As President Trump feels uncertain about his foreign policy achievements, the U.S. 2020 election is fast approaching.  Trump fears that a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran will provide his domestic foes with an opportunity to damage his presidential campaign.

Unfortunately for him, the mullahs understand his concerns and goad him to move toward the trap.  Meanwhile, John Bolton's departure has sent a message to Iran that Trump is neither ready nor able to respond to Tehran's aggressiveness.

Regarding Iran’s previous misconduct, Trump almost fell into Tehran's trap by ordering an air strike on Iran.  However, he later shelved the operation, calculating the possible ripple effects of yet another military action abroad on his re-election campaign.

But the regime in Iran keeps going on its strategy.  The head of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), Hossein Salami, recently said that whoever wants his land to turn into the main battlefield, let it be.

Many in Washington, including both Republicans and Democrats, are skeptical about the resignation of the U.S. administration’s mastermind, former national security adviser John Bolton.  Trump has appointed another hawk, Robert O’Brien, whose advice has yet to be effective.  Iran apologists have not hidden their joy, as Bolton is known to be the main architect of the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign on Tehran.

Iran has threatened U.S. national interests, but a key question is how a military response to these perilous behaviors has become a high risk for President Trump's re-election campaign.

Iran apologists and proponents of dialogue in the U.S. have run a misinformation campaign under the banner "an end to endless wars by the U.S."

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a new think-tank funded by two massive financiers, George Soros and Charles Koch*, is at the center of this propaganda campaign.  It is worth noting that Quincy Institute co-founders like Trita Parsi, who is notoriously known for lobbying in favor of Tehran, have never mentioned or criticized the Iranian theocracy's nuclear weapons ambitions and attacks against regional countries.

In the latest of Iran’s provocations, its proxies in Iraq (arguably the IRGC) operated a series of missile and drone attacks on Saudi Arabia's oil plants, which disrupted at least five percent of the global oil market.  The theocracy and its proxies claim that the attacks were operated from Yemen, but Secretary Pompeo insists otherwise.

CBS News has reported that U.S. officials said that attack on Saudi oil facilities was approved by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, but only on the condition that it be carried out in a way that made it possible to deny Iranian involvement.  However, Tehran is already engaged in similar aggression in the Persian Gulf by shooting down an American drone and disrupting international waterways by seizing and attacking foreign oil tankers.

The regime in Iran is still pursuing a strategy of disrupting the oil market in order to pressure Western economies, hoping the proponents of the appeasement policy will persuade Trump to abandon his campaign of maximum pressure.

On Monday, 16 September, oil prices increased at least ten percent.  This means that the regime in Tehran has achieved half of its plan.  In response, Trump has vowed to impose more sanctions on Tehran as the U.S. Treasury has sanctioned Iran's central bank.

However, this sanction is not as significant as cutting the theocracy's oil exports.

After four years of war in Yemen, the Saudi-led coalition should fully understand that superiority in weapons does not necessarily bring power.  Saudi leaders need the willingness to respond appropriately to Tehran's aggression by targeting the Iranian regime's forces everywhere if necessary.  Such a policy is now vital for the Saudis.  The Saudi leader should know that if they rely only on sanctions to restrict the Iranian mullahs for the next attack, Saudi Arabia will become a vassal state under Tehran's thumb.

Some U.S. politicians such as Senator Lindsey Graham have already suggested this, arguing for targeted attacks on Iran's oil refineries.

To counter Iran's mischief, President Trump should first fathom the fact that to remain stuck in the current situation will be more harmful to his political future than pleasing the ''no to war'' wing.

Any crisis in the oil market can definitely damage the US administration's excellent economic record inside the US.

The U.S. and Saudi intelligence agencies have the capacity to target Iran and its IRGC, who are responsible for the attack.  At this crucial time, the U.S.-Arab bloc must decide whether they have the political courage to protect their national interests.  Indeed, Trump is stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, and the future will tell if he can manage it.

The pragmatic solution to the Iran crisis is to challenge theocracy in the streets of Tehran, less expensive for the U.S., and an alternative to war.

*corrected "Koch borthers" to "Charles Koch."

Hamid Bahrami is a former political prisoner from Iran and is currently studying journalism at Clyde College in Glasgow, Scotland.  He is a freelance journalist focusing on the Middle East affairs as his analysis appeared in various news outlets such as The Hill, Al Arabiya English, the Jerusalem Post, and the Daily Caller.  Bahrami tweets at @HaBahrami and blogs at analyzecom.