Nournews: A close examination of the declared positions and practical behavior of the United States and the Israeli regime after the Trump–Netanyahu meeting shows that the claim of moving toward the “second phase” of a Gaza ceasefire is less a sign of strategic change than a component of a deception operation aimed at consolidating occupation. Trump’s remarks about disarming Hamas, imposing security conditions on the future governance of Gaza, and the simultaneous $8.6-billion contract to sell F-15 fighter jets to Israel constitute clear evidence of the continued militarization of the crisis. Within this framework, the ceasefire is not viewed as a tool to end the killing, but as an opportunity to reorganize the scene of occupation. The meaningful silence of the United States regarding the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza — particularly amid the harsh conditions of winter — and its exclusive focus on Israel’s security considerations indicate that genocide still holds a central place in the strategic calculations of Washington and Tel Aviv.
A “New Middle East”: An Old Project in New Language
Although Trump outwardly speaks of reducing U.S. focus on West Asia, his actions on the ground and political positions reveal an insistence on implementing an updated version of the “New Middle East” project — one founded on fragmenting states, disarming resistance movements, and imposing one-sided settlements. Threatening Lebanon under the pretext of disarming Hezbollah, pressuring Syria to move toward normalization with Israel, and continuing the “land-for-peace” policy all confirm that the United States not only has no intention of restraining Israel’s aggression, but in fact regards it as a pillar of its preferred regional order. The Trump–Netanyahu meeting demonstrated that this project is still being pursued with vigor, and that its ultimate goal is the consolidation of a Zionist hegemony in the region.
Iran: From the Illusion of Negotiation to Overt Threats
Iran was one of the central themes of the meeting — a theme cloaked in deceptive rhetoric about negotiations, yet ultimately resulting in explicit military threats. Trump’s statements in support of an attack on Iran in the event of advances in its missile or nuclear programs, along with his repeated emphasis on a “swift” response, reveal the true nature of Washington’s approach. Meanwhile, Western media’s attempts to suggest that the United States has no intention of regime change or the fragmentation of Iran collapse in the face of such overt positions. Taken together with efforts to exploit economic and social pressures, these behaviors indicate that the project of coercing Iran into submission — and even its disintegration — remains on the table, pursued through cognitive warfare and interventionist strategies.
The Only Option: Active Deterrence and Regional Convergence
The outcome of the Trump–Netanyahu meeting conveys a clear message: the notion of U.S. peace-seeking is nothing but a mirage. Washington, relying on the Israeli regime, continues to seek crisis management through insecurity — a path that encompasses all countries of the region. Under such circumstances, silence and passivity only increase the false confidence of the architects of instability. The experience of the 12-day war showed that in Iran’s defensive doctrine, responding to aggression is not a possibility but a rule. Iran’s missile and defense capabilities are neither restrainable nor subject to external permission; any aggression will be met with a harsh, immediate, and beyond-expectation response. Regional convergence and collective responsibility are the only viable paths to containing this dangerous cycle.
NOURNEWS