As I write these lines, the attention of the entire world is focused on one man. His every word is studied, dissected and analysed in the most extraordinary detail, in the hope that one might derive some sense as to what it may, or may not, signify.
The efforts of the self-styled experts closely resemble those of the astrologers of the ancient world who studied with equal diligence the entrails of dead animals in order to predict the future.
Alas! The science of prediction does not appear to have advanced a single step from then until now.
From the moment that Donald J Trump stormed out of the meeting of the G7 nations in the Rocky Mountains yesterday – leaving the assembled dignitaries, the supposed rulers of the known world, in a state of profound shock and disbelief – down to the present time, we are still very-little closer to understanding what the President of the United States is thinking or doing.
At this point, the scientific method of Marxism must be invoked to provide us with at least some kind of a grasp of what is happening in the world. For, no matter how important and significant the thoughts and actions of individuals may be in shaping great historic events (and at any given moment, they can be of decisive significance), they are never sufficient, in and of themselves, to explain anything.
It is always necessary to place these individual actions in a general context. From that point of view, I take the opportunity to draw your attention to something which I wrote about the situation in the Middle East less than a year ago:
“The situation in the Middle East is a veritable minefield, just waiting for the initial impulse to explode into something vast and terrifying. And the actors in this drama seem to be playing out their roles with a kind of blind fatalism that is incapable of predicting its next step. They proceed with the deadly inevitability of robots that are programmed to behave in ways over which they have no understanding, and even less control.”
In analysing any war, the first thing which must be established are the war aims of the contending powers. To analyse the war aims of the Israelis is not difficult. As I explained in previous articles, Netanyahu is determined to pull America into his war with Iran, and his present actions flow quite logically from this aim.
It is common for left-wing critics of the Israeli leader to describe him variously as a war criminal whose hands are steeped in the blood of innumerable innocent victims – which is undoubtedly true – and a homicidal maniac whose actions are determined by sheer hatred and the thirst for bloodshed – which is false.
There is, in fact, nothing irrational in Netanyahu’s conduct. It is guided neither by blind hatred nor by any other irrational emotion. Quite the contrary, in fact. His calculations are entirely rational.
As I wrote in the above-mentioned article:
“Netanyahu is a cynical and hard-bitten politician with a record of unprincipled manoeuvres and also corruption. He knows very well that if the war in Gaza ends, he will lose power and find himself facing a prison sentence. The prospect of ending his political career is naturally not particularly attractive to him. The likelihood of a lengthy stay in an Israeli prison cell is an even less appetising prospect.
“His only hope to rescue something of his reputation is to present himself as a strong leader – a war leader. But by definition, a war leader must have a war to lead. From this not very complicated equation, the only possible deduction immediately becomes clear.
“He must convince the people of Israel that they are faced with an existential threat from powerful enemies without, and these enemies must be confronted with force, since this is the only language that they understand.”
Without doubt, these personal considerations weigh very heavily on Netanyahu, who is actually faced with considerable problems on his home front. The best way to defuse these problems was precisely to engage in a foreign military adventure, which would provide him with the possibility of masquerading in public as a ‘great war leader’.
I concluded that:
“Netanyahu is set on a war with Iran that will widen into a broader war throughout the region, dragging in other powers, including the United States of America. That is his aim. And he will not be deflected from it by anyone or anything.”
I wrote these lines on 2 August 2024 in an article entitled, Middle East crisis: Sleepwalking into the abyss. Almost 12 months later, I find that I do not have to change a single line of what I wrote then.
Events have shown that this is one hundred percent correct. Once we have established this fact, we have understood the precise nature and cause of the present situation.
Of Heroes and Villains
As in every drama, there are heroes and villains. As in every war, the forces of Evil are said to be battling against the forces of Good. Our wonderful free press has lost no time in presenting the Israelis as the heroic defenders of peace, justice and democracy, whereas Iran, naturally, is presented as the source of all the evils in the Middle East, if not the whole world.
