Authored by Alastair Crooke via LewRockwell.com,

As so often these days, a decisive attack on Iran – comes down in the final analysis to Trump’s psychology, and his need to dominate the attention of everyone around him.

He understands that for however much his maximalist pronouncements look — and are — crazy, they nonetheless do usually default to a ‘strong man image’.

Trump’s career has been founded on the predicate that his base loves the ‘strong guy’ and any sign of weakness detracts from the illusion of strength. It is the thing that has generally worked for him.

European élites however, find this difficult to digest – perhaps understandably – and slide into paroxysms of outrage.

The key, as Trump-watcher Michael Wolff has suggested, is that after days with Trump saying that ‘this or that’ is going to be done, either “the easy way; or the hard way”, the tipping point usually comes when he has to manoeuvre to exit his maximalist positions, whilst always claiming it was all an ‘Art of the Deal’ success – the outcome being just what he had from the beginning intended.

On Iran, Trump’s messaging is again ultra-maximalist: Accept my conditions, or prepare for a comprehensive campaign to dismantle entirely your [Iran’s] political system. Trump’s envoys reinforce his stance that ‘every option remains on the table’ at every opportunity (though this rhetoric has become nothing more than an overworked cliché).

Trump’s threats towards Iran however, have triggered paroxysms of anxiety in the region, with leaders — even Netanyahu — fearing a long war with unpredictable and bloody consequences.

Trump’s conception of war is built around a fantasy that he can manipulate some lightening ‘in-boom-out’ stunt – one in which the U.S. loses no soldiers and its military infrastructure remains untouched. Reports from those regular ‘phone buddies’ of Trump say that he still says he wants a ‘guaranteed’ decisive outcome in Iran – a short, violently sharp, decisive war. He does not want casualties – especially American casualties. Neither does he want mass casualties or a long drawn-out conflict.

Colonel Larry Wilkerson explains that decisive is a military term of art. It means you’ve hit the enemy so hard they’re unable to respond. Or, in other words, it hints that Trump would like a ‘stunt’ like that of seizing Maduro.

Nothing is guaranteed in war, of course. And the insurrection in Iran fomented by externally-trained rioters drawing on the earlier Management of Savagery playbook failed.

The US had not deployed massively for this January episode because, in their (flawed) analysis, they had thought they might be able to simply ‘assist’ the rioters trying to overthrow the government – assistance that would not require much military muscle.

Well, that all fell apart. They had bought into the propaganda that Iran was a ‘house of cards’, destined to implode under the impact of the extreme violence of the rioters intended to sear into place the image of a crumbling, burning edifice with its leaders and occupants scrambling to escape.

It seems that in the wake of the ‘coup’ failure – yet still wanting to be pleasing to an exigent President – the Pentagon has come around to justifying and explaining the failed coup saying — in General Keane’s words –“We [have] had to bring in all this firepower”, (because they initially had thought they could manage with less).

So, now we have the narrative that “the U.S. has now deployed more forces to the Middle East than it did in the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and the Iraq War combined” – which US military expert Will Schryver derides as “absolute ridiculous nonsense”.

Schryver notes: “I have yet to see a military buildup in the region that would permit anything remotely approximating a ‘decisive’ strike against the Iranian military and its government”.

“A squadron of F-15s, a few tankers, and a couple dozen C-17 shipments of ordnance and/or AD systems has been sent to Jordan. That’s a modest defensive shield against drones and cruise missiles, at best. It’s certainly not a potent strike package … even with the carrier USS Gerald Ford in the mix … In total, the Navy could probably launch ~350 Tomahawks. But against a huge country like Iran, even if all 350 hit “something”, it’s not going to come close to disarming the Iranians”.

Schryver concludes:

“The US Navy is absolutely NOT going to venture into the Persian Gulf, or even the Gulf of Oman. And it would be extremely high risk to fly refuelling tankers in Iranian airspace. So that is going to limit carrier strike aircraft to their fully loaded combat radius of ~600 miles — not nearly far enough to hit targets deep in Iran. And even if they flew a half-dozen B-2s, and a dozen B-52s / B-1Bs … t just doesn’t add up to much in the context of a one-off strike package. It’s just a few dozen more stand-off cruise missiles thrown into the mix”.

