He had Hook the last time as well. Not much happened besides sanctions then, Trump relented from aggressing directly.
If we assume consistency with his last term, he will do the sanctions, but I don't think he will do the foolish thing and attack Iran directly. He's going to be looking at creating an equilibrium in the Middle East which satisfies Israel and enables American withdrawal. The Palestinians are fucked in this equation. Draining the countries vitality for more silly wars, would completely defeat his premise of focusing on domestic revitalization.
Obviously this presupposes, at a minimum, that the political conditions domestically are a replica of the last term. However, we do not yet know how the internal power structures will deal with Trump this time around.
In the Turkish, Pakistani context if Trump successfully acquires the reigns of the countries foreign policy, perhaps having to squash some neocons in the process, this will certainly be a positive development. Both countries will be under much less political pressure. The big question mark is what the security apparatus has planned for him this time around.
You probably were not following Iranian politics that closely then. A lot happened. They were literally smothering them, pressuring China with even extra tariffs if they bought oil from them, which they called the campaign of maximum pressure. Their oil and gas exports fell from about 70 billion to less than 20. Then they supported a color revolution, with separatist groups in the west and southeast doing several massive attacks. The country was effectively in civial war for about three months. The fact that it died down and was not successful doesn't change the intention which was regime change. And Iran if cornered like that next time and if it's more serious than last attempt, they will lash out and make it a regional conflict by blocking Hormuz, and hitting Saudi oil facilities inviting a U.S. response.
This will probably be the MO this time as well. From the evidence past year I've gotten conflicting evidence regarding their attitude to Iran, sensing some moves which point to preparation for war, and other evidence showing they're trying to reduce their presence in the region. Putting two and two together here I think then the program is to push them into civil war again and then they don't need full presence, and can follow a Syrian model with cooperation with Komalah, PJAK, and Jeish ul-adl. This latter plan can reconcile the evidence for both pushing for a war with Iran, AND reduced presence in the region (the evidence I speak of I have mentioned elsewhere in this forum, too long to cite them again), esp. in Syria and Iraq where probably YPG and PKK can help instead of U.S. forces.
There are renewed attempts in EU and Canada, to follow U.S., in declaring IRGC a terrorist organization. This is obviously for preparing the western audience for when they intervene against "terrorists". Another sign is the type of propaganda used by the Mossad-backed political actors outside Iran which have a very heavy emphasis on making it about a "gender apartheid" as that can captivate western audiences more and can convince them much more of intervention than simply people protesting because of economy.
Like, sure, it's a conspiracy thinking he *wanted* Kamala to lose, he totally didn't, but it's funny to think about. Grampa just going out with a smile and a big "fuck you".
