Bad things will happen if the US Iran nuclear talks don’t produce what he calls a meaningful deal,” it was stated as fresh warnings were issued by President Trump amid rising tensions between the United States and Iran.
The threat was said to have come as the US built up its military presence near Iran. It was learned by CBS News that top national security officials had told President Trump that the military was ready for potential strikes on Iran as soon as Saturday. However, it was reported that the president had not made a final decision about whether to strike.
Military rhetoric was described as ramping up on both sides. Iran’s Supreme Leader earlier in the week posted an AI generated photo of the Ford at the bottom of the ocean, a move widely interpreted as symbolic messaging amid escalating hostilities.
Joining the discussion was Matt Gertkin, the chief geopolitical strategist at BCA Research. When asked whether a military conflict was likely in the coming days, it was stated by Gertkin, “I think the key is to remember that we’re already in a war with Iran. We Operation Midnight Hammer bombed their nuclear program and and a lot of their missile capacity last June. And so that’s an ongoing continuous process.”
It was further noted that there had been two Iranian-backed assassination attempts against President Trump involving an Afghan and Pakistani national. “So this has been intensifying for quite a while,” he said.
The US position was described as being centered on preventing nuclear proliferation, with demands that Iran swear off its nuclear program forever. According to Gertkin, “the US is demanding effectively unconditional surrender. give up the nuclear program, give up the ballistic missile program, and then also really reform the economy, let American investors in and open up to the outside world.”
However, it was emphasized that such demands could not easily be met. “The Iranians can’t really give any of these things,” he said, explaining that there were fears in Tehran that giving up deterrence such as the missile program or regional influence could leave the regime exposed to further pressure or even regime change.
When asked whether it was normal to ask any independent nation to give up its ability to protect itself, Gertkin responded directly: “No, I mean no that’s that’s a state of war.”
It was recalled that the US and Iran had effectively been in a state of war for many years, dating back to the Beirut bombings in 1983. The current situation was described as a geopolitical issue driven by vulnerability. Iran was portrayed as weak and exposed, with its economy collapsed, skies undefended, and leadership aging.
“The US and Israel just see an opportunity that they can’t pass up to reshape the region and reshape their global interests,” he stated.
Attention was also drawn to the potential economic fallout, particularly on oil markets. It was explained that while price shocks could occur, the greater concern would be damage to capital infrastructure. If ports, pipelines, and refineries were attacked, permanent damage could be inflicted for a while.
It was emphasized that the issue was not limited to Iranian exports alone. The Middle East was described as providing about 30% of the world’s oil and gas, with the vast majority of spare capacity. If the regime were under threat, regional energy infrastructure could be targeted as a deterrent strategy.
Such punishment, it was suggested, would only be inflicted if the US were already acting or if the regime were falling due to domestic protests.
As tensions continue to rise, the possibility of military action remains under consideration, with global energy markets and geopolitical stability hanging in the balance.