Yet, at the end of the day, it turns out that both these forces, apparently mutually exclusive and hostile, are conspiring to produce a catastrophe of global significance.
For our part, we do not have the slightest illusion as concerns the reactionary nature of the Iranian regime. But to try to present the well-known war criminal, the Butcher of Gaza Benjamin Netanyahu, as an upholder of peace in the world really stretches the powers of belief to breaking point.
All this is clearly connected to the situation in Gaza, poor, bleeding, shattered Gaza, which the Israeli army has reduced to a pile of smoking rubble. Yet, to this day, the Israelis have not achieved their declared war aims. The hostages have not been released and Hamas has not been destroyed. As I explained almost one year ago in August 2024:
“The war in Gaza, as we have seen, is now hopelessly bogged down. Having flattened the entire territory, the Israeli army is left without any viable targets. Even some generals have expressed their dissatisfaction with the situation.
“So Bibi must think of something else. […]
“What he really needs is the direct involvement of the US military in a wider confrontation in the region – one that would force the USA and all its allies to openly side with Israel. To that end, Netanyahu is determined to provoke a regional conflict which would force the US to become directly involved on Israel’s side.
“The enemy that he has chosen to confront is none other than Iran.”
The Israelis have been striving by all means at their disposal to provoke a conflict with Iran. I commented last year:
“The Israelis set in motion a programme of systematic provocation, designed to push Iran into war. On 1 April [2024], an Israeli strike on the consular section of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus killed seven Iranians, including two veteran commanders.
“Immediately, like a well-rehearsed chorus, America’s allies exerted pressure on Iran to exercise ‘restraint’. Is it not strange that it is always Iran that is called upon to ‘exercise restraint’, never Israel? Yet it is precisely to Israel that such advice ought to be addressed.”
Now history is repeating itself.
Netanyahu’s strategy
It is a well-known fact that in order to prepare the ground for an act of aggression, it is imperative that the aggressor must appear as the victim. Black must be painted white. And white must be painted black.
Netanyahu had to divert attention from his own growing unpopularity by pointing an accusing finger at an external enemy that may be even more unpopular than himself. To this end, he skilfully played on the feelings of fear of Iran that have been built up and deliberately exacerbated by the Israeli ruling clique for decades. This was now concentrated on the question of the alleged threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
All the most informed sources – including in the United States – have concluded that the threat of Iran developing such a weapon in a short space of time is not a viable proposition. It is true that the Iranians possess all that is necessary ultimately to produce their own nuclear weapons. But this by no means signifies a “real and present threat” to Israel, as Netanyahu is presenting it.
On the contrary, the US intelligence agencies have made clear that there is no question of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons for another three years. All this is ignored as the drumbeat of war grows ever louder and more persistent.
The view from Washington
Let us begin with the obvious. A general war in the Middle East is clearly not in the interests of the United States. It would have catastrophic effects on the world (and US) economy, which is already threatened with an economic slump.
Moreover, the US has military bases in many countries in the Middle East that are vulnerable to attack, as are its many economic and commercial interests.
Even Joe Biden and his clique of warmongers understood this, and consequently prevaricated and avoided giving Netanyahu the green light to attack Iran. They preferred to pass the poisoned chalice to the new administration of Donald Trump.
For his part, Trump was clearly not in favour of a war with Iran. For one thing, as an individual, he is clearly risk-averse, preferring to confine himself to striking deals that he feels he has a good chance of winning.
More importantly, he fought an election campaign on a clear platform of opposition to dragging America into foreign wars.
Let us remember that he promised to end America’s involvement in Ukraine in the space of 24 hours. In the event, this ambitious aim has eluded him. But he has not by any means abandoned the aim of pulling America out of the Ukrainian imbroglio.
Despite a constant bombardment of demands by Netanyahu, he consistently refused to grant permission for an attack on Iran, advocating instead the pursuance of a negotiated settlement of the thorny issue of Iranian nuclear policy.
The negotiations were actually already underway when the Israelis struck. In fact, the attack was launched just a couple of days before the negotiations were due to restart – on Monday 16 June. The purpose of the attack, therefore, was clearly to sabotage these negotiations.
