February 19, 2026
Michael Arria
Is Trump serious about strikes, or is this bluster a negotiation strategy? According to reports, the U.S. military is prepared to attack Iran as early as this week.
Mondoweiss U.S. correspondent Michael Arria spoke with Center for International Policy Senior Fellow Sina Toossi about what comes next.
Mondoweiss: We see reports that the U.S. is gearing up for a strike on Iran. Trump just declared that the country has 10 days to make a deal. Is this just bluster meant to influence negotiations? How much stock do you put in his comments?
Toossi: It’s very hard to say because the U.S. doesn’t really have good military options against Iran.
I was just reading this Ronen Bergman piece in Ynet where he was saying the results of the June War against Iran were greatly exaggerated by Netanyahu and Trump. I can just directly quote him: “The two armies and the intelligence systems in both countries took care to keep the true results close to the chest.”
The nuclear project was not destroyed. It was, according to one assessment, not even moved back years. People have taken the narrative about the June war at face value. They believe that Trump went in there and obliterated the program, but in the immediate weeks after the attacks, CNN ran an article citing a leak saying that the program was only set back by months. Then, after that, the Pentagon fired the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
So all this is to say that war with Iran will not be easy. No one really disputes that the enriched uranium wasn’t destroyed. That’s deeply buried. It seems very reasonable to think that a lot of other things were not destroyed or set back that long, and that Iran has reconstituted much of it: the military infrastructure that was damaged, the missile bases, the production facilities, the missiles.
Trump’s modus operandi with military conflict is that he wants to something quick and strong. He wants to deliver a big blow and create a big political spectacle out of it. Think of the Maduro kidnapping, or even this June war.
So yes, right now they’re doing this big military buildup, but to what end? Are they going to launch a massive war to really destroy Iran or try to take out the regime? You really can’t do regime change through airstrikes. They could greatly destroy the country’s infrastructure, which is going to push Iran, I would argue, towards more civil war and total instability as opposed to some kind of transition where the government changes.
Iran can also hit back. They hit back in June. It can get really ugly and really messy.
Another theory is that Trump is bluffing. That he’s searching for a deal, and that even if he does a military strike, it’s to lay the groundwork for a deal and get more concessions from Iran.
Obviously, I don’t think you can take Trump at his word on any of this, and it just really reflects how poor his strategy is. He’s cornered himself in with his rhetoric during the Iranian protests. These negotiations began amid all these bellicose threats, and now this situation could really harm his broader agenda, both in the region and at home and abroad.
Trump is currently in the first meeting for the so-called “Board of Peace.” How do you think Israel factors into all of this? Netanyahu has obviously been pushing for an attack on Iran for many years.
It’s interesting. Netanyahu’s obviously been agitating for a U.S. war against Iran for decades. He was very much doing that in the lead-up to the June War. But then you really saw that the June War was an inflection point for a lot of American right-wing politics vis-a-vis the Middle East and Iran.
You saw real division come after the June War, even the late Charlie Kirk was against it. We know that J.D. Vance later said that Kirk called him and told him not to attack Iran. The whole split in the MAGA base was deepened over this foreign policy issue.
Israel has been, I think, cleverly quieter since December with these Iran protests and then this new push for war against Iran. I think they still want a war, but they want to minimize the perception that they are one of the main forces pushing for it.
Israel, Israel’s backers in the U.S., and Trump’s top advisers, who are neocons, really prioritize Israel’s interests in the Middle East, and they’re a huge factor. We can also see that Netanyahu has been here just twice since December. He came here at the end of New Year’s, and he came here again last week.
By all accounts, he was pushing for war. I think Trump is making political calculations on this. He did, after Netanyahu’s trip last week, put out that tweet saying that, “I’m pursuing diplomacy right now. I insisted on this with Netanyahu.” I think he knows his base here is growing increasingly wary of this Israeli influence, and he doesn’t want to reinforce that.
However, I wouldn’t bet on that impulse winning out. He’s got a lot of pressure on him, and he’s got a lot of people in his ear who are pushing him to do this. And if he does this, I think, the role of Israel and pro-Israel donors should not be downplayed. That’s been a huge part of this story and continues to be so.
I just saw a poll saying only 21% of Americans back a potential attack on Iran. How much is public opinion influencing him?
There’s a certain number of question marks about how public reaction would go, including within the MAGA base.
