President Trump to Decide Whether to Take Military Action Against Iran Within Two Weeks, Pentagon Secret Revealed: Preparing for Operations Against Iran Since Mid-May
CNN Reveals: President Trump’s Intelligence Director, Abed, Falls Out of Favor. Mistaken Intelligence Assessment, or Clash of Values?
The Trump administration’s Bottom Line: Absolutely Cannot Allow Another Pakistan to Emerge.
On June 19, 2025, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that President Trump would decide within the next two weeks whether to authorize military action against Iran.
This statement sparked heated debates online. Supporters believe that Trump is giving Iran a final chance for negotiations, while opponents argue that the Iranian regime cannot be trusted and negotiations are futile. Some believe that now is the time for Trump to work with Israel to decisively resolve the chaos in the Middle East; however, Trump may once again be making a wrong decision.
In reality, I am not surprised by Trump’s decision. In my analysis on Tuesday’s program, I pointed out that Trump is facing three choices: forcing Iran to surrender by dismantling its nuclear facilities, conducting direct military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, or working with Israel to change the regime in Iran. However, all three options pose significant challenges.
In my view, Trump’s decision to delay the final decision is not a sign of weakness or retreat but a thoughtful strategy because:
Firstly, he is trying to reconcile the differing opinions within the government and the broader MAGA alliance. The “America First” principle has always been the cornerstone of Trump’s agenda, emphasizing avoiding costly overseas entanglements. In the past few days, several Trump supporters have advocated against getting involved in a war with Iran to prevent repeating the mistakes of Iraq or Afghanistan. Trump’s additional peace efforts may alleviate these concerns.
Moreover, it is evident that Trump will continue to exert maximum pressure on Iran, including supporting Israel’s military actions, especially the strategy of “letting the leaders go first.” On Thursday, the Israeli Air Force eliminated a secret military command post, bringing the total number of senior Iranian commanders eliminated to over 30. This level of precision and speed in strikes is unprecedented in human warfare history.
As noted, on Tuesday, when Trump demanded the unconditional surrender of the Iranian dictator, his words carried significant implications: “We now fully control Iranian airspace.” “We know exactly where this so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is easily targetable but safe there – we won’t take him out!” Throughout his statement, Trump consistently uses “we,” indicating close coordination between the US and Israel in controlling the battlefield situation.
Therefore, it is not necessarily a case of releasing a tiger back into the mountain.
Secondly, Trump is also giving allies and peace efforts a chance. Particularly, the European Union is concerned about the escalation of war and international instability. Trump is involving them in the process. Reuters reported exclusively on Wednesday (June 19) that German, French, and British foreign ministers plan to hold nuclear talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister in Geneva on Friday.
It is now evident that on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Leavitt explicitly stated that “any agreement with Iran must include a ban on uranium enrichment.” This marks a significant change from Trump’s previous negotiations with Iran, where he allowed Iran to retain the right to enrich uranium. This shift aligns with Israel’s longstanding insistence. In the current situation of severe military strikes, Iran has no justification to negotiate retaining uranium enrichment rights. Despite uranium enriched to 60% being usable for testing, the quantity equivalent to nine atomic bombs clearly indicates Iran’s intention for nuclear weapons, making their arguments untenable.
Posts on Platform X indicate that Trump has privately approved attack plans but is currently adopting a wait-and-see approach to observe Iran’s willingness to abandon its nuclear program. This strategy may appease European allies leaning towards negotiations rather than military escalation while signaling to Iran that time is running out. If Tehran remains defiant, subsequent US actions may face less international opposition, as Iran will be seen as rejecting peaceful solutions.
In conclusion, allowing the EU to negotiate, providing opportunities for all parties, but if Iran refuses to completely dismantle its nuclear facilities, the US and Israel will strike harder, leaving allies with no room for objections. This art of diplomacy, in my view, is an effective way to reconcile differences.
The Trump administration’s third consideration in leaving a two-week window is likely to continue monitoring Israel’s military progress. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, including the heavily fortified Fordo base, may obviate direct US intervention. This aligns with Trump’s campaign promise to be a “peace builder,” avoiding direct US involvement in war while supporting Israel’s goals.
Furthermore, Trump will continue to monitor Iran’s weakened capabilities in the next two weeks and whether Israel could catalyze a change in the Iranian regime. On Thursday, Netanyahu mentioned not ruling out overthrowing Iran’s current rule but emphasized the need for internal efforts by the Iranian people. He also stated that Israel can achieve its goals without help, to eradicate the nuclear facilities, possibly including deploying troops for direct strikes.
Interestingly, in recent days, the exiled heir of the Iranian Pahlavi monarchy has been active in the US, claiming to take over the new Iranian government. Reports suggest many Iranian generals pledge allegiance to the Pahlavi dynasty, and if the Iranian people indeed achieve internal regime change in the next two weeks, Trump would certainly welcome such developments.
However, as I mentioned, Trump will not stand idly by and will actively engage using various means to drive change, rather than just watching from afar.
US media revealed on the 19th that since mid-May 2025, the US Department of Defense has been preparing for possible actions against Iran. This includes deploying additional carrier strike groups, KC-135 tankers, and fighter jets to the Middle East to provide Trump with “more options.”
Despite considerable opposition internally and externally against direct US involvement, recent polls show that over 70% of Americans support preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. This gives Trump the confidence to retain the final strike decision.