America’s denials
The Iranian leadership has angrily accused the Americans of duplicity, hiding behind the cynical excuse of negotiations, while secretly encouraging the Israelis in their aggressive plans.
In response, the Americans indignantly denied that they played any role in the attack. But, when all is taken into account, these denials will cut very little ice with the Ayatollahs, or most other people in Iran.
For one thing, Trump stupidly made no attempt to deny the fact that he was warned in advance of the Israelis’ intentions. This is widely interpreted as an indication that he had effectively provided Netanyahu with the green light to attack Iran, which, up until now, he had persistently refused to give.
If the Americans were aware in advance of the Israeli plans, it stretches credibility to believe that they did not play some role – however indirect – in the actual attack. The provision of satellite information and other intelligence alone would have played a very important role in the operation.
It is no secret that Israel has many obedient servants in positions of power in the United States: in the State Department, in the Pentagon, in the permanent unelected bureaucracy, which remains immovable, whoever sits in the White House. Finally, it has its supporters in key positions in the Administration itself.
All these powerful forces will have been set in motion in the run up to the attack, and will have exerted immense pressure on the President, who makes no secret of his support for Israel and is known to be subject to sudden impulses and wholly unpredictable swings of mood, which can vary considerably from one moment to the next.
Trump changes course
Although Trump swears in every sentence that he supports a negotiated settlement with Iran as opposed to war, he has himself largely contributed to sabotaging the ongoing negotiations with Iran.
The terms which are now being offered to the Iranians go far beyond the initial demand for the abandonment of nuclear weapons. In effect, the Iranians are now being asked to dismantle all their nuclear installations and give up nuclear enrichment in general – whether for peaceful or warlike purposes.
It is naturally ruled out that any Iranian administration could ever accept such an outrageous demand, which is a clear violation of Iran’s rights as a sovereign nation state.
It seems clear that Iran’s unwillingness to compromise on this question has led to an increasing degree of frustration on the part of the man in the White House, who therefore became more susceptible to the insidious arguments of the powerful pro-Israeli lobby to the effect that the only language that the men in Tehran understand is the language of force.
One can imagine a scenario in which an irascible Donald Trump finally tells Netanyahu that he is fed up with the ‘obstinacy’ of the Iranians, and that, consequently, the Israelis can do whatever they want to put pressure on them.
What Trump actually said to Netanyahu is not on record. But whatever it was, it was taken by the Israeli leader as the green light from Washington for which he had been impatiently waiting.
Once this step had been taken, events moved with lightning speed. This is hardly surprising, since all the preparations had been made a long time ago.
A dangerous move
President Trump cut short his trip to Canada for a meeting with world leaders and took off for Washington late Monday, having first ruffled the feathers of his allies by complaining that they had unjustifiably excluded Vladimir Putin from their deliberations.
While publicly supporting the call for ‘de-escalation’, Trump kept repeating his support for the Israeli aggressors. In the end, actions always speak louder than words. The decision of the US Navy to send a second carrier strike group to the Middle East could not have been made without his express permission.
The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz, along with its nine air squadrons and an escort force including five destroyers, is leaving the South China Sea to join the USS Carl Vinson strike group in the Arabian Sea, according to press reports.
If this is what Washington calls “avoiding escalation”, it is legitimate to ask oneself what an actual escalation might look like!
His intention may be to use their presence as a means of dissuading Iran from attacking American bases. But this is an extremely dangerous step, and one that carries unforeseen risks.
The very fact of the presence of huge US forces close to Iran can only be seen as an act of escalation. Once these forces are deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean and to the Persian Gulf or the Red Sea, the demand to use them will inevitably grow louder, creating the risk of a serious clash.
If the United States joins in the war, then Americans across the Middle East will be extremely vulnerable to attack, and the presence of aircraft carriers will do nothing to protect them.
There are approximately 40,000 American troops strung out in bases across the Middle East, who will potentially become targets of Iranian retaliation.
