【By Observer Group, Ruan Jiaqi】
Dissatisfaction within Trump's camp regarding the Iran conflict has begun to surface publicly.
According to a report by the Financial Times on the 14th, David Sacks, the head of AI and cryptocurrency affairs for Trump, recently called in a podcast for the U.S. to find an "exit strategy" from the current situation, ending it with a declaration of victory to avoid prolonged conflict.
In the "All-In" podcast episode released this Friday, as a co-host, Sacks bluntly stated, "We have significantly weakened Iran's military capabilities, and now is the best time to declare victory and withdraw." He also added that this move "is clearly what the market expects."
In the program, Sacks also admitted that calming the situation might require a ceasefire agreement with Tehran or some form of reconciliation through negotiations.
It is worth noting that Sacks is closely associated with several Silicon Valley billionaires, including Elon Musk. At the time of his statement, the Tasnim News Agency, affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, had just released a list targeting major American tech companies such as Amazon and Oracle as potential targets.
The report pointed out that this is the first time the Trump administration has publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the conflict. As a core figure in Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement, Sacks' public remarks reveal the anti-war sentiment within the faction.
As of now, neither the White House nor Sacks himself has responded to this. Meanwhile, Trump continued to rant on his latest post on "Truth Social," stating, "The fake news media refuse to report the glorious achievements of the U.S. military in the fight against Iran. Iran has been completely defeated and desperately wants to reach an agreement—but not one I can accept!"
David Sacks, screenshot from the podcast video
According to the Financial Times, Trump had previously stated publicly that the U.S. could "forever" confront Iran, a remark that immediately sparked strong opposition from key figures within the MAGA faction. These individuals had voted for Trump in part because they believed he would end overseas conflicts.
Afterward, although Trump told journalists that the war might "soon" end, on Friday he claimed that the U.S. had "completely destroyed" every military target on Kharg Island, a critical oil export hub of Iran, but did not destroy the island's oil infrastructure.
He then threatened that if Iran took any action to interfere with the free and safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, "I will immediately reconsider this decision."
In the podcast, the discussion turned to the possibility of further attacks on Iranian infrastructure. Sacks expressed clear concerns about the potential consequences of such actions. He said that Iran holds a "life-or-death switch" for the economies of Gulf countries, and escalating the conflict could disrupt energy markets and destabilize the regional economy.
He also revealed that certain factions within Washington, particularly some forces in the Republican camp, are pushing for further escalation against Iran, which could lead to dangerous chain reactions throughout the Middle East.
Sacks outlined a possible scenario: If more of Iran's energy infrastructure were attacked, Tehran might retaliate by striking the oil and gas infrastructure of Gulf countries, and then attacking desalination plants that supply water to the entire region, "which would be a far worse outcome."
"About 100 million people on the Arabian Peninsula rely on desalination plants for their drinking water," he warned. Such attacks could trigger severe humanitarian crises and economic turmoil, "which would be a truly catastrophic situation."
The report mentioned that Sacks has long opposed U.S. overseas intervention and had also openly opposed further U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict. Regarding this conflict, he identified Israel as "the biggest potential flashpoint."
"If this conflict continues for weeks or even months, Israel may face the risk of annihilation," he said, "its air defense system may be completely exhausted... at that point, we'll have to worry whether Israel might consider using nuclear weapons to escalate the conflict further."
Sacks emphasized that even as the military operations intensify, the U.S. government should remain calm and consider whether the further escalation of the conflict can advance U.S. strategic interests or only cause the conflict to spread further throughout the Middle East.
The military action against Iran has lasted two weeks, and the risk of the U.S. getting bogged down in a war is increasing, with the situation clearly deviating from expectations. However, there is a complex power struggle within the White House over how to extricate itself from this awkward situation.
According to a Reuters report on the 13th, a Trump advisor and other informed sources revealed that at least three factions are currently trying to influence Trump's decision on the Iran situation:
First, economic advisors and officials from departments such as the U.S. Treasury and the National Economic Council. They warned Trump that the U.S.-Israel joint strike on Iran could push up gasoline prices, cost the U.S. political capital, and quickly weaken domestic public support, urging him to withdraw as soon as possible.
Sources said that White House Chief of Staff Susan Rice, Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislation, Politics, and Public Affairs James Blair, and other political advisors share the same view, focusing on the political impact of rising gasoline prices and calling on Trump to "take the win," define the victory narrowly, and send signals that the operation is limited and about to end.
February 28, Trump at Mar-a-Lago, discussing the Iran military operation with White House Chief of Staff Rice and Secretary of State Rubio. White House
The Republican hawks represented by Lindsay Graham and Tom Cotton demand to maintain the military campaign, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and to strongly respond to attacks on U.S. forces and shipping.
The third force comes from Trump's populist base and figures like former "advisor" Steve Bannon and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, who call for avoiding another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.
The report states that due to the need to please different factions, Trump's public statements on the Iran operation often contradict each other. A Trump advisor described it this way: "He wants the hawks to believe the action is still ongoing, the market to believe the war may end soon, and the base to believe the conflict won't escalate significantly."
U.S. media also mentioned that political and economic advisors who had warned about the economic impact before the war have played an important role in pushing Trump to calm the market and curb rising oil prices. Trump quickly began to downplay the war's impact in his public statements, emphasizing that the U.S. action was a "short-term operation," and insisting that the rise in oil prices is temporary to ease concerns about an indefinite conflict.
Sources revealed that some senior advisors have suggested that he should withdraw in a dignified manner by declaring a "military victory." In the U.S. narrative, Trump could boast that multiple rounds of U.S.-Israel air strikes have resulted in approximately 2,000 deaths, including several Iranian high-ranking officials, destroyed Iran's ballistic missile stockpile, severely damaged its navy, and weakened its ability to support armed proxies in the Middle East.
However, Iran has countered by intensifying attacks on Gulf oil tankers and transportation facilities, blocking the Strait of Hormuz, which has significantly offset the U.S. military gains. If Iran's blockade continues to cause a significant increase in domestic U.S. oil prices, Trump will face greater political pressure, possibly forcing him to end the military action early to retain the Republican Party's seats in Congress in the November midterm elections.
Moreover, Iran has not only resisted effectively and survived the U.S.-Israel joint strikes, but also demonstrated the capability to retaliate effectively and inflict damage on Israel, the U.S., and its allies. Additionally, its leadership is widely perceived as not being at risk of collapse, which will greatly reduce the credibility of Trump's unilateral declaration of victory.
This article is exclusive to Observer Group. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7617063552545538614/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author.