What this essay gets right is its basic framing. It is more useful to see the Middle East as a set of overlapping systems than as a series of isolated crises, and your breakdown of an Iranian-led axis, a fragmented Sunni field, and Israel’s evolving place in the region is a strong way to explain why so many conflicts bleed into one another. I also think you are right that the Abraham Accords changed the diplomatic sequence by showing that some Arab states were willing to normalize with Israel without waiting for a final Israeli-Palestinian settlement. That was a real break from a long-standing assumption in regional diplomacy.
I also agree, at least partly, with the point that this moment does not look like a conventional war with a simple escalation ladder and a clean endpoint. The mix of military pressure and indirect diplomacy is real. Current reporting shows that the fighting has unfolded alongside ceasefire proposals and mediated contacts, which supports your argument that coercion and negotiation are happening at the same time rather than in sequence. Where I hesitate is in treating that pattern as evidence of a coherent strategic design. It could also reflect improvised crisis management, competing agendas among allies, and the fact that none of the actors involved has a clear or stable endgame yet.
Where I disagree more strongly is with the essay’s treatment of the pre-Trump order as essentially a system built to preserve stalemate, and with the implication that “maximum pressure” was a more serious path to resolution. That overstates the intentionality of the old approach and understates the costs of the new one. The JCPOA may have been narrow, but it did place limits on one of the most dangerous parts of the problem for a time. After the U.S. withdrew in 2018, Reuters notes that Iran began moving away from its commitments under the deal, and later reporting documented sharp increases in enrichment. That does not mean the earlier model was sufficient, but it does suggest that pressure alone did not produce a cleaner or safer outcome.
I also think the essay moves too quickly from “the old order is under stress” to “a new order is being forced into alignment.” The region still looks less aligned than unsettled. Saudi Arabia has continued to say it will not normalize ties with Israel without a Palestinian state, which undercuts the idea that the Palestinian issue has simply been bypassed for good. And current U.S. intelligence reporting says Iran’s leadership remains largely intact despite weeks of strikes, which makes it hard to argue that pressure has already produced decisive systemic realignment. So for me, this essay is strongest as a diagnostic framework and weaker as a claim that the outcome is already visible.
Sophomoric is how I'd describe it. It leaves out critically important details which, given the author's CV, I suspect is intentional so as not to spoil her future career prospects.
Trump is just following, or being forced to follow, the US strategy laid down strategy across West Asia with Iran being the last of the named States to be destroyed. And as Israel has exactly the same strategy as a good vassal should, they are working in union.
Trump has the personal incentive to 'prove' himself the man who took Iran down, and in the process get himself and his family filthy rich.
There is nothing subtle or clever about this , its just bullying on an international stage.
"On January 3, 2020, a U.S. drone strike killed Qassem Soleimani, the central architect of Iran’s regional network."
"Iraq’s prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: “I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.”
In other words, he was killed while on a diplomatic mission.
Why are these and other important details left out?
"Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates opposed Islamist political movements and sought a state-centered regional order. "
How can you even make such a statement which ignores explicit Saudi support of Wahhabism, the main driving force of Islamic extremism (Salafi & Takfiri) which finances radical madrasa across the Muslim world, and in particular, Pakistan? These are the main recruitment centers for radical Islam, often supported by the CIA or Mossad when it suits their purposes, such as recently in Syria.
Lol! This article is pure speculation. Sorry to say ... I think it needs to be more seen from the Israel perspective than America hold the cards. Please see the Octopus Doctrine of Israel ... Go for head instead of tentacles where head is Iran and tentacles are proxies.
Famous doctrine from the Israel Prime Minister Nafrali Bennett.
War never start from the Tariff or Peace Board it started when Hamas attacked Israel. Backtrack from that you will hold the multiple pieces to why epsitine file come into the picture with Trump coming to the power.
The root is the IMEC. Look at what Netanyahu did in the UN right after which the attack happened. Nothing speculative in the article, proxies are not merely tentacles but a full mesh institutional setup across countries. The trigger for the US is in the Sunni axis. Please read all the essays in the series before leaving uninformed comments.
A couple of comments have gone missing. Specifically Les Vitailles' response to one of mine, and my follow up, neither of which IMO crossed any sort of line - we just have different views. I don't see a comment deleted notice, so what happened? Anyone care to explain?
"By the mid-2010s, Israel had achieved overwhelming military superiority and demonstrated repeated operational reach across Gaza, Syria, and beyond."
