Trump issues a "5-day ultimatum": Is this psychological warfare or the prelude to a large-scale war? | In-depth

(Source: Zhi News)

Amid the drumbeats of war currently pounding in the Middle East, the “five-day ultimatum” thrown out by the Trump administration is like a deep-sea bomb. Is it a destructive strike that is about to be carried out, or an exceptionally clever psychological contest? In an in-depth breakdown for Zhi News readers, Dong Manyuan, a researcher at the China Institute of International Studies, reveals the cold military logic and complex power game behind this “maximum pressure.”

“The ultimatum”: what’s real and what’s staged”

Trump has threatened that if Iran does not give in, U.S. forces will completely destroy its power plants nationwide. In Dong Manyuan’s view, this is first of all a psychological war with an extortion-like character, aiming to impose mental pressure on Iran through extreme survival threats. However, the “five-day grace period” behind the threat tells a different story.

The facts show this is not American mercy, but “helplessness” stemming from ground strike capabilities not yet being in place. At present, the U.S. Marine Corps 31st and 11th Marine Corps Expeditionary Forces are currently sailing toward the Gulf, divided across the amphibious assault ships “Tripoli” and “Iwo Jima.” The elite U.S. 82nd Airborne Division is also in motion. Over the course of five days—essentially, it is simply a time window reserved by the U.S. military to complete the buildup of forces.

The economic core of this standoff is oil prices and control of the straits. Trump is eager to curb oil prices that are too high, and Iran’s effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is precisely its “lifeline.” The latest U.S. offer is to require “joint management” of the straits with Iran, but for Iran—which still has resilience on the battlefield and fights with a well-structured approach—this clearly is not an option.

Who holds the “say-so” in Tehran?

As the U.S. and Iran carry out indirect contacts through channels such as Egypt and Pakistan, outside speculation is rife about the power structure inside Tehran. Dong Manyuan points out that although rumors are constant, the current speaker, Kalibaf, is not the “decider” that the outside world believes him to be; his role is limited to legislation, not handling diplomatic affairs.

In the power vacuum period after Iran’s supreme spiritual leader was injured and second-in-command Ranjani unfortunately was killed, Iran is in a special transitional state. At present, the country’s main responsibilities are carried out by the “three-person executive committee”—President Pezeshi Ziyang, Attorney General Ejei, and the senior jurist of the Guardian Council, Alarafi. Although the Revolutionary Guard’s weight has risen rapidly in the contest, Iran still maintains its power structure under the constitutional framework. For Iran, because historically it has been deceived by the U.S. multiple times, this “lack of trust” determines its strategy of “dealing with each hand with a corresponding hand”: one side sends messages through diplomatic channels, while the other side steps up preparations for military struggle.

The strategic rifts behind the U.S.-Israel “double-act”

In its actions toward Iran, the U.S. and Israel show a delicate posture of “singing the double-act while also having differences.” Although both sides are aligned in their interests in weakening Iran and maintaining strategic partner relations, they each have their own intentions regarding specific operational objectives.

Israel has the bigger ambition, seeking to achieve “regime change” directly through military strikes, thereby securing so-called absolute security. The United States is comparatively more restrained; its basic principle is to avoid becoming deeply mired in the quagmire of war. Its goal is only to weaken Iran to the point where it cannot interfere with the regional situation or mobilize its allies, so that the remaining energy can be used to deal with domestic difficulties.

The vanishing red line: when war touches the bottom line of civilization

In the interview, Dong Manyuan issued a stern legal warning: the current military actions by the U.S. and Israel are sliding toward the abyss of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” The earlier tragedy in which a joint airstrike resulted in more than 160 schoolgirls from a girls’ elementary school in southern Iran being killed is already an undeniable war crime.

If the U.S. ultimately carries out its threat and destroys Iran’s power plants in full, what will be hit is not only government facilities, but also the right to survival of 90 million ordinary people. Without electricity, water treatment and seawater desalination would come to a complete standstill—no different from driving the entire population into a dead end. This act of using civilian livelihood infrastructure as bargaining chips in war is facing a coordinated resistance from around the world by forces that favor peace.

This standoff taking place in the Persian Gulf is far beyond a simple geopolitical conflict; it is testing the very last bottom line of international law and human civilization.

Reporter | Jiang Wenli

Cameraperson | Zhou Teng

Layout | Chen Pianpian

Editor | Huang Rujüan

A massive amount of information and precise analysis—right on the Sina Finance APP