The sharp rise in tensions between the United States and Iran in early 2026 has once again pushed the Middle East to the edge of a major conflict. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned of a possible “regional war”, the United States has deployed a powerful aircraft carrier strike group to the region, and senior Israeli military officials have rushed to Washington for urgent consultations. Publicly, the confrontation is framed as an effort to deter Tehran and force it back to the negotiating table. But beneath the surface, the escalation also serves a different purpose – one rooted in Donald Trump’s domestic political needs.
Speaking on the anniversary of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Khamenei stated that Iran does not seek to attack any country but would respond forcefully to any aggression. His remarks came amid a deep internal crisis. Protests triggered by economic collapse and a currency crisis spread across Iran in late December and were met with a brutal crackdown. While the Iranian government claims just over 3,000 people were killed, activists and independent observers put the number of fatalities at more than 6,700, with thousands more potentially unaccounted for due to a prolonged communications blackout.
It was against this backdrop that President Trump, in January, threatened military action against Iran, initially citing the regime’s violent suppression of protests. Those threats were quickly followed by concrete steps: the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, warnings of a “massive armada” ready to strike, and repeated statements emphasizing American military dominance. At the same time, Trump’s messaging about his actual objectives has been strikingly inconsistent.
At various moments, he has suggested that the goal is to pressure Iran into negotiating a new nuclear deal, even though he previously declared that U.S. strikes had “obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear program. At other times, he has hinted at regime change, punishment for human rights abuses, or simply warned that future attacks would be “far worse” if Iran fails to comply. This lack of clarity has led analysts to question whether there is a coherent strategy at all – or whether the threats themselves are the point.
The answer may lie not in Tehran, but in Washington. As tensions with Iran dominate headlines, another issue has been resurfacing in the American public sphere: renewed scrutiny of the ties between powerful political and business figures and convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Court filings, witness testimonies, and investigative reporting have revived uncomfortable questions about who had relationships with Epstein and what those relationships entailed. Donald Trump’s name regularly appears in this broader discussion – not as someone charged with a crime, but as a figure whose past associations and public comments about Epstein continue to attract attention. For a president who relies heavily on a carefully cultivated image of strength, decisiveness, and moral clarity, this renewed focus is deeply damaging. It shifts the narrative away from national strength and toward personal history, judgment, and accountability among elites.
In this context, the sudden dominance of war rhetoric and national security threats looks less accidental. A looming foreign confrontation has a powerful effect on public discourse. It rallies supporters, pressures media outlets to prioritize “breaking news” from abroad, and marginalizes discussions that can be dismissed as secondary or even “unpatriotic”. The specter of war with Iran allows Trump to recast himself as a commander-in-chief defending America against an external enemy – a far more comfortable role than answering questions about his past social and political connections.
This tactic is hardly new. History offers many examples of leaders using foreign crises to consolidate domestic support and deflect attention from internal scandals. What makes the current situation especially dangerous is the scale of the potential consequences. Iran has made clear that any U.S. strike would trigger retaliation not only against Israel, but also against American military bases across the region, including in Qatar and Iraq. Tehran has demonstrated in the past that it is willing and able to carry out such attacks.
Despite damage inflicted on Iran’s air defenses and missile stockpiles during last year’s conflict with Israel, the country retains significant capabilities. It still possesses missiles capable of reaching Israel, a wide array of drones, and substantial maritime assets, including mines and anti-ship missiles. Any escalation could disrupt shipping in the Persian Gulf, send oil prices soaring, and draw neighboring countries into a conflict they are eager to avoid.
Notably, key U.S. partners such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have already signaled that they would not allow their airspace to be used for strikes on Iran, fearing retaliation. This underscores the degree to which the current escalation reflects unilateral decision-making driven by Washington’s internal politics rather than a unified international strategy.
Meanwhile, diplomatic channels remain active. Qatar and Turkey have offered to mediate, and even Trump himself has alternated between threats and expressions of hope for a deal. Yet the persistent drumbeat of military warnings suggests that escalation, not resolution, is dominating the political narrative.
In the end, the confrontation with Iran appears to function as more than a geopolitical pressure campaign. It is also a tool for controlling attention – a way to drown out uncomfortable conversations about power, privilege, and past associations that the president would rather avoid. Using the threat of a regional war to shift the spotlight away from questions surrounding Jeffrey Epstein may offer short-term political relief, but it comes at an enormous risk.
If this strategy continues, the cost will not be measured only in headlines or polling numbers, but potentially in lives, regional stability, and a conflict whose consequences would extend far beyond the political needs of one man.
Comments