None of which would be possible without the explicit support of a captive US Congress sending billions of dollars annually in military aid at the behest of AIPAC. And yet, even with the most powerful nation on earth supporting them, they're still having trouble with a true peer adversary, and the facts on the ground (which are heavily censored) suggest that they're losing badly.
" captive US Congress sending billions of dollars annually in military aid at the behest of AIPAC"
US military aid to Israel = $3.8B / year
Israel defense budget 2025 = $35B / year
Israel GDP 2025 = $550B / year
The numbers defy your logic: Israel would be a major economic, military and technology power in the Middle Ease with or without the annual US military aid, just as it was before 1968 when the US arms embargo against it was still in place.
That would explain how Israel is pulverizing the Islamic Republic with little damage to itself: 14 dead and about 30 missile impacts, about 1/3 of the 12 Day War.
You left out the early warning air defence arrays in the Gulf States, the purpose of which was to defend Israel and which are now just scrap metal. Those were part of the so-called 'Iron Dome' and aren't accounted for in any Israeli military budget, nor are the interceptors being fired from US ships and bases in the region.
Whistle past the grave yard if you wish, but I have reliable sources that suggest Israeli is fast approaching the breaking point. The fact is, it's a small country with very little domestic energy, only a couple of ports and refineries and unprotected desalination plants that are currently on the target list if they persist in attacking Iran.
Take emotion out of the equation and you're left with a tiny country of 10M, only 7M of which are Jews, of which 17% are Haredi and refuse to fight in the IDF. This is against a nation the size of western Europe with a population of 93M who've been preparing for this moment for over 40 years. In addition to being self sufficient in energy, they're among the most educated people on the planet, especially in STEM subjects, and closely allied with China and Russia, the later who is supplying them militarily via the Caspian sea.
I'd also point out that most of Iran's military infrastructure is deep underground and next to impossible to destroy, so whatever it is the US and Israeli believe it has hit, I would argue are mostly decoys. This is a war of attrition which the US and Israel cannot win, which is why the Taco in Chief is desperately looking for an off-ramp.
But by all means disagree. Time will tell which of us has it right.
USA has given USD 7.8 billion as military aid to Israel in 2025 and snctioned USD 7.3 billion for 2026 as of now - figures that are equal to 20% Israel military spend. In addition USA deploys hundreds of billions USD worth military resources to Middle East to support IsraelI military actions.
"In addition USA deploys hundreds of billions USD worth military resources to Middle East to support IsraelI military actions"
Seriously? The US built enormous bases in the Persian Gulf just to support Israeli military actions, not to protect the Gulf monarchies, including Qatar?
There are tens of thousands of US military in the Gulf to protect those Arab countries.
Israeli military actions, against Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran were successful even without US support. Israel fought alone for the first 11 days of the 12 Day War and achieved air supremacy over Iran in the first 48 hours.
Just ask the a simple question on internet :”how much had usa given to israel.since 2023 and how much other monies has USA SPENT TO support israel action there”.
The answer you get is the following (you can get more details if you want):
The United States has provided at least $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel since the October 7, 2023, attacks. Total support, including over $12 billion in approved military sales and additional operational costs for regional deployments, brings the total U.S. investment to roughly $31.35 billion to $33.77 billion.
This is an excellent analysis. However, it rests to a great extent on the belief of "intentionality" on Trump's part. This is something that much (most?) of the country wouldn't buy. Supporting this, however, is the picture you paint covering both of Trump's terms. Different teams, with similar aims. One has to wonder if there's not an "eminence grise" behind this. Perhaps Kushner?
Look closely at his administration, especially the fast talking guy with the tattoos. He'd fit right in with the Azov brigade, even though he claims to be Christian Zionist, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.
Great Article.
What is the alternative to “stalemate”?
This war
I don’t see how any side doesn’t take a side by the time it is through
What this essay gets right is its basic framing. It is more useful to see the Middle East as a set of overlapping systems than as a series of isolated crises, and your breakdown of an Iranian-led axis, a fragmented Sunni field, and Israel’s evolving place in the region is a strong way to explain why so many conflicts bleed into one another. I also think you are right that the Abraham Accords changed the diplomatic sequence by showing that some Arab states were willing to normalize with Israel without waiting for a final Israeli-Palestinian settlement. That was a real break from a long-standing assumption in regional diplomacy.