International repercussions
Even more serious would be the international repercussions of such an act. This brings me to the question of the discussion that took place between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin recently, evidently at Putin’s request.
It is impossible to know exactly the content of this conversation, since the actual text has not been made available, for obvious reasons. But it is quite clear that the Russian leader will have expressed himself in the strongest possible terms, warning that US military involvement in the war between Iran and Israel would have the most serious consequences.
We must bear in mind that on 21 April 2025, Vladimir Putin signed a treaty with Iran, committing both nations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.
Paradoxically, this step was made possible by the United States, which imposed crippling sanctions against both Russia and Iran. As a result of this, Russia has become a key trading partner, especially in regard to the former’s excess oil reserves.
Currently, Russia and Iran share a close economic and military alliance, and both countries are subject to heavy sanctions by most western nations. This undoubtedly means that any military threat to Iran would necessarily provoke a response from Russia – a fact which Putin will have made abundantly clear to Trump in this conversation.
There can be no doubt that these words will have weighed very heavily on Trump’s mind, a fact that explains the subsequent twists and turns. The prospect of an open military conflict with Russia – and, almost invariably, China – will have given him much food for thought.
But even while the man in the White House was busy beating a hasty retreat, his friend in London was once again preparing himself for action.
As if he did not have sufficient problems at home, where his government is in deep trouble and he himself is deeply unpopular, Starmer is now getting himself involved in trying to find some way to achieve a ‘de-escalation’ in the conflict in the Middle East.
How does Mr Starmer help to ‘de-escalate’ the situation? By sending British fighter jets and an aircraft carrier to the region! What they are supposed to be doing, we do not know, since the British PM refuses to say.
But it is not hard to predict that he will order them to do whatever his Boss in the White House tells him to do. That, after all, is what we call the ‘Special Relationship’ – that is, the relationship between the butler and his master.
There is, by the way, absolutely no comparison between British carriers and the American supercarriers. But the less said about that, the better. In the words of Napoleon: “From the Sublime to the Ridiculous, there is only one step.”
Mixed messages
As usual, Trump appears to contradict himself.
During his recent phone call with Putin, the Russian leader evidently offered his services to mediate the conflict between Israel and Iran. This caused heart attacks for the other western leaders at the G7 meeting.
Trump has made it clear that he, personally, would have no objection to Putin playing such a role. This would have the advantage of relieving the man in the White House of the painful necessity of mediating between two states that are at each other’s throats, having no obvious desire to put an end to the conflict.
And everybody knows that the opinions of only one man carry any weight with the Israelis, and that man is called Donald Trump.
It seems that President Macron attained to a level of paroxysm that could endanger his health. His rage was obviously dictated by the assumption which he always makes, namely, that he and he alone is qualified to play the role of an ‘honest international broker’.
This belief overlooks the small detail that nobody nowadays entertains sufficient confidence in the moral probity of M. Macron that would allow him to sell them a second-hand car.
Macron was foolish enough to claim that Trump left the meeting in order to push for a ceasefire in the Middle East conflict. Clearly enraged, Trump issued a humiliating rebuff to the French president, whom he describes as the “publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron” who “always gets it wrong!”
He was, he said, in no mood to advocate a ceasefire or indeed to negotiate anything, other than Iran’s unconditional surrender.
We must therefore try to analyse the guiding elements in Trump’s strategy – always supposing that he possesses such a thing. And that is not at all clear.
America’s changed role
If one makes a mistake, a rational individual will choose to alter his chosen course to avoid making it again. The idea that if one makes a mistake and it leads to failure, that the conclusion must be to repeat it and repeat it in the belief that, in the end, it will yield good results is not characteristic of rational thought, but rather a symptom of lunacy.
That is what passes for strategic thinking today in the West. It is what the warmongers in the USA and Europe did in the case of Ukraine, and it is what the USA is being invited to do now in relation to Iran!
Although it does not appear to have entered the thick skulls of the men and women who rule the world from the Canadian Rocky Mountains, things have changed on the international scale since Biden and his clique of warmongers were in charge.
