.

 As the Shah's health deteriorated and the Iranian populace grew increasingly restless, it became clear that a revolution was imminent. In the wake of growing unrest, the Carter administration shifted its support from the faltering Shah to the Islamic leader Ayatollah Khomeini, inadvertently paving the way for the establishment of the current theocratic regime. Today, the United States finds itself entangled in a complex geopolitical landscape, where removing the Islamic regime is seen as necessary due to its non-cooperation and antagonism toward American interests. 

However, any military action against Iran raises concerns about a hidden agenda reminiscent of past interventions, signaling a gamble that intertwines geopolitics with the ongoing struggle for oil control. The lessons of history underscore the necessity for a thoughtful and nuanced approach to fostering democracy and human rights in Iran, rather than repeating the mistakes of the past.

Recent activities of the CIA and Mossad related to regime change efforts in Iran

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, recently spoke with Jedaal about the unrest in Iran and its potential connections to U.S. intelligence operations. He asserted that the turmoil is not organic but rather engineered by CIA and Mossad efforts. Johnson highlighted the long-standing goal of the U.S. to destabilize the Islamic Republic of Iran, dating back to at least 1980, including encouraging Iraq to attack Iran and providing chemical agents for use in that conflict. 

He noted that while protests in Iran may have been sparked by an economic crisis—the collapse of the Iranian currency on December 28—the subsequent unrest appeared to be manipulated. Coinciding with a meeting between Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Johnson suggested that the timing was too significant to be a mere coincidence.

 Additionally, Johnson described a surge in social media narratives that exaggerated the scale and severity of the protests. He reached out to a contact in Iran, who confirmed that the situation was not as dire as portrayed. Although there was legitimate discontent with the government, the call for regime change was artificially inflated. 

By early January, Johnson reported that the Iranian government, aided by Russia and China, began shutting down internet access to control the situation, indicating pre-planned measures for a regime change effort. He speculated that there had been an intention to escalate violence and possibly launch military actions against the Iranian government, but ultimately these plans did not materialize as anticipated.

Overall, Johnson's insights suggest a complex interplay of internal dissatisfaction and external manipulation regarding the Iranian protests, pointing to a significant intelligence agenda behind the scenes.

Jhonson discusses the complexities surrounding protests in Iran, urging a critical examination of whether these movements are genuinely organic or instigated by external organizations. He highlights a significant shift in violence correlating with the shutdown of the Starlink system, which disrupted the coordination of protests. Jhonson refutes the narrative that depicts Iran as the primary sponsor of terrorism, pointing out that the propaganda leads many to believe that Iran is responsible for the deaths of numerous Americans, which he claims is not true. Instead, he emphasizes that the war between Iraq and Iran, backed by the United States, resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 Iranians—more than the total American combat fatalities in World War II. 

This historical context, he argues, helps explain why chants of “death to America” resonate among Iranians, rooted in the grief from past U.S. actions and the ongoing consequences of sanctions leading to malnutrition and suffering. Though he acknowledges a significant amount of propaganda surrounding recent events, Jhonson notes that areas like Abdan, with a small population and a history of losing lives in protests, continue to experience unrest driven by deep-seated anger and resentment. He reflects on the escalating death toll from protests over the years, suggesting that the resulting trauma from such episodes could potentially culminate in civil unrest if not addressed. He contends that each instance of unrest compounds Iran’s social challenges, weakening the nation incrementally. Moreover, he argues that while attempts by the West to destabilize Iran seemingly aim to weaken the regime, they inadvertently lead to a stronger sense of unity and resistance among Iranians. 

The question arises regarding the West's persistent obsession with regime change in Iran, which he attributes to a fundamental clash of values, particularly concerning issues like sexuality and social conservatism. He concludes by asserting that despite external pressures, the Iranian government must strive to meet the needs of its people in navigating the challenges posed by both internal discontent and foreign intervention.

It's about more than Iran's nuclear deal or oil

The latest news is on January 30, 2026, Democracy Now! reported that Iran's senior diplomat is in Turkey for discussions amid rising concerns that the U.S. may soon initiate a significant military strike on Iran. The New York Times notes that Trump has recently received an "enhanced list of possible military options against Iran, aimed at inflicting further harm on the nation's nuclear and missile infrastructures or undermining Iran’s supreme leader." The current strategies involve deploying U.S. forces within Iran to conduct operations. During Trump’s Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remarked that “The same applies to Iran at this moment, ensuring they have all the options to reach an agreement. They must not pursue nuclear capabilities. We will be ready to execute whatever this president expects from the War Department.”

It is concerning of Trump's unpredictable behavior about foreign policy. He doesn't need to jeopardize the United States just to appease Netanyahu. The situation goes far beyond simply negotiating a nuclear deal or discussing Iran’s oil. It involves catering to the interests of Israel and the powerful Zionist lobby in the U.S. The aim seems to be to dismantle Iran completely, much like what happened in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and to other Islamic regimes. The stakes are high, and the consequences could be profound. 

The writer is a freelance analyst