Benjamin Netanyahu – Strategic Culture Foundation

Has Netanyahu defeated Trump? The honorless war on Iran and the question of Israeli nuclear blackmail

A A — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:35:54 +0000

When you dance with the devil, the dance isn’t done until you are done.

Join us on Telegram , Twitter, and VK .

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

When you dance with the devil, the dance isn’t done until you are done. U.S. President Trump may have believed he could manage Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s maniacal ambitions and succeed in a contest for power; sometimes hidden, other times open. Until February 27^th, considering the ending of the 12 Day War last summer, and also UNSC 2803 on Gaza, Trump appeared to have the upper hand. But on February 28th, the script would be flipped, resulting in an honorless war on Iran; not only on the Iranian government, military, and state institutions, but on the Iranian people themselves.

The victims in this are chiefly the people of Iran, starting with some 165 Iranian school girls at the Minab school in southern Iran, killed by Israeli strikes, though Iran will not remain victims as they push to become victors. Yet this conflict has other casualties too. Trump, MAGA, and whatever efforts at rebuilding American credibility appear to be among the ruins of the US-Israeli attack on the sovereign nation of Iran, and the despicable assassination of its leader Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei. It appears that the U.S. has passed the point of no return.

The solemn burial of the 165 school girls wantonly slaughtered by U.S.-Israeli attacks

Some time ago the U.S. pushed the world into mayhem in the domain of international law. The Western powers had, since the end of the 20^th century Cold War, begun to shift away from a formal acknowledgement of international law, and pursued the rhetoric and practice of a so-called “rules based order”; one where the rules were unilaterally created by the Washington consensus, and were fluid, constantly shifting, conveniently and hypocritically to meet the needs of the American imperial machine. Trump’s mandate, from the American people, was to restore international law and credibility. But in the 47^th administration, there were some disconcerting signs early on that this would not be the case, even if somewhat hilarious. Threats made against Greenland and Canada were more comical than worrisome at the time. The strange (if mutually agreeable) outcomes with Venezuela seemed to have been a win-win for both countries. Nationalists laughed, globalists cried; but it’s all fun and games until it’s not.

So today to describe the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran as “violations of international law”, or “war crimes”, while no doubt true, feel very much like meaningless technical phrases from a bygone era. And in this new day and age, it is therefore clearer and more germane to simply describe these viscerally as murderous and valourless. It is mass murder, for at the time of writing, more than a thousand Iranian people have been killed in these wanton attacks, and this is simply ignominious, for Iran posed no imminent threat and the U.S. was engaged with Iran in negotiations towards a peaceable resolution of their differences. It was right when the U.S. and Iran had all but tentatively agreed that Israel notified the U.S. that it was about to strike, and it is important to meditate on the profoundly dishonorable and discrediting nature of the U.S. going in on the attack instead of pushing to halt it.

Trump apparently made the grievous error, one of potentially world-changing proportions, to join in with these attacks, unlike the way his administration handled Israel’s attacks last summer. We have arrived at a catastrophic inflection point for the MAGA project and American credibility. It is impossible to underscore enough the extraordinary damage done to the U.S.’s efforts to improve its reputation under Trump, after decades of neoconservative and neoliberal imperialist adventurism in the post-Cold War period which ostensibly the Trump project was aimed at reversing.

Nuclear Blackmail?

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou claimed back in November of 2025 that Netanyahu threatened Trump with Israeli nuclear strikes on Iran, if Trump did not go along with a conventional strike at the time. Kiriakou says this information comes to him from a trusted source, and Kiriakou’s own credentials, history, and credibility as a whistle-blower who served time in U.S. prison as a result of his commitment to truth, combined with his unique access to insider information, leads us to give high credence to his testimony.

Former CIA Counter-terrorism office John Kiriakou in the November 2025 interview

According to Kiriakou:

“The reason though, I’m told that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran, was that the Israelis said for the first time, ‘If you don’t bomb Iran to take out these deep bunkers, we are going to use nuclear weapons.’ And they have never threatened that before. And so Trump said, bombing Iran might actually save us from the start of World War III, if it keeps the Israelis from using nuclear weapons.”

In addition, we are forced to account for the conclusions of ex Saudi intel chief Prince Turki al-Faisal, who explains that Netanyahu “convinced” Trump to support him on February 28th, concluding that “This is Netanyahu’s war”.

Al Faisal’s interview with Amanpour on CNN, March 4, 2026

Trump has apparently been outmaneuvered by the Zionist establishment, even if this was the result of nuclear blackmail, and has driven MAGA smack into a Zionist brick wall, while we should caution that these are unfolding events and this is but the read of things as of today.

Trump has been trapped, compromised, and outplayed by Netanyahu and the Israeli establishment, resulting in U.S. participation in a horrifically discrediting and strategically counterproductive war on Iran. While Trump might attempt to salvage the situation, more will rely on the diplomatic and strategic intervention of BRICS leaders like Russia, China, and even India, to de-escalate this crisis.

Eliminating Khamenei was strategically self-defeating even in the narrowest and immediate sense, as the Ayatollah was arguably a moderating force on the nuclear question, and Iran’s technocratic system ensures institutional continuity regardless of leadership decapitation. It would be understandable, even expected, now if Iran were indeed to pursue nuclear weapons, assessing what has happened in some part no doubt because they do not apparently have one now. Which is not to say they ought to, but who could readily blame them today if they did?

The Kiriakou claim about Israeli nuclear blackmail, if true, represents nuclear terrorism by definition, but there is a fundamental flaw in the logic of compliance: if Trump bombed Iran to prevent an Israeli nuclear strike last summer, nothing prevents Israel from issuing the same threat again with escalating demands. The leverage problem is not resolved by submission to it, which is perhaps then what we have seen again on February 28th.

Rubio’s disavowal of the Khamenei assassination is another strange factor in this. Is it plausible deniability, or a reflection of team Trump having lost control of the situation? Kiriakou’s claim of Israeli nuclear threats against Trump, Saudi complaints about the lack of defense for US regional bases, Prince Turki al-Faisal’s conclusion that Netanyahu pushed Trump into the war, and reports of Iranian retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases for which the Americans were underprepared, all lend towards the conclusion that the U.S. lost control of the situation and did not seek a confrontation where increasingly successful negotiations were merely a ruse.

Khamenei’s Assassination: Strategic Futility

The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei was counterproductive on its own terms. The Ayatollah was elderly, physically declining, and had perhaps a few years remaining. If the objective was to prevent Iranian nuclearization, Khamenei’s continued leadership served that purpose better than his removal.

Iran operates as a “meritocratic technocracy” organized around organizations of experts, where individuals are promoted to below their level of competence: the next tier of leadership is perpetually prepared. This is a system governed by institutions, not men, with the sole exception of the Supreme Ayatollah’s interpretive authority. Decapitation strikes against such a system are structurally futile, and in terms of morale within Iran, these do not serve to reduce it but to strengthen their resolve and unity.

Trump’s previous behavior is inconsistent with the interpretation that he simply wanted war with Iran. Historical friction with Pompeo and Bolton, friction with Netanyahu, the fact that military conditions favored an attack far more in 2017-2018, and the events of the 12-Day War in which Trump forced Israeli jets to turn around, as they were trying to break the ceasefire just agreed to, in such a way that would pull the U.S. in the way we see now. These all point in the direction of Trump’s preference for non-military solutions at times when military conditions and a more coherent casus belli were more favorable than now. We may recall Trump being quite irate at Israel for trying to break the ceasefire:

“Uh they violated, but Israel violated it, too. Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs the likes of which I’ve never seen before. The biggest load that we’ve seen. I’m not happy with Israel. You know, when when I say, “Okay, now you have 12 hours.” You don’t go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So, I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning because of one rocket that didn’t land that was shot perhaps by mistake that didn’t land. I’m not happy about that. You know what we have? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*ck they’re doing. Do you understand that?”

Trump’s irate comments to the Guardian about Israel’s bellicosity at the end of the 12 Day War

Conclusively, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statements to press more or less confirm that Israel initiated the conflict, and the U.S. went ahead and joined it, on the rationale that Iran would retaliate against both parties even if Israel was the chief provocateur. While from the perspective of international law, the U.S. had no business threatening Iran in the first place, within that microcosm of reality, there is a certain logic to it. Iran, after all, is not in the business of being fooled by any sort of ‘good cop/bad cop’ antics, nor would they let the U.S. off the hook by buying into some sort of plausible deniability. Moreover, Iran had already warned the U.S. that any strike from either party would result in a firm military response aimed at numerous U.S. military bases and installations in the region. Rubio accounts that the Pentagon’s assessment was that because Iran would strike the U.S. anyhow, even though Israel was the aggressor, then the U.S. had better join in on the initial attack in order to mitigate their own losses.

