Peloni
Auto Dubbed Video Loads Below
In an important video on TOV Channel, Dr. Mordechai Kedar suggests that Donald Trump entered the confrontation with Iran intending to exert strong pressure but ultimately retreated because Iran and its allies demonstrated their ability to inflict significant economic costs on the United States and its partners.
According to Kedar, Iran threatened key maritime trade routes and energy supplies, targeting what he describes as the economic vulnerability of the United States and its allies. He compares the situation to a weaker actor threatening a stronger one at a sensitive point and contends that this pressure led Trump to accept an arrangement resembling previous accommodation policies toward Iran.
Kedar maintains that this outcome has been viewed across much of the Arab world as a betrayal by the United States. He argues that many Arab states fear Iranian power and interpret Washington’s actions as evidence that the United States is unwilling to stand firmly with its regional partners. He places these concerns within the context of a long-standing historical and cultural rivalry between Persians and Arabs, asserting that many Arabs perceive Iran as seeking regional dominance and that recent developments have reinforced those fears.
Kedar goes on to indicate that Gulf states have become increasingly concerned about Iranian military capabilities after witnessing drone and missile attacks in the region. He explains that these nations now have increasing doubts in regard to America’s reliability to provide needed protections from Iran, and that they are consequently reassessing their strategic relationships in light of what they perceive as Iran’s growing strength and Washington’s growing resistance to confront it.
Kedar contends that these developments are producing new regional alignments. He points to increasing cooperation and contacts among countries that have historically had conflicting interests, arguing that shared concerns about Iran are driving these changes. He also suggests that Saudi Arabia is now less likely to move openly toward normalization with Israel because recent events have weakened confidence in American security guarantees.
A significant portion of Kedar’s discussion focuses on Qatar, which he describes as an influential regional actor seeking to expand its reach through media, academia, politics, and public discourse, particularly in the United States. He notes Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood and believes that Israel should be wary of Qatari influence.
Kedar further argues that both Israel and several Gulf states are deeply disappointed with the American approach toward Iran. In his view, these countries cooperated closely with the United States but now recognize Washington’s concessions to Iran are eroding their interests. He recall the principle commonly associated with Henry Kissinger which warns of shifts in American policy which often leaves its allies feeling vulnerable.
Kedar also suggests that Trump’s decisions may have been shaped by domestic political considerations, including economic concerns, energy prices, upcoming elections, and the possibility of political challenges at home. According to Kedar, these factors encouraged a policy of de-escalation rather than a prolonged confrontation with Iran.
Regarding the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, Kedar argues that a nuclear-capable Iran would have profound consequences not only for Israel but for the broader Middle East and potentially the wider international system. Consequently, he holds that Iran’s strategic nuclear ambitions make the regime’s survival a major concern for the region and the world at large.
Kedar’s remarks further that Western civilization is experiencing a period of decline. While emphasizing that Western Europe is increasingly influenced by by anti-Western ideologies, majorly espoused by migrants, its Western identity is being eroded and that a similar trend is evident in the United States. He notes that a decisive victory over Iran would strengthen the confidence in the West, whereas the current attempt to coordinate with Iran telegraphs a message of profound weakness to its adversaries.
Kedar also speculates about possible Chinese influence on Trump’s change in approach. He discusses the possibility that China may have exerted economic pressure, particularly with regards to its large holdings of US debt, and raises other possible forms of external influence which might have been employed as well which might have set the US towards its currently worrying trajectory of capitulation.
He concludes by arguing that Israel should position itself as a defender of Western values in the Middle East and should actively communicate what it sees as the dangers posed by Iranian influence and broader geopolitical trends. He challenges that Israeli leaders should continue warning the international community against seeking accommodations what he describes as an axis led by Iran and its partners.
Of particular note, this Pentagon’s 2026 National Defense Strategy highlights such an axis, warning that the US should act to isolate the members of the axis rather than stabilizing them, such as is taking place with the negotiation strategy taking place in Switzerland with Iran. The Pentagon’s strategy explained well why Trump acted against Iran this past February 28 when he came to support the war against Iran. Trump’s abrupt change of policy, engaging rather than isolating malicious actors such as Iran, begs the question as to why he is now acting in opposition to his own Pentagon’s strategy proposals, only months after having entered the war in Iran in support of that strategy.
So, is Kedar’s conclusion the answer to the riddle befuddling the world as to the motivation of Trump’s radically shifting policy with Iran?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.