A short, violent decisive ‘win’ (as reported by the WSJ) that Trumps wants — and which ‘plays well’ at home — simply is not an option. Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi, more realistically, has warned:

“An all-out confrontation will certainly be messy, ferocious, and drag on far, far longer than the fantasy timelines that Israel and its proxies are trying to peddle to the White House”.

Inside Iran, notes Ibrahim Al-Amine, “the leadership is operating on the assumption that the confrontation may reach its most extreme form. Preparations are unfolding along two tracks: strengthening defensive capabilities against a large-scale assault and tightening internal security to prevent domestic destabilization. This posture is now visible across the country”.

So, could it be that Trump will back out once again (i.e. TACO – ‘Trump Always Chickens Out’)? Schryver argues that Iran is not Venezuela. It is not a ‘tariffs and trade’ financial war. It is not some coup de théâtre in which Trump ‘chickening out’ can be explained away as another win, as part of his clever ‘Art of the Deal’ approach.

Actual full-on military conflict (not a Maduro stunt) by contrast, is ‘out there for all to see’, notes Will Shryver, and would be much harder to explain away should it go awry. Adding more fire-power will not eliminate the risks. Trump’s best option is to find himself an alternative ‘distraction’.

Israel, too, seems to be having second thoughts. Ronan Bergman, in Yedioth Ahoronot, reports Israeli Intelligence reports saying that “a week and a half ago the protests reached their peak throughout Iran … [since when] the scale of the protests and demonstrations has decreased dramatically … the security establishment and the intelligence community do not believe that the regime is currently in danger, certainly not in immediate danger … The central question is whether Trump missed the momentum – and if there was any momentum at all …”.

“[Nevertheless] suppose all the armed forces that the US is now transferring to the Persian Gulf were fully deployed … and suppose Israel were to join in with its firepower … Then what? Would they overthrow the government …? What is the optimistic scenario for such an event … without soldiers on the ground, but only air strikes? … In practice”, Bergman concludes, “such a regime has never fallen through external intervention”.

Recall that Trump’s disapproval rating, according to NY Times poll this week, now stands at 47%.

Quite apart from the strategic military calculus of Iran’s response to any attack, Trump certainly doesn’t need a messy war. He likes his ‘initiatives’ to be short and clean ’standout’ wins.

Last weekend, as the Greenland bruhaha tumbled into threats and counter threats of tariffs, the US bond market moved to the verge of collapse (as it so did on Liberation Day, with the tariff announcements). The ‘way out’ from developing bond market crisis was Trump going ‘TACO’ on the Greenland-linked tariffs on European states who did not support his Greenland takeover.

Is Trump getting the message that an Iran ‘win’ is not ‘Slam Dunk’? – in which case he might decide on a TACO, accompanied by bone-crushing economic threats to Iran – (possibly).

Despite trillions of dollars slated for global data center buildouts, power grid upgrades, and other artificial intelligence infrastructure expansion through the end of the decade, there remains very limited investor discussion about the next-generation physical security architecture required to defend these increasingly critical and high-value infrastructure nodes, including data centers, power plants, and grid transmission chokepoints.

Protection of data centers from suicide drone swarm attacks is currently assessed as a lower risk at the moment, while the Trump administration, particularly following last year’s “Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty” executive order, is primarily focused on counter-UAS measures to secure stadiums and related venues against drone attacks ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

In recent weeks, U.S. military, federal agencies, and local authorities gathered for a two-day summit near U.S. Northern Command headquarters, bringing together federal agencies, 11 U.S. host committees, and FIFA’s security heads to prepare for matches across the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

“We’re never going to not worry about a dirty bomb,” Miami-Dade County Sheriff Rosanna Cordero-Stutz, who participated in the planning session, told Politico. “But we also recognize that there’s a lot of other things that we need to worry about as well.”

“You can’t just give counter-UAS mitigation equipment to law enforcement that hasn’t learned how to use it yet,” said White House FIFA World Cup Task Force Andrew Giuliani, who coordinated the federal government’s role in tournament preparations and addressed the drone threat at the summit.