US imperialism is the most powerful nation on Earth, but this power is not unlimited, and it is now clearly in decline. Faced with an economic giant like China and a resurgent and confident Russia, it now becomes increasingly risky for America to throw its weight around in the world.
To underestimate one’s enemy is fatal in warfare. It is far better to exaggerate it and to prepare for the worst, rather than to go blindly into battle, assuming the best, and therefore guaranteeing a bad outcome.
The same stupid mistake that led the United States into war with Russia in Ukraine, which is ending in a humiliating defeat, is now being repeated – with far more serious consequences.
They never considered that things might not work out quite the way they imagined. Likewise, they never imagined that the Iranian missiles might actually get through the seemingly impregnable Israeli defences, hitting important targets in Israel itself.
And they persist in denying what is evident – namely, that the attack on the nuclear facilities is not working.
Such people are presented in the media as highly intelligent, even brilliant individuals who deserve only praise and admiration. In reality, they deserve to be committed to the nearest available padded cell at the earliest possible occasion, where they can do no harm either to themselves or to the rest of the human race.
Miscalculation
The most reactionary wing of the Republicans support both Israel’s government and its view that now is the time to seek regime change in Tehran. This, and not the destruction of Iran’s nuclear industry, is the real aim of Netanyahu and his clique.
But they have badly miscalculated. Although many Iranians dislike the regime, their hatred for the Ayatollahs does not amount to support for Netanyahu and the Americans! Quite the contrary, in fact.
The aggressive actions of Israel, backed by the United States, will push large sections of Iranian society – even some of those who are most bitterly hostile to the regime – to support the government in its war against the foreign aggressors.
Far from persuading the Iranians to adopt a more ‘reasonable’ attitude to the negotiations on the nuclear question, many people, not only in the government, but on the streets, will conclude that negotiations with the Americans are a waste of time, and that the only real defence Iran can have is to acquire nuclear weapons at the earliest possible date.
Has Israel succeeded?
What is the balance sheet of the early stages of this war? For the present, it is impossible to perform an accurate judgement as to the extent of the damage caused by the initial attacks on Iran. Or, for that matter, the true extent of the damage caused by Iranian attacks on Israel.
As usual, the fog of war has descended, casting a thick veil over the real situation that makes it extremely difficult to establish the truth. At this moment in time, the Israelis are crowing. They are the world’s experts in crowing. In fact, if there was a Nobel Prize for bragging and boasting, they would undoubtedly be world leaders.
Unfortunately, exaggerated claims in war have a habit of being disproved in the fullness of time. And Israeli claims about their alleged success in destroying Iran’s defences and having fatally undermined its ability to make nuclear weapons are an example of this.
The early claims by the Israelis that Iran would not be capable of responding effectively for some time were immediately disproved by events.
Did the Israeli attack succeed in overwhelming Iran’s air defence system? The answer is an unequivocal yes. It would appear that the offensive was preceded by a cyber-attack, which effectively knocked out the Iranian air defences for several hours, leaving Tehran defenceless in the face of the Israeli bombardment.
But the Iranians claim that they have begun to repair the damage and we can therefore predict that future Israeli air attacks will not be without losses.
Without doubt, significant damage has been caused in Iran. But the extent of the destruction has clearly been overstated and overblown to an extraordinary degree.
This is proved by the very fact of the immediate and overwhelming missile attacks launched by Iran – which the Israelis had initially claimed were ruled out at least for the immediate future, such was the devastation they claimed to have inflicted on the Iranians’ military machine.
The Iranians lost no time in unleashing a terrifying wave of missiles – probably numbering several hundreds – against targets in Israel in such numbers that some, at least, have penetrated the much vaunted Israeli ‘David’s Sling’ anti-missile system.
The Israelis claim that most of these missiles were shot down. This is certainly the case, and is no surprise. However, some missiles did get through, shattering the myth of the impermeability of the so-called ‘Iron Dome’ and ‘David’s Sling’ and causing severe damage to both military and civilian targets.