But Rubio’s response points to a broader reality. Rubio, on behalf of the administration, had effectively shifted blame onto Israel and the Pentagon, and in so doing attempted to deflect responsibility and tell a story that “our hands were tied” by the logic of the conflict. It’s a fair point, within the problematic setup that the U.S. had created for itself in the first place, we should note.

At the end of the day, it is most probable that Israel will begin soon to pressure the U.S. to engage in ceasefire talks with the Iranians. According to Israel’s Ynet, the Americans themselves apparently tried to immediately end the conflict right as it started, but because the Israelis (if we are to believe Rubio) had assassinated Khamenei, the Iranians weren’t having it. After all, the U.S. or Israel has now attacked Iran three times already, entirely unprovoked. Iran has planned for a multi-year war, and Khamenei’s strategic legacy was one of preparing Iran for such a conflict, with a victory strategy contingent upon decentralizing their forces within Iran, withstanding ongoing and major strikes on buildings associated with traditional command and control in Tehran, the ensuing havoc upon the global economy that such a war would create including the Strait of Hormuz, combined with Israel’s relative inability to take punches for too long – the same metric that forced Israel to push the U.S. for a ceasefire at the end of the 12 Day War last summer.

The attacks on U.S. bases in the region are meant to disrupt the ability for the aggressors to resupply and support Israel, paving the way for increasingly effective attacks on Israeli military targets like we have seen before.

Trump is no doubt in store for a very painful lesson due to his honorless bellicosity in service of Netanyahu’s unhinged war-mongering. Does he have a trick up his sleeve? Will he once again pull a rabbit out of the hat? He has surprised the world numerous times, so time will tell. But as things look, his project appears burnt and there is little sympathy for his own political survival among large swathes of his former supporters. Can he get them back? Can dead school children be brought back to life? There’s no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. At the same time, if Iran succeeds at hitting the U.S. and Israel hard, and Trump is able to end this conflict sooner than later, the world will be better off for it. As for Israel’s alleged nuclear blackmail, that’s a gift that keeps on giving, and one that needs to be confronted.

Follow Joaquin on Telegram @NewResistance or on X/Twitter @XoaquinFlores

Israel’s mission: to set the Middle East ablaze

A A — Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:26:19 +0000

What is certain is that the situation is heating up and could become very, very dangerous if Israel is not stopped in time.

Join us on Telegram , Twitter, and VK .

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A little clarity for everyone

Pakistan has attacked Afghanistan. American aircraft carriers have broken toilets. The embassies of twelve states are calling on their citizens and diplomatic staff to leave Iran. How are all these events connected? Let’s take a strategic and geopolitical look.

The situation after January’s “Operation 13 Days,” in which Western intelligence services plotted and attempted yet another regime change in the Islamic Republic of Iran through the old method of organized protests, was one of encirclement of Iran by U.S. armed forces, concurrent with negotiations between the American and Iranian governments. The whole world cried out against the U.S., which, with its usual gangster-like arrogance, put Iran under pressure, creating no small number of problems.

But what if the perspective were broader than that?

From a strategic point of view, both military and diplomatic, what we have seen is this: the U.S. and Iran open diplomatic talks; the U.S. surrounds them with its military force. If we stick to a technical analysis, this gesture has meant putting up a wall of military defense between Iran and… Israel.

That’s right: Israel is the country that is trying to provoke an escalation in the Middle East, pressuring the U.S. for authorization and military support to attack Iran. Without the U.S., Israel would risk ending up like a squashed fly, making a lot of noise and disturbing everyone, but it wouldn’t take much to wipe it out. This link is essential. If we admit this possibility, which, I repeat, makes strategic sense, we realize that there is an attempt at collaboration between the U.S. and Iran to redraw the maps of the Middle East. And this makes sense and is indispensable for reducing the power of the Zionist entity, reshaping Arab influences, and agreeing on zones of influence. An absurd idea? We will see in six or seven months.

If we look more closely, we realize that it is Israel itself that has tried to detonate the conflict, creating various enmities and breaking points. A method already known on the international scene. And this is where the Pakistan issue comes in.

When plumbers are lacking

If we broaden our view, we see that Israel has meanwhile tried to run for cover and has rushed to find some new allies. The first was India. The country led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is thirsty for military technology, particularly nuclear technology, and with the agreement signed with Netanyahu, it will have access to Israeli and American technology. This choice is consistent with both the political stance of the current Indian leadership and the concrete needs of the world’s most populous country.

In order to be a power, it must have access to a range of technologies that will allow it to remain at the top of the competition, technologies that it cannot obtain from China, its long-standing rival. Israel is well aware of this, which is why it has stepped in and tried to fragment the rapprochement that had been achieved thanks to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which had managed to bring the RIC (Russia-India-China), the three great superpowers, to the table, reaching a historic agreement on cooperation and healing the animosities of the past.

And how does Israel go against China as well, trying to create a zone of negotiation with the U.S., which cannot stand China? It inserts itself into Pakistan, which has excellent relations with China and is also a rival of India. Two possible victories in one fell swoop. But perhaps even more than that.

The detonation of a conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in fact, does what the U.S. did not want to do: set the region on fire, but in the East, not in the West. In this way, Iran finds itself indirectly involved, since the well-known tensions with the Balochistan region, between Pakistan and Iran, and also the political relations that have stabilized positively with the new Afghan leadership, are now being called into question and become the subject of a series of problems to be resolved.

This choice is still a Plan B, but it makes sense. By setting the region ablaze, Israel is aiming for a change in the balance of power in the medium term, not immediately. The only way to escalate the situation is to involve the U.S. in the Pakistan-Afghanistan affair, perhaps by offering the Washington government the opportunity to return to Kabul. What is certain is that the USS Ford, with 35 hydraulic engineers on board, did not suffer a ‘random’ failure of its toilets: the tampering with one of the largest warships in the world (and other ships as well) is a simple but effective way of telling Israel that no, they have no intention of engaging in a war in the Middle East right now to satisfy the follies of the genocidal Netanyahu.

Then there is the other player that is being called into the field, Russia, which has kept its distance for the moment, leaving the U.S. to deal with Iran. Russia has already made a significant retreat from the region with the loss of exclusive access to the Caucasus, due to the century-old agreement between the U.S., Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Russia, which mediated the transition in Afghanistan with incredible foresight, could now be called upon, precisely by Israel, to have its say. In this way, Israel also aims to disrupt the hard work of rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia, which objectively constitutes a major barrier to Zionist ambitions, but this could also become an opportunity for Russia and the U.S. to disqualify Israel from the game. How? By allowing at least part of this escalation to come to light, revealing the Israeli mind behind it all, in order to completely delegitimize Israeli authority and its influence in the world.

It is not yet entirely clear who is pushing whom in this strange conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, nor how things will end between Iran and the U.S… what is certain is that the situation is heating up and could become very, very dangerous if Israel is not stopped in time.

EUA e Israel: Quem é o senhor e quem é a colônia?

A A — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 17:03:37 +0000

Tel-Aviv instrumentalizará os EUA enquanto isso servir aos seus próprios interesses expansionistas.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK .

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A Coalizão Epstein (EUA e Israel) iniciou no dia 28 de fevereiro uma guerra contra a República Islâmica do Irã. O tiro de partida foi o assassinato de 171 meninas numa escola primária (talvez como sacrifício a Baal, divindade favorita dos epsteinianos?), seguido pelo martírio do Aiatolá Ali Khamenei, em sua própria residência.

Foi o início de uma “operação” que os EUA esperavam ver terminada em algumas horas, depois em 3 dias. Bem, já passam de 6 dias de operação e todos os analistas indicam que a guerra durará, no mínimo, algumas semanas, com perdas significativas em ambos os lados.

O que levou essa operação a ser iniciada? A resposta fácil e previsível é que os EUA querem o petróleo e outros recursos naturais do Irã.

Usualmente, quem raciocina dessa maneira tende, também, a dizer que o Estado de Israel representa um enclave dos EUA ou do “Ocidente coletivo” no Oriente Médio, cuja finalidade seria servir de entreposto para facilitar ou possibilitar a ocupação da região, para garantir a exploração dos seus recursos naturais. É o resultado inevitável, talvez, de olhar para as estatísticas comparadas de ambos países.

Os EUA são maiores, têm um PIB maior, forças armadas mais poderosas e mais numerosas, possuem mais bilionários, enfim, são “superiores” em todos os quesitos possíveis e imagináveis, de modo que só se pode perceber a relação EUA-Israel como uma na qual os EUA mandam e Israel obedece.

De fato, as leituras marxianas e, em geral, materialistas vão nesse sentido. Mas a Guerra do Irã confirma essa avaliação?

