Enough of the Bombast
July 29, 2026
During the last two weeks, US forces kept striking targets in Iran. On July 20, the Houthis announced a complete maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia. President Trump threatened a “major military punishment” for Iran and its Houthi allies. Iran rejected a US ceasefire offer delivered in Tehran by the President of Iraq, who had recently visited the White House. Oil prices topped 100 dollars a barrel.
President Trump told Axios: “I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision.” He said, “Israel would join in two minutes if I ask them to,” adding, “we don’t need anybody” to launch a new operation against Iran.
In recent months, there have been exaggerated comments about the growing distance between the two leaders. Contrary to past practice, Trump and Netanyahu did not address the media after yesterday’s White House meeting because Trump met with President Zelensky earlier in the day and was to deliver remarks later at the funeral service for Senator Lindsey Graham at the Washington National Cathedral. Later, however, Netanyahu said, “It was one of the best conversations I’ve had with our friend, US President Trump.”
Last Saturday, the strikes between Iran and the US paused for the first time in two weeks. This created an opportunity to resume peace talks, and both sides should have seized it. Unfortunately, the pause did not last. In case of a new pause, before a cease-fire, Iran and the US should first agree on a “cease-bombast,” because their hostile language and endless threats are incompatible with diplomatic negotiations. They only undermine them. If they can’t even agree on whether the talks are on or off, perhaps they should continue to fight and pay the price.
So far, what has mattered most to the Tehran regime is appearing as “the party having the upper hand” in the conflict. They know that Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the US will continue in the foreseeable future, regardless of an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program and a “modus vivendi” regarding the Strait of Hormuz. In other words, they know that a “permanent peace deal” is not in the cards. Thus, Tehran is seeking as much as possible short of that. However, this policy has its limits. So far, the US-Israeli attack on their country has united the people of Iran. With an endless war, divisions can resurface. At present, Iranians hope that the regime, as on earlier occasions, will again allow its wise diplomats to reach a new or updated deal with Washington.
Secretary of War Hegseth recently told the Senate Appropriations Committee that the Iran war has cost $37.5 billion and defended the administration’s request for $67 billion in additional funding to cover the costs of the conflict, prompting criticism only three months ahead of the 2026 midterm elections in November.
Uncertainty about the future may also encourage Iranians to question the war’s cost more openly. Some may go further and question the cost of the 47 years of Islamist rule. Thus, the regime could be forced to perform a balancing act between the mounting economic and political cost of the war and its determination to emerge as an “equal side” in any peace deal, if not the winner. In brief, a “no war, no peace” solution may not be that far away. How much that would please Israel is another story. Nonetheless, the Iran war has given Israel a side-benefit: a free hand in Gaza and in the “occupied” West Bank.
Amid all the chaos, the US Energy Department said that Chris Wright, the US Energy Secretary, and Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the Saudi Energy Minister, had signed a deal to cooperate on civilian nuclear power and a bilateral agreement on nuclear safeguards, described by the administration as helping the Kingdom enrich its own fuel for nuclear reactors while upholding the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation. A day later, President Trump declared that the entire arrangement depended on the Saudi willingness to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, in other words, joining the Abraham Accords.
Israel and Saudi Arabia, despite lacking formal diplomatic relations, have met at the highest levels in the past. In September 2006, for example, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert secretly met with a senior Saudi official to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In November 2020, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly flew to Saudi Arabia for a secret meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. To date, however, the Saudi position remains that establishing diplomatic relations with Israel depends on clearing a path toward the creation of a Palestinian state. The Abraham Accords were signed in 2020, during President Trump’s first term, between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. However, Sudan’s ratification has been delayed by internal political instability.
In May this year, Trump had pointed to Saudi Arabia and Qatar as countries that should “immediately” sign on, followed by Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan. Of these four, Pakistan is the only country that still has no relations with Israel, despite occasional high-level contacts. The other three already have diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv. However, with his Gaza “Board of Peace” fading into oblivion, Trump could be envisioning a meeting in Washington of the leaders of all these countries, as parties to the Abraham Accords, as the crowning achievement of his Middle East policy, perhaps even an occasion to invite Tehran to join the Accords. Who knows what his ego would dictate?
No comments:
Post a Comment