The Mistake of Believing that Israel Is Dictating this War to America
ed note–another eye-opener that every war-weary Gentile with a vested interest in his/her own future survival needs to read, understand, and take deeply to heart.
Firsto, ladies and Gentile-men, a theme that gets a lot of repetition here on this humble little informational endeavor and which bears repeating with the same kind of reflexive, autonomic frequency as a person blinks his or her eyes during the day, which is that the Jews are incurable liars.
Now, the lie of the moment, in addition to all the others that number in the millions like bacteria swimming in raw sewage, is how Israel had ‘no hand’ in forcing POTUS DJT to engage in war against Iran, that this is all America’s doing, and that anyone who believes or suggests otherwise is an anti-Semite and a Jew hater.
Now, what is most important about OpEds of this type, fellow war-weary Gentiles, is the manner in which it microscopes the danger that all life on God’s green earth faces as a result of this one substratum of inhumanity and the influence that they wield over issues as Apocalyptically important as life and death on a global scale. To deny that the Jews brought about this war, just as they have ALL wars going back even before the 20th century is like denying sunlight itself, and yet, THE JEWS DO IT, and they do so with a straight face and unquivering voice.
What we are dealing with here, fellow Gentiles, is a collective mindset on the part of the world’s most powerful people that has no connection with reality or truth whatsoever. They are as incapable of existing within a truth-rich environment as anaerobic bacteria are of living in one rich with oxygen, and what makes this situation so dangerous to us all is that the same brain that can argue that the Jews had nothing to do with forcing POTUS DJT into this war can conjure up ANYTHING, including obeying the voices in their heads telling them to incinerate the entire world with the nuclear weapons they began building 5 minutes after they murdered POTUS Kennedy in Dallas, Texas in 1963.
Times of Israel
Since the beginning of the war between the United States and Iran, one interpretation that has taken hold among some analysts is that Donald Trump was supposedly drawn by Israel into a confrontation that was not initially a priority for the United States.
This view is patently incorrect and untrue. In addition to underestimating the severity of the conflict between Washington and Tehran, it misinterprets Donald Trump’s character. No one can easily force Donald Trump to go to war against his will. When he strikes, it is because he believes he is serving his own agenda, his own understanding of power, and his own narrative of American history.
In the American strategic imagination, Iran is not just another issue. It is not simply another hostile regime in the Middle East. It is an old wound. 1979 has never truly left the American memory. The hostage crisis in Tehran did not merely humiliate a President; it imprinted on the strategic unconscious of the United States the image of an America challenged, ridiculed, and powerless. This memory finds particularly fertile ground with the American President. He doesn’t reason simply as a foreign policy strategist. He reasons in terms of force, affront, domination, and historical revenge.
This is where many are mistaken. They view Trump through the conventional lens of alliances and conclude that, since Israeli interests converge with the war against Iran, then Israel must have led Washington to this choice.
But the causal relationship can be interpreted differently. The President’s fixation on Iran was not caused by Israel, but rather, it provided him with a tactical window of opportunity. This is an important distinction. Being dictated to on the subject is not the same as being influenced on the timing.
Fundamentally, however, he had already decided on his strategy, which included applying maximum pressure, refusing to normalize relations with the regime, and being determined to limit its military, political, and economic leeway.
His approach to Iran is based on the straightforward belief that diplomacy is insufficient in containing this regime in the long run. According to him, every discussion buys time for the Iranian regime, every compromise helps it survive, and every Western constraint is seen as weakness in Tehran.
Therefore, Donald Trump wants to eliminate the Iranian danger rather than manage it. Nuclear weapons, missiles, regional networks, maritime threat capabilities, and the power to blackmail Iran through the straits: for him, Iran is a strategic nexus that must be dismantled, not supported.
But it is also important to understand another dimension of Trumpism: he does not like protracted wars. He does not seek occupation, nor grand pronouncements on democracy, nor endless reconstruction like that of Iraq or Afghanistan. His method is different: strike hard, destabilize the adversary, impose a position of weakness, then emerge proclaiming victory. It’s a logic of coercion, not patient transformation. In this sense, he can desire the collapse of the Iranian regime without wanting to bear the cost of rebuilding the country himself.
That’s why all should reject the mistaken notion of a US President being manipulated by Israel. He’s doing it because, in his eyes, Tehran embodies three intolerable things: a historical affront, a strategic threat, and a test of credibility for American power.
Israel may have accelerated the moment. But the war itself belongs to the United States of America.
And that is precisely what many still refuse to face.