Friedman in the New York Times: Trump is leading the US military into a 'gas chamber' in his confrontation with Iran

In an article in the 'New York Times,' American writer Thomas Friedman painted a bleak picture of President Donald Trump's policy towards Iran, considering that the current administration lacks strategic vision. Friedman pointed out that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had engaged in a military confrontation, believing that regime change in Tehran would be quick and easy, which reality proved wrong.

The article explained that American and Israeli estimates greatly underestimated the Iranian leadership's ability to withstand pressure, as well as its military capability to inflict severe damage on the interests of Washington's allies. The writer also noted that Tehran succeeded in threatening the most important waterways for global energy transport, which negatively impacted the global economy and the stock market in the United States.

Friedman described President Trump as floundering in his positions in a shameful manner, sometimes claiming that Iranian leaders agreed to his demands, while at other times admitting his inability to regain control of the Strait of Hormuz. This contradiction reflects, according to the article, the absence of any plan for after igniting the fuse of war in the already volatile Middle East region.

The writer strongly criticized Trump's insistence on demanding Western allies send their armies to participate in the war, even though he did not consult them before making the decision to escalate. Friedman believes that this behavior expresses a reckless mentality that places the world's most powerful army in an extremely dangerous position, similar to placing a match in a gas-filled room.

The article touched upon the figures surrounding Trump, specifically mentioning Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, noting reports of his adoption of extremist nationalist beliefs. Friedman stated that Hegseth held prayer sessions at the Pentagon calling for the use of 'overwhelming violence' against adversaries, which reinforces the ideological nature of the current confrontation with Iran.

In an attempt to offer a way out of the crisis, Friedman proposed simplifying the war's objectives and limiting them to two basic points to ensure stability. The proposal is for Iran to abandon its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, in exchange for American guarantees to stop efforts aimed at changing the political regime in Tehran.

The writer believes that this agreement, if achieved, would end all hostilities without the need for air strikes or extensive ground operations. It would also contribute to stopping missile attacks and securing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which represents a vital interest for American national security and the global economy.

The article cited the opinions of military experts who confirmed that the primary goal of the Iranian regime is to remain in power, while the American goal is to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Based on this, abandoning secondary goals by both sides could open the door to a historic settlement that spares the region an impending catastrophe.

Friedman revealed the existence of secret negotiation channels through Pakistan between Trump's team and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. He indicated that these moves suggest that Trump has begun to realize the difficulty of overthrowing the regime through air power alone, and is looking for a way out that saves face.

The article compared Trump's approach with the administration of Barack Obama, which reached the 2015 agreement. Friedman considered that Obama's agreement focused on core, achievable interests. Despite Trump's criticisms of that agreement, he failed to find an effective alternative after withdrawing from it in 2018, which brought Iran closer than ever to a bomb.

Friedman warned that the current policy has reduced Iran's nuclear 'breakout time' from a full year to just a few weeks. This deterioration in the security situation is a direct result of hasty decisions made without considering the consequences or coordinating with active international powers.

The writer affirmed that Trump would be 'lucky' if the Iranian leadership accepted the nuclear swap proposal under the current circumstances. The bitter truth, as he described it, is that the American president's fate is now linked to decisions made by his adversaries in Tehran due to his administration's incompetence in managing the file.

Friedman concluded his article by emphasizing the necessity of returning to political realism and easing oil sanctions in exchange for handing over fissile materials. He stressed that continuing the approach of 'revenge' and uncontrolled decisions would lead the United States into a quagmire from which it cannot easily escape, threatening its global standing.

This analysis reflects the growing concern in American political and media circles about the repercussions of military escalation in the Middle East. Questions remain about the American administration's ability to translate these analytical insights into a diplomatic reality that ends the raging war.

Trump is like a child playing with matches, putting the world's most powerful army in a gas-filled room.