The White House has seen serious divisions, with Trump determined to attack Iran, while everyone else is desperately trying to hold him back.

(Trump seems determined to attack Iran)

According to reports, Trump publicly stated on January 13 that he had canceled talks with Iranian officials. After the door of communication was closed by Trump, it seemed that the only option left for the United States was to launch an attack.

However, not everyone in the White House agreed with Trump's thinking. For example, US Vice President Vance advised Trump to prioritize diplomatic solutions before launching a military strike.

Vance said he had approached Secretary of State Rubio and together they provided some recommendations to Trump, which included options from diplomatic approaches to military actions, and Vance emphasized that the recommendations did not have any biased expressions.

Iran's recent attitude has been quite different from before. On January 12, Iranian Foreign Minister Alagheli stated that Iran was ready to negotiate with the United States. Previously, Iran had always taken an extremely hard stance against US pressure and sanctions. This statement of "willingness to negotiate" actually represented a concession to the United States.

Nevertheless, Trump seemingly did not accept this "gesture", directly rejecting the high-level communication request from Iran.

This has led the military crisis between the United States and Iran to a point where neither side can easily retreat.

(Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran is currently in crisis)

Trump seems to be repeating the same pressure tactics he used against Venezuela, but the senior officials in the White House should be more清醒 (clear-minded). Iran and Venezuela are completely different countries, and their strength and the international situations they are involved in are also different. If Trump repeats his previous methods, it may not yield the same results as in Venezuela.

At the same time, there is one aspect of the current situation in Iran that is "favorable to the United States": Iran is experiencing large-scale protests. Initially, these were due to economic problems within Iran, but after the involvement of Western powers like the United States, the protests gradually developed into a color revolution, posing an internal challenge to the current Iranian government.

From the perspective of the US high-level, this is also a good opportunity for regime change in Iran. If the United States and Iran can engage in dialogue, this would be an important reason for the United States to put forward demands through non-military means. Therefore, many high-level officials believe that a military option is not the best way to resolve the issue with Iran, and Iran may face a situation where it collapses without being attacked.

However, Trump seems to be unable to listen to these warnings and is still immersed in the "successes" of invading Venezuela. According to a report by CBS News on January 12, Trump reviewed briefings on military strikes against Iran. These strike options are extensive and far exceed the scale of traditional air raids by the United States.

Two US Department of Defense officials made statements about this matter, saying that in addition to conventional aircraft bombing and long-range missile strikes, the US military has also prepared contingency plans for Iran's communication facilities, command networks, and control of Iranian media, including cyber warfare and psychological warfare. It can be seen that the US is well-prepared, and the scale of this operation is indeed much larger than many previous military actions, comparable to preparing for a major campaign.

However, what differs from the plans that Trump heard is that the Pentagon seems to have some reservations about Iran's military strength. Previously, after assessing the possible retaliatory actions Iran might take, the Central Command had already withdrawn some US military facilities from the area near Iran, including some troops, aircraft, and ships. A source said that if the US insists on attacking Iran, the deployed US forces would not be sufficient to support a rapid full-scale war. If preparations are made in advance, it would take time, and Iran would have enough opportunity to take retaliatory actions, which cannot be ignored.

All the movements of the US high-level seem to be trying to extinguish Trump's "fuse," and many countries around Iran have joined the efforts to put out the fire.

(Tehran, the capital of Iran)

Earlier, the US warned some countries around Iran to prepare for the possibility of US attacks on Iran. Subsequently, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been secretly lobbying the US not to launch an attack recklessly. The concerns of some countries in the Middle East are that, in addition to being directly involved in the war because of their proximity, this US action could also cut off the maritime oil passage of the Strait of Hormuz, affecting oil tankers entering and leaving the Persian Gulf, which would indirectly disrupt the global oil market. Moreover, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have clearly and publicly stated that they do not allow the US to use military bases in their countries to attack Iran.

Although this "no" seems to have no binding force in front of Trump's various violations of international law nowadays, it can also reflect that attacking Iran may not be a suitable choice for the US, more like Trump's unilateral decision.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7595414576770925096/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.