Se é Israel a colônia obediente dos EUA, então a decisão de iniciar o conflito teria sido eminentemente dos EUA, com Israel simplesmente obedecendo à determinação de sua “metrópoles”.

Mas aquilo que se percebe das declarações oficiais do Secretário de Estado Marco Rubio e do Secretário de Guerra Pete Hegseth é exatamente o oposto: eles deixaram bastante claro em suas coletivas de imprensa que os EUA se envolveram no conflito apenas porque Israel já havia decidido atacar o Irã, com Washington simplesmente seguindo a determinação sionista.

Usou-se o artifício de alegar um plano de ataque preventivo por parte do Irã, mas o artifício foi rapidamente abandonado após ter sido refutado pelo Pentágono. De fato, o Irã não tinha qualquer plano de atacar seja os EUA, seja Israel.

Em outras palavras, Israel teria feito os EUA atacarem o Irã. Como isso é possível?

A solução para o mistério parece estar no papel da comunidade judaica dos EUA e sua influência sobre os negócios internos do país, tenham seus membros cidadania israelense ou não. Afinal, apesar de compor apenas 2.4% da população dos EUA, 25% dos seus membros possui renda equivalente ao 4% mais ricos entre os não judeus.

E se em muitos países, boa parte da comunidade judaica é crítica ou indiferente a Israel, nos EUA 90% dos membros da comunidade apoiam Israel contra seus inimigos. E esse apoio não é meramente verbal, expressando-se através da organização formal de lóbis que financiam candidatos pró-Israel e prejudicam candidatos anti-Israel, a mais famosa dessas organizações sendo a AIPAC, a qual investiu quase 130 milhões de dólares para eleger seus candidatos em 2024.

Um ativo muito mais importante, porém, é o fato de que, tal como indicado pela renda, muitos membros dessa comunidade ocupam postos de poder e influência na mídia de massa, no sistema bancário e no entretenimento. Mesmo sendo apenas, novamente, 2.4% da população dos EUA, constituem 33% dos CEOs dos principais bancos, 40% dos CEOs dos principais conglomerados midiáticos e 50% dos CEOs das principais empresas da indústria do entretenimento.

E esses são os setores que, basicamente, controlam o fluxo de investimentos, bem como moldam as opiniões e gostos da população do país.

Anos atrás, os geopolitólogos John Mearsheimer e Stephen Walt lançaram um ótimo livro sobre o lóbi sionista nos EUA. O que eles deixam bem claro naquela obra é que o apoio dos EUA a Israel não está vinculado a qualquer interesse estratégico de Washington. O custo de apoiar Israel é imenso, tanto em dinheiro quanto na popularidade internacional dos EUA. De fato, os EUA apenas se prejudicam ao apoiar Israel contra seus inimigos.

Então como se poderia dizer que os EUA controlam Israel?

Voltando à atual administração presidencial, personagens como Hegseth e Lindsay Graham admitem abertamente que o principal objetivo dos EUA é facilitar a reconstrução do Templo de Jerusalém para abrir o caminho para a vinda do Messias dos judeus. Escatologicamente, o problema aí é que, para católicos, ortodoxos e protestantes tradicionais, o Messias dos judeus é o Anticristo.

Por mais que Israel seja dependente da ajuda financeira e militar dos EUA, o sionismo capturou os mecanismos de decisão e formação da opinião pública de maneira tão total que praticamente poderíamos comparar o hegemon unipolar a um golem acéfalo. No lugar de “America First”, é a política do “Israel First”.

Enquanto bases, radares, aviões e pessoal dos EUA é atingido por chuvas de mísseis e drones, e Washington vai perdendo influência e capacidade de projetar poder no Oriente Médio, torna-se inevitável chegar à conclusão de que é Israel quem dá as cartas nessa relação, e que Tel-Aviv instrumentalizará os EUA enquanto isso servir aos seus próprios interesses expansionistas.

As Security Council stalls, there are other ways to stop U.S.-Israeli war on Iran

A A — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 12:00:57 +0000

By Marjorie COHN

Join us on Telegram , Twitter, and VK .

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A “Uniting for Peace” resolution in the UN General Assembly can counter the Security Council’s failure to act.

Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.

Already 555 Iranians — including 180 students at a girls’ elementary school in Minab — have been reported dead in the war of aggression launched February 28 by President Donald Trump and his accomplice, accused war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against Iran.

“Operation Epic Fury involves the largest regional concentration of American military firepower in a generation,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

This aggression has destabilized the region and triggered Iran’s legitimate exercise of self-defense.

The U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran violates the United Nations Charter, which requires that all states settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of armed force except in self-defense under Article 51 after an armed attack against a UN state by another state, or when the Security Council authorizes it.

Before February 28, Iran had not mounted an armed attack against any country, nor did it pose an imminent threat to the U.S., Israel, or another UN member state. And the Security Council had not authorized the use of military force against Iran.

The timing of the U.S.-Israeli attacks undermines the pretext that the U.S. and Israel had been engaging in good-faith negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Netanyahu Convinced Trump to Withdraw From the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2017

Trump claimed he attacked Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

The negotiations preceding the February 28 attack must be examined in the context of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that was negotiated by France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany, the U.S., and Iran during the Obama administration.

In the JCPOA, Iran agreed to restrict its uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. In return, the U.S. unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian assets to provide relief from punishing sanctions. Until Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal during his first administration, the JCPOA had been working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“Iran has gotten rid of all of its highly enriched uranium,” Jessica T. Mathews wrote in an 2017 article in The New York Review. “It has also eliminated 99 percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium…. All enrichment has been shut down at the once-secret, fortified, underground facility at Fordow.… Iran has disabled and poured concrete into the core of its plutonium reactor — thus shutting down the plutonium as well as the uranium route to nuclear weapons. It has provided adequate answers to the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s] long-standing list of questions regarding past weapons-related activities.”

Nevertheless, in 2017, Netanyahu convinced Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal. “I asked [Trump] to leave the JCPOA,” Netanyahu b ragged. “It was me who made him to depart from the deal.”

Had the JCPOA remained in force, the current U.S.-Israeli aggression would almost certainly not have happened.

Negotiations Were Bearing Fruit But U.S. and Israel Attacked Anyway

Before the February 28 U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, the country of Oman had been brokering negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. and Israel insisted that Iran stop enriching uranium, limit its ballistic missile program, and end support for its “proxies” Hezbollah and the Houthis.

On February 27, Oman’s foreign minister said on CBS News that the negotiations had made significant progress and Iran had agreed to more concessions than those contained in the JCPOA. A nuclear agreement was “within our reach,” he st ated.

Nevertheless, Trump maintained that diplomacy had been exhausted. The U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran the next day.

In his videotaped announcement, Trump misleadingly stated that the Iranian government has “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions.”

Citing no evidence, Trump declared that the Iranian regime “has built nuclear weapons.” This contradicted his declaration in June 2025 after his bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites that the U.S. had “obliterated” its nuclear program.

Israel erroneously stated that Iran is armed with nuclear weapons. For the past two decades, Israel has claimed that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Trump said that in order to avoid a war, Iran would have had to say “those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’” But Iran has stated this several times. In fact, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons in 2004.

The Trump administration has admitted it has no evidence Iran is weaponizing its uranium enrichment program, or even that it has restarted enriching uranium since last June. Iran has always maintained that it enriches uranium for peaceful purposes, as permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

There is also no evidence that Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could hit the United States.

The purpose of the joint U.S.-Israeli operation, Netanyahu said, was “to remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran.”

“Netanyahu’s agenda has always been to prevent a diplomatic solution, and he feared Trump was actually serious about getting a deal, so the start of this war in the middle of negotiations is a success for him, just like it was last June,” Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told Al Jazeera.

U.S.-Israeli Aggression and Iran’s Self-Defense

The U.S.-Israeli use of force against Iran violates its sovereignty and territorial integrity and thus constitutes illegal aggression, which was considered the “supreme international crime” at Nuremberg.

Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter says that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Aggression is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. An “act of aggression” is “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. Aggression includes “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.”

A “preemptive” strike (purportedly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons) violates the UN Charter and constitutes aggression.

Professor Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, posted on X: “I strongly condemn the Israeli & US aggression against Iran, in violation of the most fundamental rule of international law — the ban on the use of force. All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order.”

Article 51 of the Charter says, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

After the U.S. and Israel mounted these armed attacks, Iran was permitted to act in self-defense.

When the UN Security Council Drops the Ball, the General Assembly Can Act

The UN Security Council met on February 28 but it did not pass a resolution addressing the U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iran.

If the U.S. prevents the Security Council from acting to restore international peace and security, the General Assembly can convene under “Uniting for Peace,” a resolution passed by the General Assembly to bypass the Soviet Union’s veto during the Korean War.