The Guardian reported:
“Iranian missiles have struck Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa, destroying homes and fuelling concerns among world leaders at this week’s G7 meeting that the conflict between the two regional enemies could lead to a broader Middle East war.”
The pictures of a residential area in Tel Aviv reduced to a pile of rubble with an enormous crater bear witness to the extraordinary destructive power of these missiles. It was a sobering wake-up call to the Israeli population, who have been systematically fed the comforting illusion that their formidable air defences would protect them against harm for forever and a day.
Bewildered residents, surveying the wreckage of their homes and clearly in a state of shock and terror, commented grimly, “This is like Gaza”.
Overnight, the reputation that the Iron Dome, the David’s Sling, and all of these air defence systems that Israel has been developing for the last 30 or so years – since the first conflict between Iraq and the United States in 1991 – has been shattered.
The psychological damage caused by this will far outweigh any of the physical damage inflicted by Iranian missiles. But the sufferings of the civilian population are of no concern to Netanyahu, who appeared on television in his usual cynical pose of calm confidence and steely reserve to promise the population of Israel that “Tehran will burn.” In other words, more of the same.
But behind the façade of fake confidence, Netanyahu is a worried man. He is well aware of the fact that if he does not win a quick victory over Iran, time is not on Israel’s side.
Israel is continuing to conduct strikes as it tries to locate and kill senior officials of the Iranian government and of the Iranian military, as well as members of the Iranian scientific establishment.
And it continues to target Iranian ballistic missile and air defence positions. But Israel is still unable to deal the knockout blow that perhaps it hoped it would when it began this operation on Friday.
In the meantime, Iran’s strikes against Israel are gradually getting stronger. Over time, the balance of advantage in what is now clearly a war of attrition is going to shift increasingly in Iran’s favour.
Israel’s air defence system is starting to suffer from shortages, and at some point it will be unable to maintain even the level of missile coverage that it is capable of at the present time.
It is a matter of simple mathematics. It requires a minimum of two Patriot missiles to offer some degree of certainty that an incoming missile will be shot down.
Iran is launching hundreds of missiles, and is believed to possess a stockpile of several thousand more. By contrast, the number of Patriot missiles possessed by Israel is limited, and will quickly be exhausted at the present rate of use.
Netanyahu, therefore, needs a quick victory. But that is something which is clearly not available to him – not, at any rate, without the active assistance of the United States of America.
Israel has not been able to inflict significant damage on the Fordow nuclear facility. They have punched some holes into the earth around the facility in Natanz. It is increasingly looking, therefore, as if Israel cannot achieve its three objectives.
- It has failed so far to cause the collapse of the Iranian government.
- It has so far failed to prevent Iran from launching missiles against Israel despite claims that Israel has disabled a third of Iran’s launchers.
- It has failed to inflict serious damage on Iran’s nuclear programme, or to seriously delay its advance towards producing a nuclear bomb.
This is the explanation for his increasingly frantic calls on Trump to come to his assistance.
The risks for Trump
And what is Trump’s position? It is a question that is difficult to answer. One has the impression that Trump has no clear idea where he is going or even what he is doing. As he answered one journalist who asked him directly if he intends to intervene in the conflict: “I may do it, I may not do it.” It is probable that he hasn’t even made up his own mind on that question.
Trump appears to react to events empirically, making up his mind as he goes along, reacting now to this pressure, now to that.
Such methods may be suitable for a New York property developer. But they are hopelessly inadequate when it comes to the complexities of international diplomacy. Empirical muddling is no substitute for a clear-headed and consistent strategy. That, however, appears to be sadly missing from this administration.
Trump’s evident lack of grasp of the most elementary methods of diplomacy were clearly revealed by his reaction to recent events. In the first instance, he lost no time in expressing his full support for the aggressive acts of Israel, blaming Iran for its failure to “do a deal” – overlooking the fact that, to misquote The Godfather, “he made them an offer they couldn’t accept.”