Right now, I would argue this is not in the public consciousness. Iran has been demonized for decades. There’s been a lot of manufacturing of consent for conflict with Iran. But at the same time, I think most of the American public will be surprised if all of a sudden we’re getting into a huge war with Iran.
If all of a sudden a bunch of American soldiers and servicemen get killed in the region, I can easily also see a lot of the MAGA base rallying to the flag in the American context. Even with the Iraq war, it took time for the American casualties to turn most of the public against the war.
However, the longer that it drags out, the quicker it becomes a quagmire for Trump. It can inflict political costs on him if it goes sideways, there’s no clear endgame (which there isn’t), there are U.S. casualties, or the price of energy goes up. This could really hurt him in the midterms.
If Iran hits a U.S. base and kills U.S. servicemen, Trump might just go ballistic. God knows. So, I think we have to be cautious about what comes next.
Finally, I am wondering how you perceive the Iranian government’s position amid these domestic protests. Are they potentially more vulnerable in dealing with the U.S., based on what’s been happening internally?
I would say the government is certainly in a weaker position vis-a-vis its internal legitimacy.
With that said, I think its decision this time to crack down in such a brutal manner that made the situation more precarious in terms of the ramifications and consequences of an American attack because the Iranian government is more cornered.
Does any of this mean U.S. is going to attack and we’re going to have people greet us as liberators in this street? No, I think it’s unlikely to continue. People claimed that it would happen in Iraq. Everyone that I’m in touch with, and through my work with Iranian activists and civil society figures, says people are scared, but the opposition is not organized.
A lot of people were just killed, so the frustration and anger are there, but people are not in a moment where they are about to pour into the streets again. Some people look at the situation and think the U.S. can destroy the government, but that is just a hope. There’s no strategy. The part of a political reality is that it was just the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of its supporters came to the streets across Iran, bigger turnout than in recent years, because the society is more polarized, you know, so the opposition is more vocal and angry and growing and it’s the same with the base of the Islamic Republic.
If the U.S. really hits Iran hard, I think the regional spillover effect is a real possibility. Iran hitting back in a consequential way is a real possibility.
Michael Arria
Donald Trump says he will decide
whether to attack Iran within the next 10 days. Mondoweiss talks with Center
for International Policy Senior Fellow Sina Toossi about Trump’s threats,
Israel's role, and how Iran might respond if the US starts a war.
Speaking at the first “Board of
Peace” meeting, President Trump claimed that President Donald Trump urged Iran
to make a deal with the United States, and said he will decide whether to
attack the country within the next 10 days.
Is Trump serious about strikes, or is this bluster a negotiation strategy? According to reports, the U.S. military is prepared to attack Iran as early as this week.
Mondoweiss U.S. correspondent Michael Arria spoke with Center for International Policy Senior Fellow Sina Toossi about what comes next.
Mondoweiss: We see reports that the U.S. is gearing up for a strike on Iran. Trump just declared that the country has 10 days to make a deal. Is this just bluster meant to influence negotiations? How much stock do you put in his comments?
Toossi: It’s very hard to say because the U.S. doesn’t really have good military options against Iran.
I was just reading this Ronen Bergman piece in Ynet where he was saying the results of the June War against Iran were greatly exaggerated by Netanyahu and Trump. I can just directly quote him: “The two armies and the intelligence systems in both countries took care to keep the true results close to the chest.”
The nuclear project was not destroyed. It was, according to one assessment, not even moved back years. People have taken the narrative about the June war at face value. They believe that Trump went in there and obliterated the program, but in the immediate weeks after the attacks, CNN ran an article citing a leak saying that the program was only set back by months. Then, after that, the Pentagon fired the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
So all this is to say that war with Iran will not be easy. No one really disputes that the enriched uranium wasn’t destroyed. That’s deeply buried. It seems very reasonable to think that a lot of other things were not destroyed or set back that long, and that Iran has reconstituted much of it: the military infrastructure that was damaged, the missile bases, the production facilities, the missiles.
Trump’s modus operandi with military conflict is that he wants to something quick and strong. He wants to deliver a big blow and create a big political spectacle out of it. Think of the Maduro kidnapping, or even this June war.
So yes, right now they’re doing this big military buildup, but to what end? Are they going to launch a massive war to really destroy Iran or try to take out the regime? You really can’t do regime change through airstrikes. They could greatly destroy the country’s infrastructure, which is going to push Iran, I would argue, towards more civil war and total instability as opposed to some kind of transition where the government changes.
Iran can also hit back. They hit back in June. It can get really ugly and really messy.
