Trump’s maximum pressure strategy that pushes Tehran to negotiate

The destroyer’s arrival in Eilat joins previous deployments of American forces in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the entire Middle East region, against the backdrop of growing tensions with Iran and public statements by President Donald Trump regarding a willingness to use force.

Deterrence or preparation for an attack

The Israeli security system is closely following the move. The main question that preoccupies the security officials is whether these are only deterrent moves, or a preliminary sign of a more advanced stage in American-Israeli coordination, towards the possibility of an attack on Iran.

“President Trump has invested billions of dollars in preparing for the possibility of an attack against the Iranian regime. Unlike his other moves in the Middle East, which were sometimes based on economic, business or diplomatic considerations, such as the vision for a ‘new Middle East’ with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and regional partners, in the Iranian case it is a moral and ideological decision,” Dr. Dan Dayker, president of the Jerusalem Center, tells Globes for foreign and security affairs. “Trump presented the move as a direct commitment to the Iranian people, intended to protect them from violent repression and mass murder at the hands of the regime. Statements like ‘help is on the way’ and the encouragement for civil involvement distinguish this arena from his other moves.”

According to him, “The ‘maximum pressure’ policy includes exceptional threshold conditions – zero uranium enrichment, a dramatic limitation of the missile array and a complete cessation of support for proxy organizations. These conditions push Khamenei and the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards into a corner, and in the political culture of the regime are seen as a fatal injury to his dignity and his very existence, and therefore as unacceptable. From this comes the assessment that Trump is building a negotiation framework designed to fail, thereby legitimizing the attack.”

Dayker says that “at the same time, there is an acceleration in security coordination between Israel, European countries and key players in the Middle East. The European Union’s decision to define the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization is a significant milestone. Although the US is still ‘buying time’ to complete preparations, it is estimated that if an attack were to occur, it would be multi-scene and multi-dimensional. In the end, Trump’s reputation as a leader who keeps promises is going to be tested regionally and internationally.”

“The destroyer provides security”

Prof. Eitan Gilboa, an expert on the USA from Bar Ilan University, also believes that “a massive American attack on Iran requires preparation for both defense and attack. The US has enough attack capabilities, but the deployment of the defense systems has not yet been completed. Iran is threatening retaliatory actions – a regional war that will focus on US bases in the Middle East, mainly in Qatar and Bahrain. There are about 30,000 American soldiers in the Gulf region.”

The threats are also to the US’s allies, and specifically to Israel, Prof. Gilboa clarifies. “Netanyahu, as was widely reported in the American media, sought to postpone the American attack on Iran, which was planned for January 21, in the midst of the protests, due to insufficient preparedness in the defense of Israel.”

In the time that has passed since then, says Gilboa, the US has continued to concentrate and is still concentrating multiple and varied weapons and the ability to intercept mainly missiles that Iran plans to launch. In addition, this destroyer and others provide security to countries and regions that may be targets of Iran.”

Gilboa concludes and says that all of this preparation should be seen “as conveying messages and threats from one side to the other”: “I see the American preparations primarily as a goal to avoid war, to bring Iran to negotiations and an agreement that will be on the terms that Trump wants. But there is always the possibility that the regime will reject Trump’s terms and then everything is open.”

Ruthie Pines Feldman, a senior fellow at the Meshgav Institute who specializes in Israel-US relations and international relations, also believes that “the concentration of forces alongside discourse on negotiations with Iran, are a pattern of action that is compatible with the strategy associated with the Trump administration of ‘maximum pressure’ economically and psychologically, alongside a layer of power that provides both deterrence and an option for quick activation, if diplomacy does not bring a result. This is In ‘gunship diplomacy’ which speaks of achieving policy goals through a conspicuous display of military force, which implies or includes a threat of war if the other side does not comply with demands.

The connection to the move in Venezuela

And what can be learned from the case of Venezuela? “The US has exerted cumulative pressure there for months: sanctions, political isolation and threatening rhetoric, at the same time as preparing military capabilities that create credibility for the threat. In the end, in Venezuela the story ends with a direct, quick and targeted military action,” says Pins Feldman.

However, she clarifies, in the Middle East the situation is more complex: “American military action against Iran could ignite a multi-arena counter-reaction, with a high probability against Israel, and at the same time also against Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries that fear a domino effect and a regional war. That is why the US is not content with threats and tightening sanctions, but is actually consolidating its forces in order to convey seriousness and instill confidence in its allies. The docking of the destroyer USS Delbert D. Black in Eilat port also serves as an operational political signal of commitment and coordination.”

“The reinforcement is not only naval,” she explains, adding that there has also been an increased air presence, including F-15E aircraft, and the addition of thousands of soldiers with the arrival of the Lincoln Strike Group – while relying on regional bases such as al-Udeid in Qatar as a front command and operations center.

“The American deployment in the Middle East produces a ‘dual capability’,” says Pins Feldman. “On the one hand, this brings us closer to an American attack, because the forces enable the immediate execution of an offensive operation in Iran if Trump decides to do so. On the other hand, it provides a better spatial protection envelope in case of an Iranian counter-reaction, with the aim of reducing the risk of a deterioration into a regional war, protecting allies and American assets in the region. However, we may find ourselves in a situation like in Venezuela – the system will be on alert for some time until a decision is made or A clear collapse of the diplomatic process.”