President Trump has vowed a strong response, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warning Iran of heavy strikes if it refuses a deal.

Despite claims that a diplomatic agreement is close, there is little evidence of progress. Oman recently proposed a compromise on the Strait of Hormuz, but Iran rejected it and continues asserting control over the waterway. That position is unacceptable to the United States and its allies, as it would give Tehran leverage over global energy shipping.

The core dispute is no longer technical—it is about control and power in the region.

Jordan and Iran’s Regional Strategy

Iran’s repeated attacks on Jordan highlight its broader strategy. Jordan hosts American forces and is a key U.S. partner, making it a target for Tehran. Despite rhetoric about supporting Palestinians, Iran has shown willingness to strike a country with a large Palestinian population when it serves its strategic goals.

Iran’s proxies are tools of state policy, not protected allies. Their value lies in advancing Tehran’s influence, not in any genuine concern for the populations they claim to represent.

Operational Security Failures

CENTCOM has warned U.S. troops against posting videos from bases under attack after footage revealed sensitive details about locations, defenses, and response times.

Such material can be used by Iranian intelligence to assess vulnerabilities, identify bases, and refine targeting. Even seemingly harmless social media posts can provide valuable operational intelligence.

As a result, the military may restrict or confiscate personal devices in combat zones. The risk posed by smartphones in modern warfare is now significant enough to require strict discipline.

There are claims that U.S. casualty figures are being underreported, but the term “casualty” includes more than deaths or severe injuries. It can also include temporary medical removals such as heat stroke, minor injuries, or concussion evaluations.

While transparency is important, militaries must balance public reporting with operational security. A clearer breakdown of casualty categories would improve understanding without revealing sensitive details.

For the first time in nearly two weeks, American aircraft did not strike targets inside Iran overnight. After thirteen consecutive days of bombing, the sudden pause immediately sparked speculation that the conflict might finally be winding down.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening.

President Trump confirmed that the United States has re-entered negotiations with Iran, presenting two possible paths forward: continue escalating the military campaign or reach a negotiated settlement. On paper, diplomacy sounds like the smarter option. In reality, it’s much more complicated than that.

The Problem With Negotiating

From my perspective, the biggest obstacle isn't getting Iran to send representatives to the table. It's determining who actually has the authority to make a deal.

There appear to be two competing power centers inside Iran. One faction seems willing to negotiate—at least publicly. The other, centered around the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), appears determined to continue fighting regardless of what diplomats say.

That creates a dangerous illusion. Simply because someone from Tehran agrees to talks doesn't mean the people controlling Iran's military will honor any agreement. Negotiating with officials who lack real authority doesn't end wars.

That's why I believe the administration's biggest challenge isn't convincing Iran to talk—it's making sure they're talking to the people who actually control events on the ground.

Bombing Alone Doesn't Win Wars

A lot of critics are saying you can't win a war from the air.

They're largely right.

Airpower can destroy infrastructure, reduce military capability, and apply enormous pressure, but history shows bombing alone rarely forces an enemy to surrender. The original strategy appears to have been to combine military pressure with economic isolation until Tehran agreed to meaningful concessions.

Instead, negotiations have exposed divisions inside the Iranian regime while the fighting continues.

That means the military campaign is likely far from over.

Foreign governments no longer need to convince Americans what to think—they only need to convince us to hate each other. In this special report, I break down how Russia, China, Iran, and Qatar exploit social media, influencers, and political division to manipulate public opinion. From Russian troll farms and campus protests to the "firehose of falsehood" strategy, I explain why propaganda today is less about changing your mind and more about destroying your trust. Most importantly, I discuss how to recognize these tactics before becoming part of someone else's information campaign.

Become a Supporter