John Kennedy
@WhiteHouse
My will: My dear Lisa, a boy will love you, this love is real, appreciate his love, and you love him too. He will call himself a Jupiterian. He will tell you the name of your favorite music. The name of that music is; Chocolate
18.06.1963, 11:43
35 th President of the United States
Harvard University
29 Mayıs 1917
Mart 2025 tarihinde katıldı
Trump, İran'a ilişkin bir ültimatom yayınlayarak, "bu gece bir medeniyet yok edilecek ve geri dönüş olmayacak" dedi ve İran tarafını bir anlaşmaya varmaya çağırdı (İran liderliğine 04:00'e kadar süre verildi).
Trump'ın İran'a karşı "ültimatomları", Putin'in Ukrayna'daki "kırmızı çizgilerini" hatırlatıyor. Doğası gereği, ültimatomlar ne kadar çok dile getirilirse, gerçek etkilerini o kadar kaybeder ve psikolojik baskı aracı haline gelirler.
Bu anlamda, Trump'ın son ültimatomunun bir "anlaşma" olarak tasarlandığına şüphe yok. Trump'ın çatışmadan bir çıkış yolu aradığı açık. Ufukta askeri bir çözüm yok. Dünya ekonomisindeki ve enerji piyasalarındaki gerilimler de savaşa devam etmeyi zorlaştırıyor.
Özellikle, Trump'ın "İran'daki rejim zaten değişti, yeni bir hükümet var" şeklindeki son açıklamaları, Washington'ın İran meselesinde uzlaşması olarak algılanabilir. Başka bir deyişle, Trump, savaşı başlattığında belirlediği iki ana hedeften biri olan "rejim değişikliğini" zaten başarılmış gibi gösteriyor ve bu bağlamda, mevcut İran hükümetiyle "yeni bir rejim" olarak müzakere etmeye hazır olduğunu ortaya koyuyor.
Karşılığında, Tahran'ın savaşın diğer ana hedefi olan "zenginleştirilmiş uranyum" konusunda taviz vermesi bekleniyor. İran'ın uranyum rezervlerini teslim etmesi, Trump'ın çatışmayı "zafer" anlatısıyla sonlandırması ve İsrail'i "yatıştırması" için yeterli olabilir. Özellikle son günlerde ABD özel kuvvetlerinin "pilot kurtarma" bahanesiyle İsfahan'dan "zenginleştirilmiş uranyum" çıkarma girişiminin başarısız olması ve bu konuda karşılıklı anlaşmadan başka seçenek kalmaması göz önüne alındığında.
İran yönetimi için ise seçenekler daha karmaşık. Çünkü ABD tarafı önceki anlaşmalara uymadı. Trump'ın 2015 yılında Obama yönetimiyle imzalanan anlaşmayı terk etmesi, bugün
Reklam
For several hours, US domestic politics has been shaken by two different statements with the same content. Both Speaker Mike Johnson and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that “Israel had decided to attack Iran, and it was inevitable that Iran would target the United States in its retaliatory strikes. Therefore, we had to strike first.” These statements ignited public protests that “Israel made the US decision to go to war.”
Even more interesting is that in the 12-day war that took place in June 2025, since Israel carried out the initial attack alone, Iran did not target US bases in its retaliatory strikes. Iran only launched pre-informed, symbolic retaliatory strikes on the American base in Qatar after US B-2 bombers struck nuclear facilities. In this regard, the claims of Rubio and Johnson are questionable. Most likely, there are other reasons behind Trump’s involvement in the current war. In any case, it is clear that Trump is conveying the message that “the war was Israel’s will” through his inner circle.
Of course, these statements have a serious negative impact on Trump’s reputation. Because the public is led to believe that he cannot say “no” to Israel and that he is acting at Netanyahu’s behest.
In the short term, the biggest winner of these geopolitical processes is Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister has been able to achieve the goal that his country has been aiming for for more than 30 years: to involve the United States in a war with Iran, which is considered an existential threat to Israel. However, Netanyahu also has a more important personal motive in this war. Elections will be held in Israel in the fall of this year. It is clear that Netanyahu wants to go to the elections with a complete victory in the fight against Iran and the “resistance
It seems that Trump hit the nail on the head this time. The Iranian army managed to expand and prolong the war. Iran's heavy bombing of the Gulf, in particular, had a serious impact on the course of events.
