Riyadh | Bبث

The conflict enters its 60th day amid a notable shift:
negotiation deadlock is being met with escalating options of force, as U.S. moves place direct military scenarios on the table.

Overview

U.S. President Donald Trump is set to receive a briefing from CENTCOM Commander Brad Cooper on new plans for potential military action against Iran, signaling serious consideration of resuming broader combat operations.

Available indications point to a plan involving a “short, sharp wave” of strikes targeting sensitive infrastructure, aimed at breaking the stalemate in negotiations.

The options under consideration include:

• Securing parts of the Strait of Hormuz to reopen navigation
• Deploying ground forces in limited scenarios
• Conducting special operations to secure Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium

Meanwhile, Israel has raised its level of military readiness in anticipation of multiple scenarios, viewing the current phase as pivotal, while maintaining the blockade as a primary pressure tool without ruling out escalation.

These developments follow talks between Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with assessments indicating a U.S. inclination to maintain the naval blockade for months as leverage to push Tehran toward concessions in the nuclear file.

BETH Analysis

The situation is moving toward a dual-track strategy:

• Calibrated military pressure
• Negotiation under the shadow of force

Washington is not seeking an open war,
but rather a strike that breaks the deadlock without expanding the conflict.

In the background:

• Naval blockade = a tool of attrition
• Limited strikes = a tool of acceleration

Meanwhile, Israel operates under a logic of “constant readiness,”
awaiting the moment when pressure translates into results.

Options are on the table… but the decision has not yet been made.

On Day 60,
the question is no longer:

Will escalation occur?

Dual Tone in a Reported Statement Attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei

Mojtaba Khamenei, in a message attributed to him, said that “a new chapter is taking shape in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” affirming that his country “shares a common destiny with the Gulf states,” and adding that “the only place Americans belong in the Gulf is at the bottom of its waters.”

Iranian state television reported that the message, published on the platform “X,” stated that the Gulf will have “a bright future” without the presence of the United States.

BETH Analysis

The statement carries a dual tone:

• A direct threat to the U.S. presence
• A message of reassurance directed at Gulf states

This contrast is not new… but rather part of crisis management behavior.

Reading

1) Rhetorical maneuver

Iran is attempting to:

• Maintain its revolutionary rhetoric domestically
• While softening its tone toward its regional neighbors

 Combining escalation and reassurance in a single message

2) Pressure of reality

Amid:

• Sanctions
• Military pressure
• Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz

The rhetoric appears more cautious toward the Gulf… without retreating before Washington.

3) Testing the next path

The message may be:

• A test of Gulf reactions
• Or an attempt to separate them from the U.S. position

The statement should not be read as a transformation…
nor as a mere passing threat

But rather as:

A discourse attempting to adapt to pressure… without acknowledging it

Is it maneuver or change?

Most likely:

A maneuver under pressure

Not a complete strategic shift… yet

Additional Analysis

Mojtaba Khamenei’s statement should not be read as a passing escalation,
but as a calculated message addressing multiple audiences simultaneously.

The reference to a “shared destiny with the Gulf” is not a conciliatory proposition as much as it is an attempt to reduce the likelihood of opening an additional front,
while the threat toward the U.S. presence serves to maintain a posture of deterrence domestically.

In more precise terms, the message aims to:

• Neutralize Gulf states as much as possible
• Concentrate the confrontation toward a single direction (Washington)
• Avoid expanding the conflict regionally

Within this context, extending the pause in fighting should not be understood as a move toward stability,
but as a phase of pressure management rather than resolution.

In practical terms, any period of de-escalation provides Tehran—like other parties—with an opportunity to:

• Reduce internal costs
• Reprioritize
• Preserve negotiating leverage

But without indicating a real capability to impose a strategic shift in the trajectory of the conflict.

Further Analysis

The statement attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei can also be read as part of an attempt to manage the timing of escalation, not merely respond to it.

1) Delaying a strike (a potential objective)

• Reducing the likelihood of immediate escalation
• Sending mixed signals that may lower the justification for a strike

 Objective:
Buying additional time

2) Shifting the pressure

• From direct military pressure
• To political/negotiation pressure

 Reducing the cost of confrontation without declaring retreat

3) Redistributing risk

• Reassuring Gulf states → reducing the expansion of the conflict
• Focusing rhetoric against Washington → containing the confrontation

 Attempting to shape the “direction of any potential strike”

But importantly

This statement alone:

• Does not stop a military decision if it has already been made
• Does not fundamentally alter the balance of power

The statement reflects an attempt to delay or soften a potential strike.

It can also be understood as an effort to delay or mitigate any potential strike by lowering direct escalation and shifting pressure toward the political track.

But its impact remains limited:

Buying time.. not changing the decision.

Renewed Threat

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said that Israel may be forced to act again against Iran to ensure that Tehran does not pose a future threat.

He added that U.S. President Donald Trump, in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is leading efforts to achieve the campaign’s objectives, ensuring—according to his words—that Iran will no longer threaten Israel, the United States, or the “free world.”

BETH Analysis

The statement should not be read as a direct signal of an imminent operation,
but as a reaffirmation of a key principle:

Military action remains an open option… and is not off the table.

Notable elements in the statement:

• Linking Israeli action to coordination with Washington
• Expanding the threat narrative to include the “free world”
• Maintaining operational flexibility without committing to a timeline

This reflects:

Sustained pressure management… not an immediate declaration of escalation

The message is clear:

Previous strikes are not the end of the path…
but part of a trajectory that can continue.

BETH (بث B) – All rights reserved