Another theory is that Trump is bluffing. That he’s searching for a deal, and that even if he does a military strike, it’s to lay the groundwork for a deal and get more concessions from Iran.
Obviously, I don’t think you can take Trump at his word on any of this, and it just really reflects how poor his strategy is. He’s cornered himself in with his rhetoric during the Iranian protests. These negotiations began amid all these bellicose threats, and now this situation could really harm his broader agenda, both in the region and at home and abroad.
Trump is currently in the first meeting for the so-called “Board of Peace.” How do you think Israel factors into all of this? Netanyahu has obviously been pushing for an attack on Iran for many years.
It’s interesting. Netanyahu’s obviously been agitating for a U.S. war against Iran for decades. He was very much doing that in the lead-up to the June War. But then you really saw that the June War was an inflection point for a lot of American right-wing politics vis-a-vis the Middle East and Iran.
You saw real division come after the June War, even the late Charlie Kirk was against it. We know that J.D. Vance later said that Kirk called him and told him not to attack Iran. The whole split in the MAGA base was deepened over this foreign policy issue.
Israel has been, I think, cleverly quieter since December with these Iran protests and then this new push for war against Iran. I think they still want a war, but they want to minimize the perception that they are one of the main forces pushing for it.
Israel, Israel’s backers in the U.S., and Trump’s top advisers, who are neocons, really prioritize Israel’s interests in the Middle East, and they’re a huge factor. We can also see that Netanyahu has been here just twice since December. He came here at the end of New Year’s, and he came here again last week.
By all accounts, he was pushing for war. I think Trump is making political calculations on this. He did, after Netanyahu’s trip last week, put out that tweet saying that, “I’m pursuing diplomacy right now. I insisted on this with Netanyahu.” I think he knows his base here is growing increasingly wary of this Israeli influence, and he doesn’t want to reinforce that.
However, I wouldn’t bet on that impulse winning out. He’s got a lot of pressure on him, and he’s got a lot of people in his ear who are pushing him to do this. And if he does this, I think, the role of Israel and pro-Israel donors should not be downplayed. That’s been a huge part of this story and continues to be so.
I just saw a poll saying only 21% of Americans back a potential attack on Iran. How much is public opinion influencing him?
There’s a certain number of question marks about how public reaction would go, including within the MAGA base.
Right now, I would argue this is not in the public consciousness. Iran has been demonized for decades. There’s been a lot of manufacturing of consent for conflict with Iran. But at the same time, I think most of the American public will be surprised if all of a sudden we’re getting into a huge war with Iran.
If all of a sudden a bunch of American soldiers and servicemen get killed in the region, I can easily also see a lot of the MAGA base rallying to the flag in the American context. Even with the Iraq war, it took time for the American casualties to turn most of the public against the war.
However, the longer that it drags out, the quicker it becomes a quagmire for Trump. It can inflict political costs on him if it goes sideways, there’s no clear endgame (which there isn’t), there are U.S. casualties, or the price of energy goes up. This could really hurt him in the midterms.
If Iran hits a U.S. base and kills U.S. servicemen, Trump might just go ballistic. God knows. So, I think we have to be cautious about what comes next.
Finally, I am wondering how you perceive the Iranian government’s position amid these domestic protests. Are they potentially more vulnerable in dealing with the U.S., based on what’s been happening internally?
I would say the government is certainly in a weaker position vis-a-vis its internal legitimacy.
With that said, I think its decision this time to crack down in such a brutal manner that made the situation more precarious in terms of the ramifications and consequences of an American attack because the Iranian government is more cornered.
Does any of this mean U.S. is going to attack and we’re going to have people greet us as liberators in this street? No, I think it’s unlikely to continue. People claimed that it would happen in Iraq. Everyone that I’m in touch with, and through my work with Iranian activists and civil society figures, says people are scared, but the opposition is not organized.
A lot of people were just killed, so the frustration and anger are there, but people are not in a moment where they are about to pour into the streets again. Some people look at the situation and think the U.S. can destroy the government, but that is just a hope. There’s no strategy. The part of a political reality is that it was just the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of its supporters came to the streets across Iran, bigger turnout than in recent years, because the society is more polarized, you know, so the opposition is more vocal and angry and growing and it’s the same with the base of the Islamic Republic.
If the U.S. really hits Iran hard, I think the regional spillover effect is a real possibility. Iran hitting back in a consequential way is a real possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment