PNN – Highlighting the Islamic Republic of Iran’s readiness to crush any act of aggression—and noting the fear among US military commanders of repeating the Vietnam War experience—an Arab world analyst outlined five reasons behind Trump’s retreat from his threats.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; Abdul Bari Atwan wrote in the newspaper Rai al-Youm: Will Trump once again back down from his threats to launch a major attack on Iran, or will he carry them out? What are the potential major consequences in either scenario? And what lies behind his sudden decision to withdraw the majority of his troops from bases in Kuwait?
This analyst stated that the announcement by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump regarding a review of its troop presence in Kuwait marks the “first” official admission of failure in its ongoing conflict with Iran and its regional allies, as well as an acknowledgment of the heavy losses—particularly among military personnel stationed at these bases—sustained from Iranian missile and drone attacks. This may well be the reason why Trump is backing away at the last minute from his threats to launch new, large-scale attacks.
He wrote: Once again, Trump has decided to return to these threats, raising the possibility that he might launch severe attacks at any moment to force Iran into submission. However, there is a strong likelihood—consistent with his usual pattern—that he will back down or postpone these threats; this is not improbable for the following reasons:
First: Iran is unyielding; these threats do not intimidate the country—on the contrary, Iran is more prepared than ever to mount a powerful response to any new act of American aggression.
Second: There is strong opposition to this attack among senior U.S. military commanders; mindful of rising U.S. troop casualties on Middle Eastern battlefronts and the destruction of bases that cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build, they fear a “second Vietnam.”
Third: Potential Israeli participation alongside U.S. forces in new attacks would prove counterproductive, as it would fail to achieve the objectives of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities or weakening the Iranian regime. Instead, given the capabilities of Iranian missiles and drones—which have already depleted Israeli and U.S. stockpiles of interceptors to the point of exhaustion—such an action could lead to the destruction of several Israeli cities, particularly Tel Aviv, Haifa, Dimona, and Ashkelon.
Atwan adds that the continuation and prolongation of this war against Iran have driven Trump to the brink of madness, agitation, and psychological frustration; this is because he was misled by Israel, which had assured him the conflict would be short, result in a decisive victory with minimal military and financial losses, and yield significant gains.
In conclusion, the analyst writes: What is certain is that the United States will emerge as the biggest loser in this war, regardless of whether Trump abandons his plan for a major attack on Iran or proceeds with it by succumbing to Netanyahu’s lies.