The General Assembly can recommend that its member states impose arms and trade embargoes on the U.S. and Israel. The General Assembly could also suspend the U.S. and Israel from its ranks. These decisions would require a vote of two-thirds of the 193 General Assembly member states.

An Illegal Effort to Engineer Forcible Regime Change in Iran

Both Trump and Netanyahu have made it clear that they seek regime change in Iran, and their killing of Khamenei is consistent with that goal. Forcible regime change is illegal.

The UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights all guarantee the right of peoples to self-determination. The two covenants have the same first sentence of Article 1: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

This isn’t the first time the U.S. has engaged in forcible regime change in Iran.

In 1953, the CIA covertly orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, against British oil interests. The U.S. then installed the vicious Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran with an iron fist for 25 years.

But the chickens came home to roost. The Shah was overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and replaced with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s theocracy.

When Khomeini died in 1989, he was succeeded by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated on February 28 by U.S. and Israeli strikes. This time, U.S. regime change in Iran is overt.

“For decades, the United States has sought to destabilize Iran, a critical Asian power situated at the intersection of three major continents and multiple waterways,” the Committee of Anti-Imperialists in Solidarity with Iran (CASI) said in a statement.

Since 1953, “Iran has weathered both the direct and indirect effects of U.S. imperialism, culminating in a brutal devastating eight-year military aggression (1980-88) and a devastating sanctions regime that has denied Iranians’ access to basic medical supplies, infrastructure, foodstuffs, and led to astronomical inflation,” the CASI statement said. “Over the last few decades, Iran has suffered assassinations of its scientists and generals, bombings of critical infrastructure, and repeated violations of its sovereignty and attacks on its national development.”

Now the U.S. and Israel are touting U.S. resident Reza Pahlavi, son of the notorious Shah of Iran, as a puppet to run Iran’s government. Media outside Iran “has been used a lot to try to project an image of an immense popularity, much more than it actually is,” Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said on Democracy Now! “He does enjoy a base in the diaspora. He does have a growing base inside Iran. We see his name being chanted by people, as far as the protests. But there’s also sort of an authoritarian and undemocratic movement of people around him.”

In fact, “[t]he Trump administration appears to have no long-term plan, no sense of what the U.S. ultimately aims to achieve, and no answer to what happens after the American-Israeli assault,” Nicholas Grossman wrote at LiberalCurrents. “The president is talking about regime change, and missiles are flying at government targets, but there’s no ground force ready to take control if it fails.”

Countries Can Prosecute Under Universal Jurisdiction

How can the leaders of the U.S. and Israel be held accountable for their crimes in Iran?

The U.S., Israel, and Iran are not parties to the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). So the ICC would have no jurisdiction to prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders for war crimes.

But under well-established principles of international law, the crimes prosecuted by the ICC — including war crimes — are crimes of universal jurisdiction.

The doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows any country to try foreign nationals for the most atrocious crimes, even without any direct relationship to the prosecuting country. That means other nations can prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders for the war crime of targeting civilians.

Indeed, the United States has taken jurisdiction over foreign nationals in anti-terrorism, anti-narcotics trafficking, war crimes, and torture cases. The U.S. government tried, convicted, and sentenced Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr. to federal prison for torture committed in Liberia. Israel tried, convicted, and executed Adolph Eichmann for his crimes during the Holocaust.

The War Powers Resolution

In addition, U.S. participation in the war on Iran violates U.S. statutory law.

The U.S. War Powers Resolution permits the president to introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only (1) after Congress has declared war; (2) in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”; or (3) when there is “specific statutory authorization.” None of those three conditions was met before the U.S. attacked Iran.

Trump launched a major war against Iran without seeking congressional approval.

The Senate will vote this week on the War Powers Resolution that Senators Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) co-sponsored. It says, “Congress hereby directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.”

There is little or no chance that this resolution will pass, however, as the majority of U.S. legislators, including some Democrats, support Trump’s war of aggression on Iran.

Meanwhile, the United States has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it is the only country ever to have used them. Israel also possesses nuclear weapons, in spite of Security Council Resolution 687, which was a step toward the goal of creating a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone throughout the Middle East.

Former UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber referred to “[t]he US-Israel Axis” as “the greatest threat facing humanity today.” He posted on X:

A murderous bombing campaign in Iran, continuing genocide in Palestine, serial aggression abroad, belligerent occupation of several countries, acts of transnational terrorism, repression at home, schemes to profit from murder and colonization, systematic coverup of the Mossad-Epstein operations, massive corruption of the public and private sectors across the West, sanctions against human rights defenders and international courts, attacks on international institutions, the dismantling of international law, mass surveillance of the rest of us, and a growing trail of blood and destruction around the globe.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers issued a statement on February 28, in which it urged “all states to immediately implement an arms embargo on Israel and the U.S., withdraw their ambassadors, and pursue legal actions to hold their military and political officials accountable.”

An overwhelming majority of people in the United States oppose U.S. perpetration of the war in Iran. They must make their views known to their congressmembers and take collective action in opposition to Trump-Netanyahu’s dangerous aggression against Iran.

Original article: truthout.org

Stuck in another disastrous Middle East war

A A — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 15:20:20 +0000

By Ron PAUL

Join us on Telegram , Twitter, and VK .

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Unfortunately, President Trump listened to the neocons and Benjamin Netanyahu instead of his MAGA base and other voices of caution as he launched a surprise attack on Iran over the weekend.

For the second time in nine months, the US Administration used negotiations with Iran as a cover to launch a pre-planned attack.

Last week’s talks produced “progress” according to all sides, with technical teams set to meet this week to work out the details. President Trump, however, suddenly announced that he was not happy with the talks because the Iranian side refused to say “the magic words” that they would not pursue nuclear weapons.

But Iran has been insisting for decades that they have no interest in producing a nuclear weapon and our own intelligence has confirmed that they are not doing so.

Shortly after President Trump’s announcement, the US and Israel launched their attack, killing Iran’s religious leader along with some 40 other political and military leaders in a “decapitation” strike.

It was supposed to be like the Venezuela operation. Quick and painless for the US. Kill the leadership and the long-suffering people would take to the streets and reclaim their country. It may make a good plot for a Hollywood movie, but in real life these regime change operations have never worked. Millions did take to the streets in Iran, but it was to mourn the slain Ayatollah and to reaffirm support for their government.

Just like we “rallied around the flag” after the attacks on 9/11.

Quickly, Iranian retaliation for the attacks began to take their toll on US assets and Israel. US soldiers have been killed and US fighter jets have been shot down. US bases in the region are either damaged or destroyed. Likewise, US embassies and consulates have come under attack, including by Iraqis likely still furious over the US destruction of their country 20 years ago.

And, with the Pentagon warning that the operation may go weeks instead of days, we are quickly running out of missiles.

Billions of dollars have already been spent on this unprovoked attack, and when the smoke clears – if it does – we may see hundreds of billions or maybe much more having been wasted on yet another Middle East war. Just what President Trump promised he would not do.

The neocon “cakewalk” crowd, including Lindsey Graham and others, have been proven wrong again. Tragically, more American servicemembers may die while the neocons blame someone else for the fiasco they helped launch.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the US/Israeli attack that “this combination of forces enables us to do what I have longed to do for 40 years…”

But the purpose of the US military is not to fulfill the decades-old wishes of foreign leaders. There is a good reason we have a Constitution that says only Congress can declare war.

Launching a military strike during negotiations will have lasting negative effects for the United States. Who would ever trust US diplomacy again if talks are used as a distraction for pre-planned attacks?

The Administration is doing its best to spin this unfolding disaster as all going according to plan, but what is the plan? No one knows. Do they know?

Here’s a plan: End this today. Return the destroyed US bases to the countries where they are located. And just come home. That is what a real “America first” movement looks like.

Original article: ronpaulinstitute.org

Os precursores da guerra estão em ação: o Irã é o ponto central de intensas disputas políticas para definir o futuro pós-Trump

A A — Wed, 07 Jan 2026 21:01:39 +0000

Na reunião de 30 de dezembro com Netanyahu e sua equipe, o presidente Trump comprometeu-se publicamente a atacar o Irã.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK .

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Na reunião de 30 de dezembro com Netanyahu e sua equipe, o presidente Trump comprometeu-se publicamente a atacar o Irã: se eles continuarem com seu programa de mísseis balísticos, “sim”. E quanto ao programa nuclear: “imediatamente”. “Vamos acabar com eles”, disse Trump.

Em contraste com essa beligerância, a linguagem de Trump na reunião em Mar-a-Lago refletiu apenas cordialidade e elogios efusivos a Netanyahu e Israel. Publicamente, Netanyahu recebeu o apoio público de Trump para um ataque ao Irã e para a Fase Dois de Gaza, mas nos bastidores muitos dos detalhes permaneceram indefinidos e contestados.

