Related videos:
In the year 334 BC, Alexander the Great began his campaign against Persia. Through a series of successive victories—Granicus, Issus, Tyre, and Gaugamela—the young king of Macedonia brought an end to the Empire of Darius III. A century and a half earlier, the Greeks had defeated the Persian kings Darius I and Xerxes I at Marathon, Salamis, and Plataea.
Three thousand three hundred fifty-five years after the Battle of Gaugamela, Donald Trump embarked on a necessary and complex crusade against dangerous enemies of freedom. Following the steps already taken, he is compelled to achieve a defeat of the Iranian fundamentalists and Cuban communists that is more decisive than Salamis, Plataea, Issus, and Gaugamela combined. If he fails to do so, neither the United States nor the world can feel secure.
The confrontation between the United States, Israel, and the Iranian regime has reached a critical juncture. Since February 28, 2026, when Washington and Jerusalem escalated their military and political actions against Tehran, the crisis has evolved from being merely a dispute over Iran's nuclear program into a significant test of strength, will, and leadership. The key question now is no longer just whether Iran will accept an agreement, but whether that agreement will truly prevent the ayatollahs' regime from maintaining the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
The recent history of this confrontation has shown that the Iranian regime only retreats when it feels truly cornered. For years, Tehran has used negotiations as a tool to buy time, ease sanctions, divide its adversaries, and keep the core of its nuclear program intact. At the same time, it has maintained a network of allied forces and terrorist groups—Hezbollah, the Houthis, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria—that threaten Israel, the Arab partners of the United States, and international maritime security.
Israel has always understood that a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat. The United States, for its part, knows that allowing Tehran to achieve that capability would weaken the entire strategic order of the Middle East, endanger its allies, and send a signal of impunity to other regimes hostile to the West. Therefore, the Iranian issue cannot be resolved with ambiguous statements or premature concessions. It can only be resolved with sustained pressure, credible military superiority, effective sanctions, and verifiable demands.
In recent weeks, various specialists have debated whether Donald Trump maintains a firm stance or, on the contrary, if his position has weakened in light of Iranian maneuvers. The more hardline analysts argue that any sign of hesitation strengthens Tehran. In their view, if Iran perceives that Washington fears escalation, the regime becomes more aggressive, more demanding, and more audacious. Other experts warn that a prolonged war would also have serious costs, but even they agree that diplomacy only works when backed by actual strength.
At this point, a connection of enormous importance for Cubans emerges. According to statements made by Donald Trump on various occasions, and as interpreted by many observers, the resolution of the Cuban issue could largely depend on the outcome of the Iranian problem. If the United States successfully addresses the threat from Tehran, it would have greater political, military, and strategic leverage to focus on other hostile regimes, including the Castro-communist regime. However, if Iran survives and emerges stronger, if it manages to portray the confrontation as a defeat for Washington, its authoritarian allies and partners would also be empowered.
The Iranian regime, like the Cuban communist regime, does not give in peacefully. Both negotiate seriously only when the possibility of a complete defeat becomes sufficiently realistic. Historical experience shows that ideological dictatorships do not abandon their instruments of domination through diplomatic promises, but rather when the cost of resistance becomes unbearable.
Therefore, the chances of a good agreement depend on one essential condition: that Iran does not retain the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. An acceptable agreement would need to include the transfer of enriched uranium, strict international inspections, real limits on the missile program, and the effective weakening of its regional terrorist networks. Anything short of that would merely be a dangerous truce.
If the Iranian regime recovers and strengthens, the threat will be greater for Israel, for the Middle East, for U.S. interests, and for the security of Washington's allies. It would also be bad news for the people subjected to dictatorships allied with Tehran, including Cuba.
Trump should listen to the specialists who recommend firmness without naivety: negotiate, yes, but from a position of strength; do not lift sanctions based on promises; do not accept opaque agreements; do not allow Iran to retain the ability to produce nuclear weapons. The quickest and fairest solution to the Iranian crisis, and also to the Cuban crisis, is to demonstrate that tyrannies only have two paths: to surrender or to fall like the Persians in those epic battles of Plataea and Gaugamela.
Filed under: