Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

US military preparations in the region continue, with Iran as the clear target. Over the past week, Washington has taken concrete steps that pushed observers to anticipate the approach of “zero hour” for a military strike. While these moves suggested an imminent attack, the apparent pullback raised critical questions about the US position: has the military option been abandoned, or is this part of a calculated management of the scene?

President Donald Trump is pursuing a strategy built on deliberate disruption of the opposing side. A stream of contradictory and successive statements has deepened uncertainty and complicated Tehran’s calculations. At a moment when all indicators pointed toward an impending strike, Trump announced that Iran had stepped back from executions and would be given another opportunity. Yet this political messaging was not accompanied by any tangible reduction in military readiness, as the build-up of US forces for an offensive operation continued unabated.

This approach is not new to Trump. He employed the same method in the Venezuelan situation, through political contacts that preceded decisive developments. A similar pattern emerged during last June’s conflict, when a wave of conflicting statements preceded US B-2 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. In each case, the objective was clear: to disorient the adversary, exhaust it psychologically and security-wise, and push it toward exposed defensive moves.

Logically, the trajectory points toward tightening Iran’s isolation and sealing its containment, at a time when its internal crisis is reaching unprecedented levels. The latest US warning triggered a wave of withdrawals, including the evacuation of European embassies and public criticism of the Iranian regime’s handling of protests. This signals that political isolation is largely complete, while the domestic crisis remains unresolved and the military option continues to loom.

In reality, the timing of a military operation in the manner preferred by Trump may not have arrived yet. Protests persist, and the gradual weakening of the regime from within continues. This keeps the military strike as a standing option, but one governed by precise calculations. Time may currently favor Washington, allowing it to avoid scenarios of widespread chaos or unwanted military escalation. Trump does not seek prolonged wars of attrition, nor a repetition of the Iraqi model. His objective is change at the lowest cost and in the shortest time possible—an approach he attempted in Venezuela and now seeks to apply to Iran.

This doctrine translates into readiness for war as a tool to impose political vision and the use of force as leverage to compel compliance—precisely what the Trump administration is doing today. However, US policy toward Iran cannot be separated from the Israeli dimension. Israel remains deeply embedded in the Iranian arena, working continuously to dismantle the fronts Tehran built over recent years, ultimately targeting the central front: Iran itself. Any military decision, or post-strike scenario, is therefore the product of full US-Israeli coordination.

While Iran has threatened to retaliate against US and Gulf interests and to strike Israel directly, American and Israeli measures—from evacuating military bases to deploying air defense systems—indicate that these threats are taken seriously. At the same time, these moves can be viewed as cover for a broad intelligence operation. Approaching zero hour pushed Iran to activate multiple emergency scenarios, from movements in Yemen and Iraq to internal measures—steps that have been closely monitored.

What is unfolding today suggests that dealing with Iran has entered its final phase. This follows decisive blows to its regional proxies, the stripping of its ability to exploit adjacent geography against Israel, and the twelve-day war that opened Iranian airspace and territory to unprecedented penetration. With the latest protests, the picture has fundamentally changed, especially as the US military option remains on the table.

In short, the element of surprise is still present, and exiting this phase without producing meaningful change in Iran appears unlikely. Despite the complexity of the disruption strategy, the option of a targeted operation to trigger strategic transformation remains the most realistic scenario in the calculations of Washington and Tel Aviv.