A linguagem escalada em relação ao Irã não foi surpresa para Teerã. Era esperada. Todos os indícios de hostilidades iminentes estão à vista: a narrativa escalonada – “centenas de células adormecidas da Al-Qaeda prontas para desencadear uma carnificina; a Al-Qaeda encontrou refúgio seguro no Irã por 25 anos… [permitindo ao Irã] impulsionar a disseminação do fundamentalismo islâmico”, afirma um “infiltrado do MI5 e do MI6”. Na hora certa, a moeda iraniana cai vertiginosamente – e os iranianos vão às ruas.

O que está por trás desse surto de militarismo americano-israelense? A bravata de Trump sobre “as portas do inferno” se abrirem para “quem quer que seja” já é familiar a todos nós. No entanto, os sinais indicam que Trump e Netanyahu estão alinhados para mais uma rodada de guerra.

Mas por que Netanyahu estaria optando por uma ação cinética quando Israel foi tão gravemente marcado pelos sofisticados mísseis iranianos durante a chamada guerra dos 12 dias de junho – e quando as defesas aéreas israelenses se mostraram deficientes? O Irã vem se rearmando e se preparando para uma nova rodada desde então.

É necessário algum contexto para explicar esse caminho aparentemente irracional que Israel está seguindo – dados os perigos evidentes que acompanham uma guerra com o Irã.

O primeiro ponto a ser observado é que Netanyahu está em apuros. Sua queda política já foi prevista muitas vezes antes, mas de alguma forma “Houdini” consegue escapar das amarras e algemas do destino maligno. Desta vez, a situação é mais séria. O consenso jurídico é que Netanyahu provavelmente será condenado se seus casos de corrupção chegarem a uma conclusão.

Mas isso é apenas um aspecto. A ponta da lança, no entanto, são as alegações do “Qatargate” – cuja essência é que três membros da equipe imediata do primeiro-ministro foram pagos pelo Catar nos últimos anos, inclusive durante a guerra de Gaza (essa alegação não é contestada). As questões-chave são: Netanyahu sabia? Se não, por que não? E qual era o benefício que o Catar buscava em troca dos pagamentos? O último aspecto – o retorno buscado pelo Catar – não está claro. É possível que, para o Catar, fosse suficiente ter o pessoal do primeiro-ministro na folha de pagamento (para uma eventual necessidade futura).

Em Israel, no entanto, as alegações tornaram-se explosivas. O rótulo de “traição” está sendo amplamente utilizado, inclusive pelo ex-primeiro-ministro Nafthali Bennett e pelo ex-ministro da Defesa Bogie Yalom. Os israelenses mais cínicos sugerem que o objetivo primordial da visita da família Netanyahu a Palm Beach não era tanto discutir Gaza, mas sim avançar na pressão de Trump por um perdão ou pelo encerramento do julgamento – a ser solicitado ao presidente Hertzog, que está hesitante.

Em resumo, Netanyahu precisa de um “balão” para tirá-lo do atoleiro de seus problemas legais e guerras inacabadas, e para ser levado às alturas por uma causa popular com a qual possa vencer as eleições gerais de 2026. A derrota do Irã, só para ficar claro, seria aplaudida – não apenas pelos israelenses – mas por um Congresso americano entusiasmado; por doadores; e por ambas as alas das estruturas de controle do Uniparty.

Para Trump, o cálculo seria um pouco diferente. O princípio de evitar disputas públicas com Netanyahu foi estabelecido pelo ex-presidente Biden – não sem dificuldades: “Bibi procurou deliberadamente o atrito com Biden. Com o presidente Trump, ele evita isso”, observou um funcionário dos EUA. Trump também tem aversão pessoal alienando alguns de seus doadores mais leais, como Miriam Adelson, e comentaristas como Mark Levin.

Essa trajetória de Trump pode ser compreendida tendo como pano de fundo as divisões sobre o apoio dos EUA a Israel, que vêm fragmentando sua base MAGA (e alienando também os democratas mais jovens). As imagens que saíram de Gaza de mulheres e crianças mortas galvanizaram o eleitorado-chave, o Turning Point USA. Grande parte da vitória do MAGA em 2024 deveu-se a este movimento juvenil com milhares de secções, valores cristãos e grande energia. O Turning Point USA oferece potencialmente uma formidável operação de “Get Out the Vote”.

Um pequeno grupo de altos funcionários do Partido Republicano, em conjunto com políticos poderosos e doadores importantes, procura impedir que o MAGA amplie seu alcance para assumir o controle do Partido Republicano – ameaçando assim a primazia dos líderes do partido. Essa “maioria silenciosa”, agora sem liderança, mas que floresce organicamente, não está mais silenciosa. Os dirigentes do partido querem domesticá-la e colocá-la de volta sob controle.

A inserção da questão divisória no MAGA – “se você não apoia as políticas de Netanyahu, você é um antissemita, um inimigo de Israel” – foi feita intencionalmente, com influenciadores pagos alimentando a fratura intrapartidária, com o objetivo de enfraquecer o movimento. Os líderes tradicionais do Partido Republicano querem recuperar o controle total.

Da perspectiva de Trump, é perfeitamente possível apoiar o Estado de Israel e ainda assim criticar a política do atual governo de Netanyahu. Isso representa o compromisso que ele espera alcançar para manter o MAGA unido, rumo às eleições de meio de mandato. Por trás da estratégia de Trump em Mar-a-Lago em relação a Netanyahu, há uma intensa disputa para controlar não apenas os resultados das eleições de meio de mandato, mas também a configuração das eleições presidenciais de 2028.

A facção de doadores pró-Israel afirma que a postura de Trump (e de Vance) de apoiar Israel, embora questionando suas políticas, é uma falsa dicotomia: criticar Israel é ipso facto antissemita, insiste Netanyahu. Esse esforço para dividir a base do MAGA – usando Israel – pode ou não funcionar. O problema para esses gestores de alto nível do partido é que seu manual de divisão agora é muito bem compreendido pela Geração Z.

Portanto, uma guerra entre os EUA e Israel contra o Irã se desenrola efetivamente em diferentes níveis, além da racionalidade cotidiana. É claro que ela está centrada no Irã, mas, para o círculo de Trump, é também um complicado jogo de xadrez sobre quem acabará controlando o MAGA – e, por extensão, a era pós-Trump.

E em Israel, a perspectiva de guerra também se torna um tabuleiro no qual se observa quais facções (e seus doadores) prevalecerão no caldeirão da guerra que se aproxima para controlar o sistema e definir o que será “Israel”. Ou melhor, o que restará dele.

Contra isso, as dúvidas e preocupações da cúpula militar profissional em Israel, ou nos EUA, podem ser silenciadas por receio de não estarem suficientemente “na equipe” em meio ao fervor pela guerra.

Tradução: Comunidad Saker Latinoamericana

The madness of Trump’s foreign policy. It’s worse than you think

A A — Mon, 05 Jan 2026 10:00:13 +0000

Does anyone, even in his own circle of fools, believe the Venezuela stunt is really about drug trafficking?

Join us on Telegram , Twitter, and VK .

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to Trump’s lair marks their sixth one-on-one meeting since Trump took office – a telling detail on several levels. The main point is that Bibi is struggling to convince Trump that the U.S. and Israel need to go to war with Iran, a move Trump is resisting. The scenario of dragging America into another “forever war” in the Middle East is not appealing to Trump, whose foreign policy misadventures around the globe are backfiring and boxing him into several corners. Some analysts already point to new conflicts brewing on multiple fronts following his preposterous act of high-seas piracy – seizing oil tankers leaving Venezuela.

Going to war with Iran makes no sense for the U.S., which would likely emerge the loser – and Trump does not want to suffer the same fate as Jimmy Carter, whose single term was defined by failed Iran policies. It is also about preserving Trump’s own delusional narrative: that his June initiative last year to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities was a success. If he were to agree to support an Israeli strike, even indirectly – say, with in-flight refuelling – the resulting media backlash would be overwhelming, and it’s the last thing he needs right now.

What’s interesting is that Trump does not want to deploy U.S. troops in the Middle East. It’s an arena where he is profoundly ignorant and out of his depth at the best of times. Somewhat comically, this does not mean he is unwilling to flex American military muscle elsewhere – contrary to what we’ve been led to believe about his supposedly “anti-war” stance.

His current manoeuvres in Venezuela are particularly worrying. It’s hard to see how seizing Venezuelan oil tankers bound for China is anything other than playing with fire. This represents his most brazen – and dangerous – gambit to date. China will not take this lying down, and we should not be surprised if Beijing retaliates tit-for-tat, just as it did in response to last year’s tariff threats. It is not far-fetched to imagine China responding in kind, perhaps by seizing an American or allied tanker. They have the means, technology, and military hardware to do so. Why wouldn’t they?

