That is how I see it, it is not that they are wrong because as I see it, it fits directly in the views of a terrorist state and that directly hits towards their target. So what am I talking about? It is the article that the Guardian launched about an hour ago (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/07/iran-war-trump-midterm-ballot) where we see ‘Iran plots to deal Trump a blow in midterms by keeping him entangled in war’, so whilst we saw again and again that a deal was coming through soon, which I always doubted, we now see this and with “Tehran has set out a protracted negotiating timetable designed to keep Donald Trump embroiled in the Iran conflict until the midterm elections, in the hope of inflicting the same ruinous blow on his presidency as Jimmy Carter suffered over the 1979-81 US embassy hostage crisis. For many inside Iran, inflicting meaningful revenge on Trump is a legitimate and self-standing war aim, reflected in the mood of those attending the funeral of the supreme leader Ali Khamenei where demands for retribution were ubiquitous.” The move makes perfect sense and I think that this will be the case. But we also saw about hour ago (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/7/saudi-arabia-pakistan-and-turkiye-sign-defence-deal-amid-regional-turmoil) that Al Jazeera gave us ‘Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye sign defence deal amid regional turmoil’ as such Iran is in a bind because these three will attack Iran if any of them is attacked. This leaves me with two thoughts. The first one (of a humorous nature) is that this might be the first time in history where Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Israel have the same enemy, as such walking the streets of Tehran might be massively dangerous now. The other thought is that this puts the UAE standing alone and there is every chance that Iran will temper its false rage on the UAE, which is not a good thing. I feel better that I basically gave my military IP away to the UAE as well. Perhaps they can use it to sink the Iranian navy (it was a prototype, so it is not usable instantly). But this setting is now evolving, because the Guardian is also leaving us with “But the focus on the midterms became more obvious this week when the deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, told the official IRNA news agency that after agreeing a route for commercial shipping through the strait of Hormuz, it would take two to four months to reach the second phase of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. The original plan – to commence the nuclear phase of the talks within 30 days of signing June’s memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US – had been jettisoned by the Trump administration, Gharibabadi said. To get to that second stage, he laid out an obstacle course including the lifting of sanctions, the end of the US blockade of Iranian ports, the unfreezing of Iranian assets and new commitments on non-belligerence in a process that could last well beyond the midterms.” It also came to me yesterday as I wrote “Which beckons the setting for the midterm, because the military has its own share of democrats and when even one comes across with the actual numbers of all the stockpiles then no longer have, it is the opinion of this small, useless, humble blogger that the Midterms are set to the ‘inaccuracies’ surrounding those statements. A political deal done and it started with the actions surrounding February 28th 2026 and it wasn’t even a leap year.” (see previous article) and I wrote that story 10 hours ago, so I got to the setting of the midterms before the Guardian did, being it for different reasons. And all this gives us that either the United States uses what missiles they have to give Iran a one way ticket to the stone age, as such President Trump has a massive problem and if social media is to be believed, the setting of President Trump comes with prison time after he loses the Midterms. I have no clue if that could even be achieved, but that setting might be a disturbing one. Not for me, he has been massively nasty to Canada, so he would be getting what he deserved.
But as I see it the dangers to the UAE remains and I expect that they have no intent being the target of Iran any longer. As such I agree with the Guardian who gives us “From this perspective, the outcome of this war will not be played out on the battlefield, but at the ballot box. The agency suggested the outcome could affect the course of American domestic and foreign policy for years to come.” And we can all agree with that, because no matter how you see it, the worst case scenario is that Democrats start being nice to Iran, something that is globally unacceptable, still I have no interest looking into the mucky waters called American politics. And that reflecting pool will have its own set of disasters bound by time. So when we look at the end of the Guardian Article, we see “The bigger question is what Iran itself wants to achieve. Agreeing to keep the dispute simmering until November is not an answer to that question – one that Iranians are better at debating than resolving. Pezeshkian, working in alliance with Mohammad Ghalibaf, the chief negotiator, repeatedly says he does not want endless war, and insists that almost all the supreme national security council concur. He still has faith in the MoU, saying it should be the cornerstone of Iran’s foreign policy. But the conservative newspaper Kayhan describes the memorandum as worthless since the US always breaks its commitments. “Accordingly, officials should know that the strait of Hormuz is not a bargaining chip and should not be opened as a passage for America,” it said.”“ The only part I see happening is that price of oil will remain high and as I see it, it will not decrease nowhere near the midterms. That is a setting that the ‘speeches’ of President Trump also needs to bring him and I feel decently safe that the teleprompter will fail and President Trump will state that this was all a conspiracy theory (my turn to make a funny, Prime Minister Carney).
But the stage is not resolved, because as I see it (using the Al Jazeera article) where we see “The conflict has imperilled Saudi Arabia’s oil exports and ambitious development plans, and raises big questions about the reliability of its longstanding US security umbrella. While Turkiye and Pakistan have avoided significant direct attacks, both are anxious to calm regional conflicts that threaten their security and economies. The deal, named the “Mecca Joint Defence Agreement”, follows nearly a year of negotiations. Sealing the agreement in Mecca, the holiest site in Islam, adds symbolic heft to a pact that builds on longstanding bilateral military ties.” As such we see the this deal took the better part of a year to set, which means that this started all before the strikes on Iran started and that is good for the nations, but in that same setting it implies that they have had enough of Iran and I wrote about in on the second of June with “which was based on a 2019 idea on stopping Iran. With blocked harbours Iran becomes the isolated party others needed it to be” (in my article ‘Defeated by the timeline’) since then I added a few military IP’s to my arsenal, because we all have to remains creative at times. But it kinda shows that the UAE needs to evolve its military tactics and not always in a diplomatic way. Because the 537 ballistic missiles and 26 cruise missiles are evidence to that setting and there is a decent chance that the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait were all attacked in the near future and as Iran is a cowardly terrorist state, these nations will face more attacks. The “Mecca Joint Defence Agreement” are likely to keep three nations decently safe, the others might not be that lucky and that requires attention as well. And as I see it, they should not face attacks for the next 12 weeks, because Iran will suddenly play the little crying girl when the Trump danger has been settled and I don’t think that being nice to Iran is going to be an option before 2028, but that is merely me thinking and I think that enough gulf states are on the same page I am currently on. Yet this is not all, Al Jazeera raised a decent part with “Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from the Qatari capital, Doha, said the pact “essentially puts three of the largest Muslim populations together”, marking the beginning of a “different security architecture” in the region.” It might make a large difference, but personally I would have liked that the UAE was included in that deal and with that I possibly show my complete unawareness of Muslim politics, but that might be my weakness in all of this as I am not Muslim. So to all a great day and I am (alas) still 300 minutes away from breakfast.