Trump’s counter-UAS EO last June, combined with heightened drone-threat concerns ahead of FIFA World Cup events, underscores the urgent need for low-cost, rapidly deployable kinetic interceptor counter-UAS systems that could be repurposed to defend high-value infrastructure and critical assets beyond the soccer tournament.

Beyond the FIFA World Cup and back to the data center buildout story, Morgan Stanley’s Vishwanath Tirupattur forecasts that nearly $3 trillion of global data center spend will occur through 2028, comprising $1.6 trillion on hardware (chips/servers) and $1.3 trillion on building data center infrastructure, including real estate, build costs, and maintenance.

Wall Street analysts largely end their analysis at the financing and construction of next-generation data centers, with limited discussion regarding the modern security architecture required once these facilities are built and become instant high-value targets for non-state actors or foreign adversaries; traditional perimeter measures such as metal chainlink fencing and standard surveillance systems are rendered useless in the world of emerging AI threats, including coordinated autonomous drone or swarm-based attacks enabled by advances in AI and low-cost unmanned systems.

The deployment of low-cost kinetic counter-UAS intercept systems from the US could soon become a reality in Ukraine and be field-tested on the front lines, where tons of operational data would be gathered to help developers refine these systems ahead of future deployment to protect stadiums, data centers, and other high-value assets from drone threats across North America.

Cameron Rowe founded counter-UAS intercept startup Sentradel, which builds autonomous turrets to detect, track, and destroy FPV (first-person view) drones that can be easily modified with explosives. The low-cost interceptor uses a rifle that launches low-cost 5.56 bullets at incoming FPVs, versus current systems that use missiles and may cost tens of thousands per interception, where the economics of war aren’t there.

Meet Sentradel’s low-cost kinetic interceptor counter-UAS system:

Watch 

Company Update #robotics #drones @sts_3d @camrrowe pic.twitter.com/0JoVSeYkpI

— Sentradel (@sentradel) December 2, 2025

There’s growing interest from the Trump administration that these counter-UAS intercept systems will be guarding high-value assets, perhaps not stadiums immediately, but likely data centers in the future, especially as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently warned that attacks on data centers are only a matter of time. Readers can see the full story here.

Via American Greatness,

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) has introduced the Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation (SCAM) Act that would strip citizenship from individuals who commit serious crimes within 10 years of their naturalization.

According to Schmitt, the legislation would expand the grounds for beginning the denaturalization process to include welfare fraud, aggravated felonies and joining a terrorist organization, including gangs and cartels.

Fox New reports that the SCAM Act would create a 10-year window, post-naturalization, which would lower the threshold for federal authorities to strike an individual’s citizenship and to begin deportation proceedings.

🚨 BREAKING: Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) just filed legislation REVOKING the citizenship of legal migrants who commit fraud and serious felonies, including the Somalis in Minnesota

GET IT PASSED! 🔥

The SCAM Act applies to serious crimes after being naturalized: “It’s evidence… pic.twitter.com/IvTiCuhfml

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 19, 2026

Schmitt alluded to the welfare fraud that has been uncovered in Minnesota as a “wake-up call” and stated, “American citizenship is a privilege, and anyone hoping to be a part of our great nation must demonstrate a sincere attachment to our Constitution, upstanding moral character, and a commitment to the happiness and good order of the United States.”

Prosecutors investigating the growing Minnesota fraud scandal have charged dozens of native-Somali residents in connection with the fraud and estimate that there are upwards of $9 billion in stolen funds.

Schmitt went on to say, “ People who commit felony fraud, serious felonies, or join terrorist organizations like drug cartels shortly after taking their citizenship oaths fail to uphold the basic standards of citizenship.”

The SCAM Act also anticipates court challenges to the legislation with a built-in mechanism to switch out the 10-year window to a 5-year window, if found to be unconstitutional.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and President Trump’s Homeland Security advisor says the White House is backing Schmitt’s legislation, saying, “The Somali fraud scandal is one of the greatest financial scandals in American history. All Somali refugees, or any other immigrants, who have committed fraud against the United States must be immediately denaturalized and deported.”

Miller added, “We applaud Senator Schmitt for his leadership.”

The SCAM Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate but has not yet received a hearing.