The problem is Trump’s fragile ego. When China previously threatened higher tariffs, began dumping the dollar, and restricted America’s access to rare earth minerals, backing down was an obvious choice. But if China seizes a U.S. oil tanker, the media spotlight will intensify, making it much harder for Trump to retreat quietly. With Trump, his mercurial, almost childlike decision-making – which can shift in less than a day based on vanity and emotion – is simply too dangerous in a standoff with China.

Trump is a bully. He likes to pick fights with smaller powers like India or South American nations, throwing his weight where he expects no real resistance. But China is different: an emerging superpower whose rapidly growing economy depends on fuel security. Throwing a spanner in those works is sheer madness – and shows he is not being advised by anyone competent. Marco Rubio may well be the most ineffective, farcical foreign policy stooge ever to occupy the White House.

The real worry, as ever, is miscalculation and the escalatory spiral that follows – one that cannot be undone. In the 1970s and ’80s, presidents like Nixon, Carter, and even Reagan had seasoned diplomats in the region who could act as a safety catch for leaders who shot from the hip. Today, diplomacy is often even less effective than journalism – the British government recently appointed a teenager as its new ambassador to Morocco. Diplomats have become social-media-obsessed functionaries struggling to stay relevant. Trump just fired thirty diplomats who were not aligned with his political views, proving that envoys are no longer important conduits but mere cronies and yes-men.

The problem with Trump is that international diplomacy could have been his saving grace, but his “Trump First, Israel Second, America Third” approach is starting to be noticed – with disastrous consequences. Japan, for instance, recently began selling off its U.S. treasuries. Even ordinary social media users are connecting the dots: Trump’s interventions in Venezuela, Nigeria, and Greenland all target regions rich in oil or minerals. It doesn’t take a genius to see the pattern.

Does anyone, even in his own circle of fools, believe the Venezuela stunt is really about drug trafficking? Netanyahu may be playing the oil card with Iran, but it’s clear Bibi will have to play dirty to drag America into a war – perhaps by letting Iran strike Israel and watching the pro-Israel deep state machine turn on Trump. For Trump, sleeping with a scorpion under the bed might be preferable to confronting that lobby with the fake bravado he so loves to champion.

The precursors for war are in place. Iran is the peg to intense political jockeying to define the post-Trump future

A A — Mon, 05 Jan 2026 09:22:53 +0000

At the 30 December meeting with Netanyahu and his team, President Trump publicly committed to attacking Iran.

Join us on Telegram , Twitter, and VK .

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

At the 30 December meeting with Netanyahu and his team, President Trump publicly committed to attacking Iran: If they continue with their ballistic missile program, ‘Yes’. And for their nuclear: ‘Immediate’. “We’ll knock the hell out of them“, Trump said.

By contrast to this belligerency, the Trump language at the Mar-a-Lago meeting reflected only warmth and fulsome praise for Netanyahu and Israel. Publicly, Netanyahu had received Trump’s public backing on an attack on Iran and for Gaza Phase Two, but behind the scenes many of the specifics remained undefined and disputed.

The escalatory language towards Iran was no surprise to Tehran. It had been expected. All the pointers toward coming hostilities are in plain sight: The escalating narrative – “hundreds of al-Qaida sleeper cells ready to unleash carnage; Al-Qaida found safe harbour in Iran for 25 years … [allowing Iran] to supercharge the spread of Islamic fundamentalism”, an ‘infiltrator for MI5 and MI6’ claims. On cue, the Iranian currency falls precipitously – and Iranians take to the streets.

What lies behind this outbreak of U.S.-Israeli militarism? Trump’s bluster about ‘the gates of Hell’ opening to ‘whomsoever’ is familiar to us all now. Nonetheless the signs are that Trump and Netanyahu are aligned for another round of war.

But why should Netanyahu be opting for kinetic action when Israel was so badly scarred by the incoming sophisticated Iranian missiles during the so-called June 12-day war – and when Israeli air-defences proved deficient? Iran has been re-arming and preparing for a further round ever since.

Some context is required to explain this otherwise seemingly irrational path being pursued by Israel – given the evident dangers attendant on war with Iran.

The first point to note is that Netanyahu is in trouble. His political downfall has been foretold many times before, yet somehow ‘Houdini’ manages to escape the bonds and cuffs of malign Fate. This time it is more serious. The legal consensus is that Netanyahu is likely to be convicted should his corruption cases reach their conclusion.

But that is only one aspect. The tip of the spear, however, are the ‘Qatargate’ allegations – the substance of which is that three members of the PM’s immediate staff have been in the pay of Qatar for the past years, including during the Gaza war (this claim is not disputed). The key issues are: Did Netanyahu know; if not, why not? And what was the benefit being sought by Qatar in exchange for payments? The latter aspect – the return sought by Qatar – is not clear. It is possible that for Qatar it was sufficient to have the PM’s people on the payroll (against a later ‘rainy day’ need).

In Israel, however, the allegations have become explosive. The la bel “treason” is being bandied about widely, including by former Prime Minister Nafthali Bennett and former Defence Minister Bogie Yalom. Those Israelis of a more cynical bent suggest that the primordial point to the Netanyahu family’s visit to Palm Beach was not so much to discuss Gaza, but rather to progress Trump’s lobbying for a pardon or trial termination – to be urged upon a prevaricating President Hertzog.

In short, Netanyahu is in need of a ‘balloon’ to lift him out of the morass of his legal entanglements and his unfinished wars, and to be wafted aloft through a popular cause by which to win the 2026 general elections. The defeat of Iran, just to be clear, would be applauded – not just by Israelis – but by an enthusiastic U.S. Congress; by donors; and both wings of the Uniparty controlling structures.

For Trump, the calculus would be somewhat different. The principle of avoiding public disputes with Netanyahu was established by former President Biden – not without hiccoughs: “Bibi deliberately sought friction with Biden. With President Trump, he avoids it”, one U.S. official hasnoted. Trump also is personally loath to alienate some of his most loyal donors, such as Miriam Adelson, and commentators such as Mark Levin.

This Trump trajectory can be understood against the backdrop of the divisions over U.S. support for Israel that has been fracturing his MAGA base (and alienating younger Democrats, too). The images coming out of Gaza of dead women and children galvanised the key constituency, Turning Point USA. A big part of the MAGA win in 2024 was due to this youth movement with thousands of chapters, Christian values and high energy. Turning Point USA potentially offers a formidable ‘Get Out the Vote’ operation.

A small group of top GOP party officials, in combination with powerful established politicians and major donors, seeks to block MAGA extending their reach to take control of the Republican Party – thereby threatening the Party leaders’ primacy. This (now) leaderless, yet organically flourishing ‘silent majority’ is silent no more. The Party Control Officers want it tamed and back under control.

Inserting the wedge issue into MAGA – ‘if you do not support the policies of Netanyahu, you are an antisemite, a hater of Israel’ — was done intentionally, with paid influencers fanning the intra-party fracture, aimed at weakening the Movement. The traditional GOP leaders want to regain full control.

From Trump’s perspective, it is entirely possible to support the State of Israel and still be critical of the politics of the current Netanyahu administration. This represents his hoped for compromise that might keep MAGA whole, going into the mid-term elections. Beneath Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Netanyahu strategy lies intense jockeying to control not just the mid-term outcomes, but the shaping of the 2028 Presidential election.

The pro-Israel donor faction asserts that Trump (and Vance’s) stance of supporting Israel, whilst questioning its policies, is a false dichotomy: To criticise Israel is ipso facto anti-semitic, Netanyahu insists. This effort to split the MAGA base – using Israel — may or may not work. The problem for these high-level party managers is that their playbook of wedge-driving is now too well understood by Gen Z.

So an U.S.-Israeli war on Iran effectively plays out at different levels other than day-day rationality. It is, of course, centred on Iran; but for the Trump circle, it is also a complicated game of chess about who will end in control of MAGA – and by extension the post-Trump era.

And in Israel, the prospect of war becomes too, a board on which to observe the business of which factions (and their donors) will prevail through the cauldron of the coming war to control the system and define what ‘Israel’ will be. Or rather, what remains of it will be.

Against this, the doubts and concerns of the professional military echelon in Israel, or in the U.S., may be muted out of concern for not being sufficiently ‘on team’ amidst the fervour for war.

La nueva estrategia de Netanyahu para atraer a Trump a una guerra con Irán

A A — Fri, 02 Jan 2026 16:30:36 +0000

Ni Hamás, ni la segunda fase de Gaza, que es lo que subyace principalmente a la intención de Netanyahu con la cumbre, sino Irán.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

En los últimos días, la Administración Trump ha abordado o confiscado tres petroleros cargados con petróleo venezolano o con destino a Venezuela (como el Bella1).

