There is no rush, and midterm elections will not force my hand
Num momento em que o Senado americano se prepara para votar uma resolução que limitaria os poderes de guerra do presidente, Donald Trump declarou não ter qualquer urgência em encerrar o conflito com o Irão, mantendo abertas as opções militares contra Teerão. A declaração contraria afirmações feitas horas antes e revela a natureza volátil da política externa americana numa região onde os cessar-fogos existem mais no papel do que no terreno. A história recorda-nos que os conflitos raramente terminam pela vontade de um só homem — e que as palavras dos líderes, quando contraditórias, raramente trazem paz.
- Trump contradiz-se em poucas horas: primeiro sugere que o conflito com o Irão está perto do fim, depois afirma que não há pressa — e que as eleições intercalares de novembro não condicionarão as suas decisões.
- No Líbano, o cessar-fogo é uma ficção: forças israelitas continuam a operar no sul do país e o Irão mantém ataques de drones sobre o norte de Israel, com baixas e deslocamentos a persistirem.
- O Senado americano prepara-se para votar uma resolução que retiraria ao presidente poderes unilaterais de guerra, representando um potencial travão institucional às ambições militares de Trump.
- Relatórios do New York Times revelam alegados planos de mudança de regime em Teerão, envolvendo a instalação temporária de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — figura controversa com um historial de hostilidade declarada aos EUA e a Israel.
- O Irão avisa que um regresso à guerra total trará 'muitas surpresas', enquanto o paradeiro de Ahmadinejad, alegadamente ferido durante operações militares israelitas, permanece desconhecido.
Donald Trump declarou esta semana não sentir qualquer urgência em resolver o conflito com o Irão, deixando em aberto a possibilidade de novos ataques militares contra Teerão. Garantiu também que o primeiro-ministro israelita Benjamin Netanyahu apoia plenamente as decisões de Washington. A declaração surge num momento delicado: o Senado americano prepara-se para votar uma resolução que limitaria os poderes presidenciais de guerra na região.
A contradição é difícil de ignorar. Horas antes, Trump havia sugerido que o conflito estava próximo de uma resolução rápida. A mudança de tom sublinha a natureza errática da sua comunicação pública sobre o Irão, mesmo enquanto as operações militares continuam no terreno.
No Líbano, o cessar-fogo existe apenas formalmente. As forças israelitas mantêm presença no sul do país, realizando operações contra o Hezbollah, enquanto o Irão continua a lançar drones sobre território israelita. As negociações em curso entre Washington e Teerão centram-se precisamente no Líbano — tema que Trump tem evitado abordar publicamente.
Entretanto, o New York Times revelou alegados planos conjuntos entre os EUA e Israel para uma operação de mudança de regime em Teerão, com Mahmoud Ahmadinejad como líder transitório. A escolha é paradoxal: o ex-presidente iraniano, conhecido por negar o Holocausto e por uma postura declaradamente hostil aos EUA e a Israel durante o seu mandato entre 2005 e 2013, estaria atualmente sob prisão domiciliária. Segundo o mesmo relato, Ahmadinejad terá sido ferido durante a operação israelita, e o seu paradeiro permanece incerto.
O Irão avisou que um regresso à guerra total trará 'muitas surpresas'. A votação no Senado sobre os poderes de guerra representa um contrapeso institucional — mas a sua eficácia dependerá tanto dos votos dos legisladores como da disposição do presidente em respeitar os limites da lei.
Donald Trump said this week that he sees no urgency in resolving the conflict with Iran, leaving the door open to further military strikes against Tehran. In the same breath, he assured observers that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands fully behind whatever decisions Washington might make on the matter. The timing of these remarks is pointed: the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote on a resolution that would, if passed, strip the president of some of his unilateral power to wage war in the region.
Just hours earlier, Trump had suggested the conflict was nearing a swift conclusion. Now he was saying the opposite—that there was no rush, and that midterm elections in November would not force his hand. The shift underscores the fluid and contradictory nature of his public messaging on Iran policy, even as concrete military operations continue on the ground.
In Lebanon, the ceasefire exists mostly on paper. Israeli forces maintain their presence in the south of the country, conducting what they describe as targeted operations against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite militia. Iran, for its part, continues to send drones northward into Israeli territory. The supposed cessation of hostilities has not stopped either side from fighting.
One of the central topics in ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran is precisely Lebanon—yet Trump has largely avoided discussing it publicly. Instead, he has focused on reassuring Netanyahu of alignment. The Israeli prime minister has not responded to Trump's statement, nor has he commented on a New York Times investigation published recently that detailed alleged early-war planning by the United States and Israel. According to that reporting, the two countries had discussed a regime-change operation in Tehran, with the goal of temporarily installing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Iranian president, in power.
Ahmadinejad is an unusual choice for such a role. He has been under house arrest and is known as a vocal critic of Iran's current regime, though his record tells a different story. During his presidency from 2005 to 2013, he was fiercely antagonistic toward the United States and Israel, and he became notorious for denying the Holocaust. The notion that he might serve as a transitional leader installed by foreign powers sits uneasily with his own political history and ideology.
According to the Times account, the operation to free Ahmadinejad may have succeeded in part, but he was wounded during the Israeli military action. Since then, his whereabouts have remained unclear. Iran has warned the United States that any return to full-scale war would bring "many surprises," a veiled threat that underscores how fragile the current state of affairs truly is. The Senate's pending vote on war powers, meanwhile, represents a domestic check on Trump's ability to act unilaterally—a constraint that may or may not hold, depending on how lawmakers vote and how the president chooses to interpret the law.
Citas Notables
Trump assured Netanyahu that he stands fully behind whatever decisions Washington might make regarding Iran— Trump's statement to media
Iran warned that a return to full-scale war would bring many surprises— Iranian government statement
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Trump say he's in no rush when just hours before he suggested the war was ending soon?
Because the political ground shifted. The Senate resolution forced him to recalibrate. By saying there's no rush, he's signaling he won't be constrained by domestic pressure or electoral timelines—it's a show of strength to Netanyahu and Tehran both.
But doesn't that undermine his credibility?
In conventional terms, yes. But Trump's audience isn't looking for consistency. They're looking for a president who won't be boxed in. The contradiction is almost the point.
What about this alleged plan to install Ahmadinejad? That seems extraordinary.
It is. And it's also the kind of thing that only surfaces after it's already happened or failed. The Times didn't invent it—they reported what they found. But Netanyahu's silence on it is telling. He's not denying it, just refusing to engage.
Why would anyone think Ahmadinejad could be a stabilizing force?
They probably didn't. They thought he could be a useful tool—someone the regime would reject, which would delegitimize it further. But he got wounded, and now no one knows where he is. The plan, whatever it was, is in limbo.
And the ceasefire in Lebanon?
It's a fiction. Both sides are still fighting. The ceasefire gives everyone cover to say they're not escalating while they absolutely are. It's a holding pattern, not a resolution.