Internal divisions within the US also manifest in the intelligence community and the White House. Trump apparently leans towards Israel’s judgment that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons. This has brought the conflict between Trump and Intel Director Turki Abed to the surface.
On Thursday, CNN reported increasing rift between Trump and Abed, with sources indicating that Abed is “out of step” and has fallen out of favor.
In her congressional testimony in March, Abed stated that Iran was not actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons – a stark contrast to Israel’s claims that Iran is rapidly developing nuclear bombs.
Moreover, Trump, in response to this issue on Tuesday, stated, “I don’t care what she said. I think they (referring to Iran) almost won.”
Abed’s testimony was based on the US intelligence community’s assessment that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program since 2003 despite its accumulated uranium reserves. Sources cited by Reuters and CNN estimate that Iran may need three more years to develop deliverable nuclear warheads. Her statement aligns with the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), albeit the IAEA pointed out Iran’s violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2025.
It is possible to argue that Trump may lean towards thoroughly eradicating Iran’s nuclear ambitions, hence more inclined to trust Netanyahu. However, I disagree with this view. Like I mentioned earlier, if Iran truly intends peaceful nuclear energy utilization, why have they amassed so much 60% enriched uranium?
Moreover, Abed’s fall from favor is likely due to ideological differences with Trump rather than intelligence mistakes. Her video warning of the “nuclear destruction” risk released on June 10, where she criticized “war profiteers,” might be viewed by Trump as an indirect criticism of his approval of Israeli attacks on Iran. Her public stance, along with her absence at key policy meetings on Iran, highlights her increasing divergence from the government’s hawkish stance.
Abed’s anti-intervention background may be influenced by her military career and critique of the US’s regime change wars, conflicting with the priorities of Trump’s inner circle, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. She tried to steer Trump towards diplomacy, such as engaging with European allies with relationships with Iran, further straining her relationship with hawkish advisors.
Additionally, her focus on domestic political goals, such as investigating the weaponization of intelligence during the Biden administration, is criticized for politicizing her role as national intelligence director, potentially compromising her credibility in national security discussions.
CNN revealed Abed’s isolation within the White House. A senior government official noted Trump’s dissatisfaction with her “inconsistent” actions, especially after releasing the nuclear war video. Her absence from critical meetings and reliance on a small, isolated team limit her influence, and some officials question her grasp of the complex role of the National Intelligence Director. Nevertheless, allies like JD Vance still defend her, believing she is an essential team member, showing her role has been reduced but not entirely replaced.
Externally, Abed faces scrutiny from both the MAGA hardliners and the Democratic Party. Her transition from Democratic Congress members to MAGA loyalists has not entirely erased doubts among Trump supporters. Meanwhile, Democrats accuse her of politicizing intelligence to serve Trump’s agenda, citing her dismissal of senior officials and controversial measures as evidence.
In conclusion, I think there is merit in the information from CNN. However, I hope that they are simply experiencing temporary differences on various issues, and it does not lead to irreconcilable rifts in the end.
In Trump’s decision-making on Iran, one critical factor to consider is the past and present of Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons, giving hope to those who seek peace, a profound lesson. This leads to a clear bottom line driving the Trump administration: prevent Iran from becoming another nuclear threat like Pakistan.
It is well-known that Pakistan’s nuclear program was developed through stolen technology and assistance from China, but the short-sightedness of former US presidents also played a crucial role.
By the late 1980s, Pakistan likely had nuclear capabilities and conducted tests in 1998, currently estimated to possess 170 to 180 nuclear warheads. During the late 1980s to the 1990s, the US was primarily focused on countering Soviet influence in Afghanistan, hoping to gain Pakistan’s support, inadvertently allowing Pakistan to open Pandora’s box, releasing a tiger.
The consequences have been far-reaching and dreadful. Pakistan’s nuclear status has emboldened its support for terrorist organizations, presenting complex challenges to India’s security and exacerbating global instability.
For decades, facing Pakistan’s regime support for terrorist groups, India has endured punishing measures as retaliating could provoke a country with nuclear arms.
The University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database estimates that from 1990 to 2020, Islamic terrorists (many supported by Pakistan) killed over four thousand people in India.
Moreover, the presence of religious extremists within Pakistan’s military has raised concerns over the risk of nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands. In 2011, the discovery of Osama bin Laden hiding near a Pakistani military academy heightened this risk.
Furthermore, the military dictatorship of the Pakistani regime spreading nuclear technology to “rogue nations” like Iran and North Korea has significantly increased the threat to global peace.
Now, while Iran’s nuclear program may not be at Pakistan’s level yet, it poses a similar danger. Comprising fervent war-mongering elements, and supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran has always harbored anti-West sentiments, thus posing a threat not only to Israel but potentially widespread to Europe and the US.
Therefore, as German Chancellor Merkel recently stated, Israel is doing the dirty work on behalf of all of us. I find this a very sober judgment, indicating that Western or peace-loving nations should support Israel.
In summary of our discussion today, Trump’s latest strategy on Iran is not about the delusion of missed opportunities, nor is it about compromising under pressure from all sides. Instead, it is a delicate balancing act, with a clear ultimate goal: preventing Iran from becoming another Pakistan threatening the world.
His two-week decision window may bring about an Iranian compromise following severe destruction or Iran may remain unrepentant. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, the Middle East and the world will witness a new stable situation. The hopes of the CCP and Russia to watch and make disturbances are completely out of the picture.
– Qin Peng Observation
Production Team