In his enthusiasm for the Israeli cause, he went so far as to describe its vicious act of unprovoked aggression as “excellent”. He also made it clear that he had been informed of the attack in advance.
None of this prevented him, just a short while later, from maintaining firmly that “America had no knowledge of this attack and played no role in it.” A denial that clearly no sensible person could possibly accept.
Since then, he has played his usual game of sending out mixed messages, which one can interpret anyway one pleases. On the one hand, full support for Israel. On the other hand, demands for an end to hostilities, “de-escalation” and the re-commencement of negotiations, etc.
Such mixed messages are always a source of confusion. But in a war scenario, they are positively dangerous, since they can lead one or both of the conflicting parties to take steps that can have fatal consequences.
For his part, Netanyahu does not hide his irritation at Trump’s conduct. After Friday’s attack, Trump suggested the Iranian regime could still be convinced to negotiate, saying that the Iranians “must make a deal, before there is nothing left.”
That is not the kind of statement that Netanyahu wanted to hear from Washington. He is not looking for a renewal of negotiations or any kind of deal. He wishes to pursue the war to the end. And to that end, he is expecting the USA to enter the war on his side. In short, his plan is to make the Americans fight his war for him!
These are the inevitable consequences of decades of permissiveness on the part of the United States and all other western governments, which have systematically ignored Israel’s crimes in defiance of elementary international norms, leading them to conclude that they can do anything they like, while America will continue to pay the bills.
The central problem here is that Netanyahu’s war aims do not coincide with those of the USA. The Guardian newspaper correctly pointed out:
“By attacking Iran and torpedoing the negotiations, Netanyahu outplayed Trump – and the Israeli leader may well ensnare the US in a new Middle East conflict that Trump insists he does not want.”
It added: “In his inaugural address in January, Trump reinforced his desire to establish himself as a mediator who will end global conflicts, including the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and avoid new wars entirely. “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” he said.”
Warmongers like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, are loudly demanding that the United States acts to support Israel. The belligerent Israeli lobby has acquired a frenzied, almost hysterical character.
There is good reason for this. Those who believed Netanyahu’s propaganda that the Iranian government would collapse like a house of cards are now becoming frustrated that their hopes have not been realised.
And behind the ferocious rhetoric, one can detect the outline of something else – fear.
But, despite the ferocious character of their rhetoric, these individuals completely failed to understand the strength of Iran and its ability to withstand an Israeli attack.
Trump’s initial response to the Israeli attack was foolish in the extreme. He described it as “excellent”. This kind of statement will do nothing to persuade the Iranians that America is somehow an innocent bystander in the present conflict.
Subsequently, Donald Trump maintained a highly unusual and uncharacteristic silence. This may well indicate that, once again, the man in the White House is beginning to have second thoughts. And it may well indicate the existence of a serious conflict within his administration itself.
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence (DNI), is known to be firmly opposed to what Trump is doing.
More seriously, his latest words and deeds have provoked growing unrest and even indignation in the ranks of his supporters. He will have noticed that his conduct in this matter has not been well received by his MAGA base. In fact, it has met with a furious response, even by the most loyal supporters of the President.
They are reminding him of his promises in the election campaign not to commit America to any more ‘forever wars’, either in the Middle East or anywhere else.
“No more forever wars”
Trump promised his MAGA constituency he would not start any so-called ‘forever wars’ in the Middle East. So now there is extreme disquiet in the ranks of the MAGA movement, reflected in the following message from a Trump supporter:
“F*ck it.
I voted for:
NO WARS
Cheap gas
No taxes
Cheap groceries
MAGA
What of these things has actually happened?
If Trump takes us to war, I’m done with him and his administration.
I’m pissed.”
There have been very many messages of that sort landing on Trump’s desk lately.
In a word, Trump needs a war with Iran like he needs a hole in the head. But that does not necessarily mean that such a war is ruled out. Far from it.
Trump is subject to pressures from all sides, and it remains unclear which way he will finally jump. But the risks are very clear:
“If Trump takes us to war, I’m done with him and his administration.”
That could not be more clearly expressed.
