- January 15, 2026
- 12:06 pm
- World News
The President of the USA, Donald Trump, changed his mind — or at least stated that he changed his mind — about striking Iran. At least, at this stage. The formal explanation sounds simple: the killings of protesters have “ceased,” and executions have been canceled.
The problem is that this version directly contradicts the data from human rights activists and media reports, which continue to speak of thousands of killed demonstrators and large-scale repressions. The gap between official rhetoric and reality is too noticeable to ignore.
According to sources, Trump made it clear to his team: if an operation against Tehran is possible, it must be quick, tough, and lead to a decisive result. A new protracted conflict, in which the USA could be drawn without a clear end, does not suit him.
Apparently, the White House is not yet confident that the protests in Iran have indeed brought the ayatollah regime closer to systemic collapse. Without this, a military strike risks becoming not a tool of pressure but a factor of power consolidation in Tehran.
It is important to understand: explaining what is happening by Trump’s impulsiveness — “starting a war, not starting a war” — is too simplistic. Despite the specifics of his style, he is well aware of the cost of such decisions and their political consequences.
The likely logic looks different. On the eve of the anniversary of his inauguration and against the backdrop of the recent successful operation in Venezuela, Trump does not want to get involved in a war with an unpredictable scenario. Therefore, having gathered the military and advisors, he apparently asked a very specific question: can it be done in 24–72 hours? Yes or no — without reservations.
If the response included discussions about “factors,” “risks,” and “ambiguity,” the outcome was predictable. Hearing “no,” the operation was either canceled or postponed. Indirect confirmation of this is the activity of aerial refuelers — their massive presence in the air suggests preparation rather than fantasies.
A separate variable is the position of Israel. Israeli signals in recent days have been extremely tough: if the conflict begins, it will be without “rounds” and diplomatic pauses. Missiles mean full-scale war, without humanitarian reservations and with strikes on key infrastructure, including the Bandar Abbas port and Kharg terminal.
There is also a strategic question that remains unanswered: what scenario did Trump initially consider. A limited demonstrative strike on regime symbols — for example, on objects like Fordow? Or a full-scale military operation aimed at breaking the regime and turning it into a clear example for Beijing and Moscow?
For the second option, the current resources are clearly insufficient. The movement of two carrier groups towards the Red Sea only indirectly confirms: the USA is preparing for pressure, but not for total war.
The story with Iran is clearly not over. Moreover, it may not have even properly begun. The pause may be temporary, or it may become a point of strategy reassessment. In any case, what is happening around Iran remains one of the key factors of regional and global security, closely monitored by NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency.