La confiscación más flagrante, en términos de ilegalidad, ha sido la de un buque de propiedad china y bandera panameña que, según se informa, tenía destino en China y no figuraba en ninguna lista de sanciones.

En otra zona de conflicto, el Servicio de Seguridad de Ucrania (SBU) afirmó el viernes pasado que había atacado con drones aéreos un petrolero ruso de la denominada ‘flota fantasma’, el Qendil, en aguas del mar Mediterráneo frente a las costas de Marruecos.

El SBU no dio más detalles sobre el ataque, ni sobre cómo desplegó un dron en el Mediterráneo (a 2000 km de Ucrania), ni sobre el lugar desde el que fue lanzado. La fuente del SBU afirmó que el buque de carga estaba vacío en el momento del ataque.

El presidente Putin, en medio de su maratón anual de preguntas y respuestas, prometió que Rusia tomaría represalias.

Los “bloqueos», incautaciones y ataques son, sencillamente, actos de guerra (a pesar de que Estados Unidos afirme que es propietario de todo el petróleo producido por Venezuela, hasta que se satisfagan todas las reclamaciones legales históricas de Estados Unidos contra Venezuela).

Este episodio del petrolero es otro paso más hacia la anarquía en la política exterior estadounidense.

Estos actos están dirigidos principalmente a China (que tiene grandes participaciones en la industria petrolera venezolana) y a Rusia, que mantiene vínculos de larga data con Venezuela y Cuba (ahora también bajo el “bloqueo” de Trump).

A ello hay que añadir los 11 000 millones de dólares en armas que se envían a Taiwán, con una cantidad significativa de sistemas de misiles de medio y largo alcance que forman parte de la transferencia prevista, incluidos 82 lanzadores HIMARS con misiles ATACMS del Ejército, lo que permite a las fuerzas de Taipéi alcanzar objetivos al otro lado del estrecho de Taiwán.

Esta última transferencia ha enfurecido a China.

Lo que esto sugiere es que la Declaración de Estrategia Nacional (NSS) con respecto a China (que afirma que Washington considera que China ya no constituye una ‘amenaza principal’, sino solo un competidor económico) es una retórica sin sentido. China está siendo tratada como una amenaza adversaria y responderá como tal.

China y Rusia “interpretarán” a la Administración Trump por sus acciones, más que por su retórica NSS. Y las señales apuntan claramente a una escalada.

Ponga todo esto en el contexto de las ‘filtraciones’ de altos funcionarios de Trump que, según la directora de Inteligencia Nacional, Tulsi Gabbard, son “mentiras y propaganda”.

Asegura que las afirmaciones de que “la comunidad de inteligencia estadounidense está de acuerdo y apoya el punto de vista de la UE/OTAN de que el objetivo de Rusia es invadir/conquistar Europa (con el fin de ‘ganar apoyo’ para sus políticas belicistas)” son mentiras difundidas por lo que ella denomina “los belicistas del Estado profundo y sus medios de propaganda… para socavar los esfuerzos de Trump por llevar la paz a Ucrania”.

“La verdad”, escribe Gabbard en Twitter, es todo lo contrario:

“[Que] la comunidad de inteligencia estadounidense ha informado a los responsables políticos, incluido el miembro demócrata del HPSCI citado por Reuters, de que la inteligencia estadounidense considera que Rusia busca evitar una guerra más amplia con la OTAN. También considera que, como han demostrado los últimos años, Rusia… no tiene la capacidad de invadir y ocupar Europa” — y que “la inteligencia estadounidense considera que Rusia busca evitar una guerra más amplia con la OTAN”.

Así pues, lo que Gabbard nos está diciendo es que existe una guerra abierta en la cúpula de la Administración Trump. Por un lado, están la CIA, los halcones y sus colaboradores europeos, y por otro, los analistas de inteligencia de Gabbard y una parte más amplia del electorado estadounidense.

¿Dónde se encuentra Trump en todo esto? ¿Por qué se está posicionando al borde de otra ronda de conflictos con China?

¿Por qué haría eso cuando las estructuras económicas estadounidenses son tan frágiles y cuando China ha demostrado que tiene influencia económica con la que luchar?

¿Es la explicación la respuesta simplista de que se trata de una distracción para desviar la atención de la publicación de más imágenes de Epstein?

¿Por qué envió Trump a los señores Witkoff y Kushner a Berlín cuando la intención de los europeos de arruinar el proceso de negociación con Rusia era bastante evidente de antemano?

Los dos “enviados” estadounidenses no firmaron la propuesta europea. Se quedaron sentados en silencio, pero tampoco mostraron su desacuerdo, ni siquiera cuando se planteó la posibilidad de aplicar las garantías de seguridad del artículo 5 (similares a las de la OTAN).

¿Quién proporcionó los datos de localización que permitieron a Ucrania (aparentemente) atacar el Qendil frente a la costa norteafricana, a 2000 km de Ucrania?

¿Qué conclusión se pretendía que Putin sacara de los dos incidentes? Sin duda, los rusos habrán hecho sus propias conjeturas.

¿Y por qué involucrar también a Irán, al capturar el Bella 1 iraní, aparentemente con bandera de Guyana y rumbo a Venezuela? ¿Supone esto el inicio de otra ronda de la guerra de petroleros iraníes iniciada originalmente por Israel? ¿Conviene a Netanyahu y a ciertos sectores de la población israelí calentar la situación con respecto a Irán?

Vale la pena preguntárselo, ya que Netanyahu tiene previsto partir hacia Palm Beach, Miami, el 28 de diciembre con el fin de mantener una o quizás dos reuniones con Trump en Mar-a-Lago durante los días siguientes (aunque las reuniones con Trump aún no se han confirmado en el momento de escribir este artículo).

Parece que ni Hamás ni la segunda fase de Gaza son los principales motivos que impulsan la intención de Netanyahu de celebrar la cumbre, sino más bien Irán.

Por lo tanto, es probable que las cuestiones de Gaza y Hamás pasen a un segundo plano frente a la ‘nueva’ narrativa que está elaborando la oficina del primer ministro israelí: Irán no se presentará a Trump como un país que se precipita hacia ‘un avance nuclear’, según el viejo cliché.

Esa es la ‘antigua narrativa’. La nueva es, como escribe la destacada comentarista israelí Anna Barsky en (hebreo) en Ma’ariv:

La amenaza más inmediata aquí: [más] que la nuclear en sí misma… [es] la reconstrucción sistemática [iraní] de la capa intermedia: la industria de misiles balísticos, sus líneas de producción y la capacidad de restaurar la funcionalidad de los sistemas de defensa aérea dañados.

No porque la cuestión nuclear haya desaparecido de la agenda… sino porque los misiles son la clave que permite a Irán proteger todo lo demás, y también atacar.

Sin misiles y escudos de defensa aérea, las instalaciones nucleares son un objetivo vulnerable. Con un escudo [por el contrario], se convierten en un problema estratégico mucho más complejo… Y aquí hay un punto que a menudo se escapa al discurso público: Irán no se está ‘rehabilitando’ solo para volver a lo que era, sino para volver de forma diferente.

En otras palabras: la ‘restauración de los misiles’ y la ‘restauración nuclear’ no son dos ejes separados, sino un solo sistema, y esto preocupa mucho a Israel. Los misiles construyen un escudo, el escudo permite el poder nuclear, y el poder nuclear, aunque sea rechazado, sigue siendo el objetivo último [de Irán].

El mensaje que Netanyahu llevará a Mar-a-Lago es que “Israel no permitirá que Irán reconstruya un escudo antimisiles y de defensa que cierre los cielos sobre lugares sensibles”.

Es posible que Trump esté más preocupado por crear un nuevo orden regional sin verse arrastrado a una guerra sin un final claro.

No obstante, es probable que Netanyahu afirme (como lleva haciendo desde hace más de 25 años) que la ‘ventana’ en la que Irán puede reconstruir su escudo defensivo se está cerrando rápidamente, y es probable que le recuerde amablemente al presidente que Trump llegó al poder no solo para promover la imagen de Israel, sino con el objetivo realista de expandir el poder real de Israel en la región y su control sobre el territorio.

¡Feliz Navidad, Donald!

Traducción: Observatorio de trabajadores en lucha

La nuova strategia di Netanyahu per coinvolgere Trump in una guerra con l’Iran

A A — Tue, 30 Dec 2025 15:30:22 +0000

Né Hamas, né la Fase Due di Gaza, che è prevalentemente alla base dell’intento del vertice di Netanyahu, ma piuttosto l’Iran.

Segue nostro Telegram .

