Trump’s warped Iran end-game messaging reveals war escalation: ex-Pentagon official

The Trump Administration’s messaging on the war on Iran has been muddled since it began at the end of February, with President Donald Trump and various officials offering wide-ranging, often contradictory justifications. As it became clear that the war was impacting the economy negatively and angering voters, the administration began scrambling to draw up a timeline for the war. Still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has claimed there was no “timeframe” for its conclusion while Trump has insisted it is “very complete.”

Now as Iran rejects peace talks from the White House, a former Iran Team Chief at the Department of Defense says that not only is the war “most likely not ending any time soon,” but “we’re headed for more escalation.”

Posting to X, former White House, State Department, and DOD advisor Ilan Goldenberg laid out several reasons he thinks the war is going to continue to spiral out of control.

First of all, he points out that the U.S. is “nowhere near a deal with Iran,” saying the gap between what both sides are demanding is too wide. Second, while one of the key Iranian negotiation points is the withdrawal of American forces, there are currently thousands of U.S. troops being moved into the Middle East, which suggests “escalation, not capitulation.”

At the same time, while Gulf states didn’t want the war in the first place, “they are increasingly convinced it must end in a way that weakens Iran’s ability to threaten regional energy infrastructure and maritime routes.” As a result, Gulf leaders are now pushing Trump to finish off the Iranian regime once and for all.

And while the American public has made it clear that it does not support the war, with just under 60 percent saying they think the U.S. has gone too far and almost 70 percent saying they care more about low gas prices than regime change or Iranian nuclear aspirations, support for the war in Israel is high. Many citizens of the U.S. ally view Iran as an “existential threat," and it is unlikely that Benjamin Netanyahu will face serious internal opposition to continuing strikes and expanding the conflict.

With all of this in mind, Goldenberg asserts that a “negotiated diplomatic breakthrough” is not “realistic.”

“The most plausible off-ramp involves the president declaring that U.S. objectives have been achieved,” says Goldenberg, “announcing an end to U.S. military involvement, promising to restrain Israel and making clear we will stop if Iran ceases attacks on regional neighbors and does not resume its nuclear program.”

According to Goldenberg, while this is not the ideal outcome and “leaves many risks unaddressed,” it may be the only realistic way to bring the conflict to a conclusion.

“Better to accept this likely outcome today,” says Goldenberg, “rather than six months from now.”

• george conway
• noam chomsky
• civil war
• Kayleigh mcenany
• Melania trump
• drudge report
• paul krugman
• Lindsey graham
• Lincoln project
• al franken bill maher
• People of praise
• Ivanka trump
• eric trump