Fears of a US-Iran conflict disrupting oil flows are overstated. Any potential US military action would likely be designed to be 'surgical' to specifically avoid Iran's oil infrastructure, as the administration's priority is preventing economic shocks and energy price hikes ahead of elections.

Deterrence happens in the mind of the enemy. The US fails to deter Iran by attacking its Arab proxies because Iranian culture views Arabs as expendable. To be effective, deterrence must threaten what the target culture actually values. In Iran's case, this means threatening Persians, not their proxies.

The primary force preventing a collapse of the Iranian regime isn't its own strength, but fear among its neighbors. Countries like Turkey and Pakistan worry a collapse would lead to a massive refugee crisis and empower separatist movements on their borders, creating a strong regional bias for stability.

The US military buildup against Iran is interpreted not as an inevitable prelude to war, but as a high-stakes 'game of chicken.' The primary goal for President Trump is likely to exert maximum pressure to force Iran into a diplomatic deal with major concessions, making war a secondary, less preferable option.

While a ground invasion is unlikely, a potential US military strategy involves a direct assassination attempt on Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. This high-risk decapitation strike aims to destabilize the regime's core, but the effect on the cohesion of its security forces is completely unpredictable.

The US is moving from a global deterrence posture to concentrating massive force for specific operations, as seen with Iran. This strategy denudes other theaters of critical assets, creating windows of opportunity for adversaries like China while allies are left exposed.

Trump's negotiation strategy, particularly with Iran, involves a massive, visible military presence to create extreme pressure. This 'peace through strength' approach aims to force concessions at the negotiating table by making the alternative—imminent, overwhelming force—undeniably clear and credible.

The public threats of a military strike against Iran may be a high-stakes negotiating tactic, consistent with Trump's style of creating chaos before seeking a deal. The goal is likely not war, which would be politically damaging, but to force Iran into economic concessions or a new agreement on US terms.

A cynical but plausible US strategy is to provoke conflicts, like with Iran, and then withdraw. This forces regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to manage the fallout by purchasing billions in American weaponry, creating a forced market for the defense industry.