The Trump administration was wrong on three counts: the assassination of political and military leaders did not create a power vacuum for regime change in Tehran; a large-scale popular uprising did not begin; and there is no short-term solution to the processes in Iran.
Most likely, the Trump administration planned that an agreement would be reached with the new leadership immediately after Khamenei's assassination and the war would end. But events are developing in a different direction. In his speech last night, Trump called on the "Separah" to lay down its arms. This also shows that the strings in Iran are in the hands of the military, not the political leadership. It is believed that although Khamenei formally transferred power to individuals whose names are publicly known before his death, de facto military-political governance was transferred to a military council formed from the "Separah".
I have no doubt that the US and Israel want to bring the condition of “complete elimination of the IRGC” to the negotiating table with the new Iranian government. In other words, the process is also a matter of existence for the IRGC, and in this regard, the military is expected to resist to the end.
There are two options for the Trump administration. First, it must choose the path of reducing tensions in order to stop the war. In this case, the US and Israel will not achieve their main goals: there will be no regime change in Tehran; most importantly, 400 kg of enriched uranium will remain in the hands of the IRGC.
The second option for Trump is to raise his hand and
The Trump Administration's insistence on annexing Greenland in the short term and making it an official territory of the United States is intriguing.
I think that if the issue is only about security in the Arctic region, Greenland, which is currently under the sovereignty of NATO member Denmark, could be given to the United States for military use. Even the Danish government has repeatedly stated that they are ready to give Greenland to the United States for use within the framework of NATO. But the Trump administration wants to simply annex Greenland and turn it into a new state. The US government is also offering to pay Denmark money in exchange for Greenland, just as it purchased Louisiana, Alaska, and Florida in the 19th century. It is likely that if Denmark does not agree, the US will choose to annex Greenland through invasion.
If we put the pieces together, the following logical conclusion emerges: if the US chooses the path of annexation, while it has the ability to easily take Greenland under military control within the framework of NATO, then Washington is really preparing to leave NATO. In fact, the US’s forcible occupation of Greenland, as the Danish Prime Minister put it today, “would be the end of NATO.”
In this sense, it can be said that before the US abandons its role as a “protectorate” in Europe, it intends to directly annex Greenland, which it considers one of the most strategic territories remaining in Europe, to its sovereignty.
It is not excluded that there have been certain discussions between Trump and Putin about the de facto end of NATO. Perhaps the expectation that the US will withdraw militarily from Europe can be explained as the reason for Russia’s relative silence against the backdrop of successive geopolitical losses.
In this regard,
Israel reportedly used Jordanian and Saudi airspace during its airstrikes on Hamas leaders in Qatar today. I think those who remember the “First Fitnah” and “Second Fitnah” events that took place in the early years of Islam should not be surprised by the current processes in the Arab world. In this geography, individual political interests, intrigues, and betrayals have often been more prominent than religious and national unity.
Despite the criticism, I do not think that the current Arab monarchies have a say in military matters, especially in airspace. The dominant military power in the Middle East is the United States, and American troops also control the airspace of the region. In this regard, I have no doubt that, regardless of whether the Arab monarchies consent or not, if the United States wants, the airspace of the region will be opened to the full use of Israeli fighters.
In other words, it is clear that the Trump administration has approved Israel’s attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar. But are Israel’s attacks on Qatar in the interests of the United States? I think not. It is known that Qatar is home to the largest US military base in the Middle East and is a “non-NATO major ally” for the US. An attack by Israel on a country with such a status would be a major blow to the US’s image as a “reliable protector” in the Middle East and around the world. It is true that the Arab monarchies may not have an alternative to the US as a protector in the near future, but in the medium and long term, military cooperation with China could become a major trend in the Arab world. However, the fact that the US, within the framework of Israel’s wishes, even takes steps contrary to its own interests should not come as a surprise to those who closely follow the region.
Beyond
Reklam