I also agree, at least partly, with the point that this moment does not look like a conventional war with a simple escalation ladder and a clean endpoint. The mix of military pressure and indirect diplomacy is real. Current reporting shows that the fighting has unfolded alongside ceasefire proposals and mediated contacts, which supports your argument that coercion and negotiation are happening at the same time rather than in sequence. Where I hesitate is in treating that pattern as evidence of a coherent strategic design. It could also reflect improvised crisis management, competing agendas among allies, and the fact that none of the actors involved has a clear or stable endgame yet.
Where I disagree more strongly is with the essay’s treatment of the pre-Trump order as essentially a system built to preserve stalemate, and with the implication that “maximum pressure” was a more serious path to resolution. That overstates the intentionality of the old approach and understates the costs of the new one. The JCPOA may have been narrow, but it did place limits on one of the most dangerous parts of the problem for a time. After the U.S. withdrew in 2018, Reuters notes that Iran began moving away from its commitments under the deal, and later reporting documented sharp increases in enrichment. That does not mean the earlier model was sufficient, but it does suggest that pressure alone did not produce a cleaner or safer outcome.
I also think the essay moves too quickly from “the old order is under stress” to “a new order is being forced into alignment.” The region still looks less aligned than unsettled. Saudi Arabia has continued to say it will not normalize ties with Israel without a Palestinian state, which undercuts the idea that the Palestinian issue has simply been bypassed for good. And current U.S. intelligence reporting says Iran’s leadership remains largely intact despite weeks of strikes, which makes it hard to argue that pressure has already produced decisive systemic realignment. So for me, this essay is strongest as a diagnostic framework and weaker as a claim that the outcome is already visible.
Sophomoric is how I'd describe it. It leaves out critically important details which, given the author's CV, I suspect is intentional so as not to spoil her future career prospects.
https://www.weforum.org/people/tanvi-ratna/
First rule of Authentic Journalism: Consider the source.
Post event rationalisation.
Trump is just following, or being forced to follow, the US strategy laid down strategy across West Asia with Iran being the last of the named States to be destroyed. And as Israel has exactly the same strategy as a good vassal should, they are working in union.
Trump has the personal incentive to 'prove' himself the man who took Iran down, and in the process get himself and his family filthy rich.
There is nothing subtle or clever about this , its just bullying on an international stage.
"On January 3, 2020, a U.S. drone strike killed Qassem Soleimani, the central architect of Iran’s regional network."
"Iraq’s prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.
Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: “I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.”
In other words, he was killed while on a diplomatic mission.
Why are these and other important details left out?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html
"Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates opposed Islamist political movements and sought a state-centered regional order. "
How can you even make such a statement which ignores explicit Saudi support of Wahhabism, the main driving force of Islamic extremism (Salafi & Takfiri) which finances radical madrasa across the Muslim world, and in particular, Pakistan? These are the main recruitment centers for radical Islam, often supported by the CIA or Mossad when it suits their purposes, such as recently in Syria.
Some hard fact about radical Islam:
https://larrycjohnson.substack.com/p/when-it-comes-to-suicide-bombers
A book anyone claiming to understand Political Islam should read:
Wahhābism: The History of a Militant Islamic Movement - Cole Bunzel 2023
https://oceanofpdf.com/?s=Wahh%C4%81bism%3A+The+History+of+a+Militant+Islamic+Movement
Lol! This article is pure speculation. Sorry to say ... I think it needs to be more seen from the Israel perspective than America hold the cards. Please see the Octopus Doctrine of Israel ... Go for head instead of tentacles where head is Iran and tentacles are proxies.
Famous doctrine from the Israel Prime Minister Nafrali Bennett.
War never start from the Tariff or Peace Board it started when Hamas attacked Israel. Backtrack from that you will hold the multiple pieces to why epsitine file come into the picture with Trump coming to the power.
The edge is Hamas attack on Israel .
The root is the IMEC. Look at what Netanyahu did in the UN right after which the attack happened. Nothing speculative in the article, proxies are not merely tentacles but a full mesh institutional setup across countries. The trigger for the US is in the Sunni axis. Please read all the essays in the series before leaving uninformed comments.
A couple of comments have gone missing. Specifically Les Vitailles' response to one of mine, and my follow up, neither of which IMO crossed any sort of line - we just have different views. I don't see a comment deleted notice, so what happened? Anyone care to explain?
"By the mid-2010s, Israel had achieved overwhelming military superiority and demonstrated repeated operational reach across Gaza, Syria, and beyond."
None of which would be possible without the explicit support of a captive US Congress sending billions of dollars annually in military aid at the behest of AIPAC. And yet, even with the most powerful nation on earth supporting them, they're still having trouble with a true peer adversary, and the facts on the ground (which are heavily censored) suggest that they're losing badly.