Negli ultimi giorni, l’amministrazione Trump ha abbordato o sequestrato tre petroliere cariche di petrolio venezuelano o dirette in Venezuela (come la Bella1). Il sequestro più eclatante, in termini di illegalità, è stato quello di una nave di proprietà cinese battente bandiera panamense, che secondo quanto riferito era diretta in Cina e non figurava nell’elenco delle sanzioni di nessuno.

In un’altra zona di conflitto, venerdì scorso il Servizio di sicurezza ucraino (SBU) ha affermato di aver colpito con dei droni aerei una petroliera della cosiddetta “flotta ombra” russa, la Qendil, nelle acque del Mar Mediterraneo al largo del Marocco. L’SBU non ha fornito ulteriori dettagli sull’attacco, compreso il modo in cui ha dispiegato un drone nel Mediterraneo (a 2.000 km dall’Ucraina) o il luogo da cui è stato lanciato. La fonte dell’SBU ha affermato che la nave da carico era vuota al momento dell’attacco.

Il presidente Putin, nel corso della sua maratona annuale di domande e risposte, ha promesso che la Russia avrebbe reagito.

I “blocchi”, i sequestri e gli attacchi sono chiaramente atti di guerra (nonostante gli Stati Uniti sostengano di possedere tutto il petrolio prodotto dal Venezuela, fino a quando non saranno soddisfatte tutte le rivendicazioni legali storiche degli Stati Uniti nei confronti del Venezuela). Questo episodio della petroliera è l’ennesimo passo verso l’illegalità nella politica estera degli Stati Uniti.

Questi atti sono rivolti principalmente alla Cina (che detiene ingenti partecipazioni nell’industria petrolifera venezuelana) e alla Russia, che ha legami di lunga data sia con il Venezuela che con Cuba (ora anch’essa sotto il “blocco” di Trump). A ciò si aggiungono gli 11 miliardi di dollari in armi inviate a Taiwan, con una quantità significativa di sistemi missilistici a medio e lungo raggio che fanno parte del trasferimento previsto, tra cui 82 lanciatori HIMARS con missili ATACMS dell’esercito, che consentono alle forze di Taipei di colpire obiettivi attraverso lo Stretto di Taiwan.

Quest’ultimo trasferimento ha suscitato l’indignazione della Cina.

Ciò suggerisce che la Dichiarazione sulla Strategia Nazionale (NSS) nei confronti della Cina (che afferma che Washington non considera più la Cina una “minaccia primaria”, ma solo un concorrente economico) sia una retorica priva di significato. La Cina viene trattata come una minaccia ostile e reagirà di conseguenza.

La Cina e la Russia “interpreteranno” l’amministrazione Trump in base alle sue azioni, piuttosto che alla sua retorica NSS. E i segnali indicano chiaramente un’escalation.

Consideriamo tutto questo nel contesto delle “fughe di notizie” da parte di alti funzionari dell’amministrazione Trump che, secondo il direttore dell’intelligence nazionale Tulsi Gabbard, sono “bugie e propaganda”.

Lei sostiene che le affermazioni secondo cui “la ‘comunità di intelligence statunitense’ concorda e sostiene il punto di vista dell’UE/NATO, secondo cui l’obiettivo della Russia è invadere/conquistare l’Europa (al fine di ‘ottenere sostegno’ per le loro politiche favorevoli alla guerra)” sono menzogne diffuse da quelli che lei definisce “i guerrafondai dello Stato profondo e i loro media di propaganda… per minare gli sforzi di Trump di portare la pace in Ucraina”.

“La verità”, scrive Gabbard su Twitter, è l’opposto:

“La comunità dell’intelligence statunitense ha informato i responsabili politici, compreso il membro democratico dell’HPSCI citato da Reuters, che secondo le valutazioni dell’intelligence statunitense la Russia cerca di evitare una guerra più ampia con la NATO. Essa ritiene inoltre che, come hanno dimostrato gli ultimi anni, la Russia… non abbia la capacità di invadere e occupare l’Europa” – e che “l’intelligence statunitense ritiene che la Russia cerchi di evitare una guerra più ampia con la NATO”.

Quindi, ciò che Gabbard ci sta dicendo è che c’è una guerra aperta ai vertici dell’amministrazione Trump. Da un lato ci sono la CIA, i falchi e i loro collaboratori europei, dall’altro gli analisti dell’intelligence di Gabbard e una parte più ampia dell’elettorato statunitense.

Dove si colloca Trump in questo contesto? Perché si sta posizionando sull’orlo di un altro round di conflitto con la Cina?

Perché lo farebbe, quando le strutture economiche statunitensi sono così fragili e la Cina ha dimostrato di avere una leva economica con cui combattere? La spiegazione è forse la risposta semplicistica che si tratta di un diversivo dal rilascio di ulteriori immagini di Epstein? Perché Trump ha inviato Witkoff e Kushner a Berlino, quando l’intenzione degli europei di sabotare il processo negoziale con la Russia era già evidente? I due “inviati” americani non hanno firmato la proposta europea. Sono rimasti in silenzio, ma non hanno nemmeno espresso dissenso, nemmeno quando sono state discusse le garanzie di sicurezza dell’articolo 5 (simili a quelle della NATO). Inoltre, chi ha fornito i dati di puntamento con cui l’Ucraina (apparentemente) è stata in grado di attaccare il Qendil al largo della costa nordafricana a 2.000 km dall’Ucraina?

Quale conclusione si voleva che Putin traesse dai due incidenti? Certamente i russi avranno fatto le loro ipotesi.

E perché coinvolgere anche l’Iran, sequestrando la Bella 1 iraniana, apparentemente battente bandiera della Guyana e diretta in Venezuela? Questo rappresenta l’inizio di un altro round della guerra delle petroliere iraniane originariamente intrapresa da Israele? È nell’interesse di Netanyahu e di alcuni elettori israeliani surriscaldare la situazione nei confronti dell’Iran?

Vale la pena chiederselo, poiché Netanyahu dovrebbe partire per Palm Beach, Miami, il 28 dicembre, con l’intenzione di avere uno o forse due incontri con Trump a Mar-a-Lago nei giorni successivi (anche se al momento della stesura di questo articolo gli incontri con Trump non sono ancora stati confermati).

Sembra che non siano né Hamas né la seconda fase di Gaza a motivare prevalentemente l’intenzione di Netanyahu di partecipare al vertice, bensì l’Iran.

Le questioni relative a Gaza e Hamas rischiano quindi di passare in secondo piano rispetto alla “nuova” narrativa elaborata dall’ufficio del primo ministro israeliano: l’Iran non sarà presentato a Trump come un Paese che sta correndo verso “una svolta nucleare”, secondo il vecchio cliché.

Questa è la “vecchia narrativa”. La nuova è, come scrive la nota commentatrice israeliana Anna Barsky (in ebraico) su Ma’ariv:

“La minaccia più immediata qui: [più] che il nucleare stesso … [è] la ricostruzione sistematica [iraniana] dello strato intermedio: l’industria dei missili balistici, le sue linee di produzione e la capacità di ripristinare la funzionalità dei sistemi di difesa aerea danneggiati”.

“Non perché la questione nucleare sia stata cancellata dall’agenda… ma perché i missili sono la chiave che permette all’Iran di proteggere tutto il resto – e anche di attaccare. Senza missili e scudi di difesa aerea, gli impianti nucleari sono un bersaglio vulnerabile. Con uno scudo [al contrario] diventano un problema strategico molto più complesso… E qui c’è un punto che spesso sfugge al dibattito pubblico: l’Iran non sta ‘riabilitando’ solo per tornare a ciò che era, ma per tornare in modo diverso”.

“In altre parole: il ”ripristino dei missili“ e il ”ripristino nucleare“ non sono due assi separati, ma un unico sistema, e questo è motivo di grande preoccupazione per Israele. Il missile costruisce un guscio, il guscio consente il potere nucleare, e il potere nucleare, anche se rifiutato, rimane l’obiettivo finale [dell’Iran]”.

Il messaggio che Netanyahu porterà a Mar-a-Lago è che “Israele non permetterà all’Iran di ricostruire un sistema missilistico e di difesa che chiuderà i cieli sopra i siti sensibili”.

Trump potrebbe essere più preoccupato di creare un nuovo ordine regionale senza essere trascinato in una guerra senza una fine chiara. Netanyahu probabilmente sosterrà comunque (come fa da oltre 25 anni) che la “finestra” in cui l’Iran può ricostruire il suo scudo difensivo si sta rapidamente chiudendo, e probabilmente ricorderà gentilmente al Presidente che Trump è stato messo al potere non solo per promuovere l’immagine di Israele, ma anche per il fine realpolitico di espandere il potere reale di Israele nella regione e il controllo sul territorio.

Buon Natale, Donald!