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.

Trump's erratic approach isn't random; it's a strategy to create chaos and uncertainty. This keeps adversaries off-balance, allowing him to exploit openings that emerge, much like a disruptive CEO. He is comfortable with instability and uses it as a tool for negotiation and advantage.

Countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia are ambivalent about US military action. Their primary fear is not a full-scale war, but a limited 'hit-and-run' strike where the US attacks and then diverts attention, leaving them 'naked and vulnerable' to Iranian retaliation without a long-term American security presence.

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.

Contrary to his hawkish reputation, Benjamin Netanyahu is deliberately lowering Israel's profile regarding Iran's internal protests. This strategic silence aims to prevent the embattled Iranian regime from feeling cornered and launching a preemptive attack out of paranoia.

Trump's 'hokey pokey' with tariffs and threats isn't indecisiveness but a consistent strategy: make an agreement, threaten a severe and immediate penalty for breaking it, and actually follow through. This makes his threats credible and functions as a powerful deterrent that administrations lacking his perceived volatility cannot replicate.

Iran is caught in a strategic dilemma: claiming to be close to a nuclear weapon invites a preemptive US strike, while admitting weakness could embolden internal protest movements. This precarious balance makes their public statements highly volatile and reveals a fundamental vulnerability.

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.