So why is that part of the narrative left out?
" captive US Congress sending billions of dollars annually in military aid at the behest of AIPAC"
US military aid to Israel = $3.8B / year
Israel defense budget 2025 = $35B / year
Israel GDP 2025 = $550B / year
The numbers defy your logic: Israel would be a major economic, military and technology power in the Middle Ease with or without the annual US military aid, just as it was before 1968 when the US arms embargo against it was still in place.
That would explain how Israel is pulverizing the Islamic Republic with little damage to itself: 14 dead and about 30 missile impacts, about 1/3 of the 12 Day War.
https://www.twz.com/air/air-lora-israels-biggest-air-launched-ballistic-missile-emerges-from-the-shadows
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/breaking-news-morocco-chooses-israeli-atmos-2000-howitzers-over-french-caesar-amid-growing-defense-ties
It's still 10 %. And why, if Israel is capable of defending itself? What's in it for US?
https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts
You left out the early warning air defence arrays in the Gulf States, the purpose of which was to defend Israel and which are now just scrap metal. Those were part of the so-called 'Iron Dome' and aren't accounted for in any Israeli military budget, nor are the interceptors being fired from US ships and bases in the region.
Whistle past the grave yard if you wish, but I have reliable sources that suggest Israeli is fast approaching the breaking point. The fact is, it's a small country with very little domestic energy, only a couple of ports and refineries and unprotected desalination plants that are currently on the target list if they persist in attacking Iran.
Take emotion out of the equation and you're left with a tiny country of 10M, only 7M of which are Jews, of which 17% are Haredi and refuse to fight in the IDF. This is against a nation the size of western Europe with a population of 93M who've been preparing for this moment for over 40 years. In addition to being self sufficient in energy, they're among the most educated people on the planet, especially in STEM subjects, and closely allied with China and Russia, the later who is supplying them militarily via the Caspian sea.
I'd also point out that most of Iran's military infrastructure is deep underground and next to impossible to destroy, so whatever it is the US and Israeli believe it has hit, I would argue are mostly decoys. This is a war of attrition which the US and Israel cannot win, which is why the Taco in Chief is desperately looking for an off-ramp.
But by all means disagree. Time will tell which of us has it right.
Compare Iran with Israel
https://www.worlddata.info/country-comparison.php?country1=IRN&country2=ISR
GDP, education, technology exports. Not to mention that there's running water 8n Tel-Aviv but not in Teheran 😆
Now you understand why Iran's response in this war is less than 20% of what it managed in the 12 Day War
To correct fact about US military aid to Israel.
USA has given USD 7.8 billion as military aid to Israel in 2025 and snctioned USD 7.3 billion for 2026 as of now - figures that are equal to 20% Israel military spend. In addition USA deploys hundreds of billions USD worth military resources to Middle East to support IsraelI military actions.
"In addition USA deploys hundreds of billions USD worth military resources to Middle East to support IsraelI military actions"
Seriously? The US built enormous bases in the Persian Gulf just to support Israeli military actions, not to protect the Gulf monarchies, including Qatar?
There are tens of thousands of US military in the Gulf to protect those Arab countries.
Israeli military actions, against Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran were successful even without US support. Israel fought alone for the first 11 days of the 12 Day War and achieved air supremacy over Iran in the first 48 hours.
Yes, absolutely seriously.
Just ask the a simple question on internet :”how much had usa given to israel.since 2023 and how much other monies has USA SPENT TO support israel action there”.
The answer you get is the following (you can get more details if you want):
The United States has provided at least $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel since the October 7, 2023, attacks. Total support, including over $12 billion in approved military sales and additional operational costs for regional deployments, brings the total U.S. investment to roughly $31.35 billion to $33.77 billion.
Les Vitailles blocked you
You are blocked from subscribing to Les Vitailles and their publications
How nice, although I can't imagine why you'd think I'd subscribe.
This is an excellent analysis. However, it rests to a great extent on the belief of "intentionality" on Trump's part. This is something that much (most?) of the country wouldn't buy. Supporting this, however, is the picture you paint covering both of Trump's terms. Different teams, with similar aims. One has to wonder if there's not an "eminence grise" behind this. Perhaps Kushner?
There is coherence in the stance of both terms, thats sufficient to paint a clear direction / intent
Agree! But whose intent?
Trump's.
Look closely at his administration, especially the fast talking guy with the tattoos. He'd fit right in with the Azov brigade, even though he claims to be Christian Zionist, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.