February 2, 2026
U.S. President Donald Trump made a big mistake when he threatened war on Iran.
He was doing that to get concessions from Iran which the country is unable to make.
Trump asks for:
- a complete de-nuclearization of Iran,
- strong limits on its missile programs,
- the abolishment of Iranian support for regional allies like Hizbullah, Hamas and Shia militia in Iraq and Yemen and
- the recognition by Iran of Israel as a legitimate country.
Under the current system of Iran any politician who would argue for or agree to making any such concessions would immediately lose legitimacy.
Trump has made threats. He then set out conditions that guarantee that he will not get what he wants. He now has two choices:
- To attack Iran until it concedes something.
- To chicken out and recall his fleet from Iran.
Neither is a good choice:
Iran has announced to retaliate for any attack by massive missile launches against Israel and U.S. positions in the Middle East. Iran has also stated that it would close the Strait of Hormuz and thereby cause sky high global oil prices. This would likely lead to heavy losses for the Republicans in the mid term elections and would eventually end up with new impeachment procedures against Trump.
To chicken out would is also not be a good choice. By resisting a threat from Trump to then see the threat retracted without having made concessions Iran would have set an example that future targets of Trump's extortion schemes would surely follow. It would make Iran look stronger and Trump look weaker.
I am by far not the only one who makes these points.
As Axios reports:
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman (KBS) said in a private briefing on Friday in Washington that if President Trump doesn't follow through on his threats against Iran, the regime will end up stronger, four sources in the room tell Axios.
...
"At this point, if this doesn't happen, it will only embolden the regime," KBS said, according to the sources in the room.
...
In a separate briefing on Friday, a Gulf official said the region was "stuck" in a position where the U.S. striking Iran risked "bad outcomes," but not doing so would mean "Iran will come out of this stronger."
Prince Khalid bin Salman has a realist's view and is right with this analysis.
The Axios reporter though, Barak Ravid, - well known to be a Zionist asset -, is trying to turn that realist view KBS uttered into a Saudi argument for bombing Iran:
Why it matters: This is a reversal from the public Saudi talking points cautioning against escalation and from the deep concern Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) expressed to Trump three weeks ago. That warning was one reason Trump decided to delay a strike.
No. The analysis KBS gave is not a reversal of the Saudi position. The Saudis are still cautioning against escalation. What KBS did there was to simply point out the calamity Trump has placed himself into.
To interpret that statement as a Saudi argument for an attack on Iran is a willful and distortion of what was said. It is a typical primitive attempt by a Zionist ideologue to 'create a reality' that does not exist.
Esfandyar Batmanghelidj @yarbatman - 10:39 UTC · Jan 31, 2026
I asked a senior Saudi official and Barak's story mischaracterises KBS's comments. There has been no reversal of Saudi policy.
KBS was stating the obvious when he said Trump not bombing Iran would embolden the regime. But the Saudis continue to urge caution and do not want war.
(Esfandyar Batmanghelidj is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). He is not a friend or promoter of the Islamic Republic.)
This article was originally published on Moon of Alabama.