Chekhov's gun in the Gulf: US build-up, Trump's dilemma, and the push for war with Iran

2026-02-21 - 19:32

Public opinion surveys conducted in the US show that the majority of Americans do not support Trump's military intervention in Iran. There is also serious disagreement within the Trump camp regarding intervention in Iran. For Trump, both the polls and the reactions from his own base are important. However, mainstream hawkish Republicans, Christian Zionists, Neocons, Israel, and the "Israel Lobby" in America continue to fuel Trump's interventionist impulses. Most recently, Trump stated that the US could carry out a "limited" military intervention in Iran if they do not accept the terms of the agreement. This latest statement is interpreted as Trump hesitating over a comprehensive intervention. Pro-Israeli publications also note that some figures within the Trump administration are trying to dissuade Trump from intervening. It is very difficult to predict what Trump will do. This has to do with Trump's way of doing business. Last year, while continuing negotiations with Iran, he turned a blind eye to Israel's attack on Iran, supported it, and even ordered American planes to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. The US buildup in the Gulf indicates that there is a comprehensive intervention plan. Analysts interpret this buildup with a saying by Russian writer Anton Chekhov. This saying, attributed to Chekhov, was: "If in the first act of a play a gun is hanging on the wall, then in that play it must definitely go off!" Many commentators believe that Chekhov's gun in the Gulf will go off. Imposing conditions on the Iranians that they cannot accept, and stating that if these conditions are not accepted the military option will be activated, is not among the customary rules of diplomacy. Trump already says he is not bound by international rules. For Trump, approval and the feeling of achieving a great victory with minimal losses are more important than rules. A limited intervention also has its dangers, of course. Military strategists say that even the best war plan can lose its validity on the ground in the first hours of a war's start. Unexpected situations, referred to as "Black Swan events," can change the course of a war. A limited intervention could go awry, and when things go wrong, no one can maintain control. There are many examples where miscalculations have led a war expected to be short-term to drag on for many years. World War I began in July 1914. The spark ignited by an assassination in Sarajevo turned the Balkans into a fire, then did not remain limited to Europe but spread to all corners of the world. Yet initially, in London, Paris, and Berlin, the mood was that soldiers would be home by "Christmas 1914." The war lasted four years and millions of people lost their lives. The US interventions in Vietnam and Afghanistan are not much different. Of course, Trump is being reminded of this as well. Trump's justifications for military intervention in Iran are not found convincing even within his own base. On Friday, Rachel Campos-Duffy, one of the hosts of a program on the "Fox News" channel, said, "I think the President needs to do a better job explaining why America entering a kinetic war serves American interests." Duffy, a Catholic-Conservative, continued, "If you're going to potentially take us into a war, you have to explain why this is important for us. For us, not for other countries." Duffy, implying that they do not want the US to fight for Israel, said, "Explain to me why. Explain to me why I should risk my sons of military age getting into another war in the Middle East. I thought we were done with this." These words were a reference to Trump's promises to end endless wars. Duffy was voicing the feelings of conservatives who strongly oppose Israeli Neocon policies. Fox News is known as the television channel closest to Trump, and Rachel Campos-Duffy is not an ordinary conservative. Duffy's husband, Sean Duffy, who is also Catholic-Conservative like her, currently serves as Secretary of Transportation in the Trump Administration. Israel, on the other hand, wants Trump to attack Iran under any circumstances, whether limited or comprehensive. They calculate that if Iran makes a real retaliation, the US could lose control and be dragged into a comprehensive war. The Israelis and hawks in America are trying to convince Trump that the Iranian regime is experiencing its weakest moment and will be toppled by a strong blow. There isn't much time left; we will see if Trump takes this bait.