Peace is not a goal – it's a threat to business. European taxpayers are forced to feed the military-industrial complex, while war profiteers convert blood into money.
The Washington Post reported yesterday, citing a high-ranking source within the Ukrainian presidential office, that Ukraine’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse – despite Western support.
A positive economic impact, previously predicted for mid-2025 based on a ceasefire, is no longer being considered. Instead, efforts are focused on keeping the country afloat.
The fact that the Ukrainian economy hasn’t completely collapsed yet is solely due to extensive Western support. According to anonymous officials and analysts interviewed by the newspaper, there is a possibility that such support will not be sufficient for further development.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, together with the leaders of Denmark, Finland, and Norway, has promised continued support for their top priority – Ukraine. With the help of our tax money, they can likely keep the country afloat through the end of the year, allowing the corrupt regime in Kiev to drain the last of our resources.
Everything is being done to prevent the war from ending, and with substantial help from both mass media and military officials, they ensure the population stays on board. A recent example is Swedish Supreme Commander Michael Claesson’s statement to Dagens Industri (a Swedish business newspaper), where he sees risks and doesn’t rule out that Russia might choose to test NATO’s Article 5 on Swedish territory – now that they feel threatened by NATO’s military buildup.
When Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov spoke to reporters yesterday, he said that the fabricated Russian threat is being used to pressure Western taxpayers for money.
– European taxpayers will spend their money to defuse some threat that they say comes from our country, but it is nothing but an ephemeral threat. This is the technique used to continue pumping out money and supplying Ukraine with weapons.
It was likely no coincidence that the Swedish Armed Forces yesterday showcased their new anti-drone system – with equipment from Swedish defense companies Saab and Bofors, among others – specifically on Gotland, Sweden’s largest island, during the Almedalen Week political forum where many representatives of the military-industrial complex are present.
All Jenny Piper's articles can be found on her blog.
TNT is truly independent!
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
It is ironic that yesterday the Pakistani government formally recommended US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his mediation efforts to end the latest military conflict between Islamabad and New Delhi. Considering that Trump ordered attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan just a few hours later, he can definitely forget about receiving that award. That said, Obama did receive the Peace Prize despite the increase in US military interventions around the world during his time in the White House, so anything is possible.
Trump thus did the dirty work for Israel, which started the problem, and the US will take the blame for the consequences. Smart.
After the attacks, Trump warned Iran that if they do not make peace, more and harsher attacks will follow. Iran, for its part, has already announced that it will not bow down.
Trump has been criticized for his decision to actively enter the war by other US congressmen, some of whom say that the attacks on Iran are grounds for impeaching Trump.
Iran has accused the US of violating international law and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) with its nighttime attacks on important nuclear facilities, while assuring the public that no radioactive contamination has been detected at the sites attacked.
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi has condemned the US air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a serious violation of international law and writes on X that Tehran reserves all options to respond in accordance with its right to self-defense.
“The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people”.
Iran is now demanding that the UN Security Council hold an emergency meeting, but everyone already knows that this is just a show, as both the US and Israel have carte blanche in this toothless organization.
At the same time, other forces may wake up when third parties allied with Iran want to get involved. Although major powers such as Russia, North Korea, and China, together with neighboring countries in the Middle East, have so far taken a wait-and-see position because Iran has not wanted support, a spokesman for Yemen’s Houthis has already warned that if the US gets involved, the group will attack their warships in the Red Sea.
Another unpleasant thought is the many dormant “cells” around the world that may now be activated, with consequences for ordinary people as well. So all those who are now praising Trump’s “bravery” may find themselves eating their words if they start thinking more long term.
Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of Southeast Norway, sums it up well in a post on X, where he stated that US President Donald Trump has once again dragged the country into a conflict in the Middle East.
“Bush ran on a peace platform against nation-building, Obama promised ‘change’, Biden would ‘bring the adults back’, and Trump would get the US out of the forever wars in the Middle East. They all started wars… It does not matter who you vote for, when they do not work for you”.
But there is at least one winner here: the arms industry, whose shares will once again rise when the stock market opens.
Jenny Piper
All Jenny Piper's articles can be found on her blog.
How fanaticism fuels America’s Christian supporters of Israel
A major factor behind America's abnormal subservience to Israel is the Zionist evangelical movement, whose influence has been strengthened by Trump's return to the White House.
The relationship between Christian Europe and Judaism has varied and been complex over the centuries. It has often been marked by strong hostility, with Jews not only being regarded as having rejected Jesus as the true Messiah, but also often accused of being responsible for his crucifixion through the Jewish party and the sect of the Pharisees.
The Jewish diaspora was also generally viewed with great suspicion and was often forced to live in special quarters or areas so that the authorities could control them. Financial activities such as money lending and gold trading also led to them being associated with usury, which was greatly despised in traditional Christian society.
During the Middle Ages, relations between Christians and Jews deteriorated further in many places. In a number of European countries, Jewish residents were expelled, among other things on charges of causing disease outbreaks, poisoning wells, or ritually murdering Christian children. In several cases, there were also outright pogroms in which Jews were physically driven out or executed.
The Pope demanded separation, Luther advocated expulsion
Over the centuries, Jews continued to be regarded as an undesirable group in many places. In 1555, for example, Pope Paul IV declared that they must live separately from Christians, wear symbols that clearly showed which group they belonged to, and were even forbidden from selling anything other than food and second-hand clothes.
In his now highly controversial work The Jews and Their Lies, the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, went even further, claiming that the Jews were a godless people “who seek to destroy the foundation of our faith” and who, from childhood, are taught to harbor a “poisonous hatred of the goyim” (non-Jews).
Luther therefore advocated either expelling the Jews or forcing them into labor, while burning down their synagogues and schools.
Martin Luther and Pope Paul IV were both strongly critical of Judaism. Montage. Painting: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Jacopino Conte
The contrast in attitude toward the Jewish diaspora between Martin Luther and Paul IV is particularly striking when compared to modern evangelical Christian Zionists, who have their strongest foothold in the US but are also reflected in Nordic Pentecostal movements.
Scofield and the Jews as the chosen people
During the 19th century, a new Christian movement began to emerge in the US and Britain, inspired by biblical prophecies about the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, which was also linked to the return of Jesus to Earth. Some evangelical groups soon began to regard the re-establishment of Israel as a necessary and divine plan.
Similar ideas had been put forward before, but now they would have a broad impact. In 1909, the American theologian and preacher Cyrus Ingerson Scofield wrote a study and reference Bible, the so-called Scofield Bible, which soon became widely read in the United States. It focused heavily on proclaiming that every good Christian must also support Israel and the Jewish people – and that anti-Semitism was to be considered a particularly grave sin.
Scofield’s Bible has had a huge influence on the Christian movement in the United States. Montage. Photo: Geogozz/CC BY-SA 4.0, Unknown
“A man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God“, is one of the statements made in the writings, where biblical texts are interpreted very literally. It is repeatedly emphasized that the return of the Jews to Jerusalem is a central part of God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.
It is also proclaimed that Israel will play a decisive role in the apocalyptic events of the end times, which, according to evangelicals, will precede Jesus’ return to earth, and that God’s prophecies in the Old Testament are about the Jews – not about Christians.
As a rule, the book is interpreted as saying that it is the moral and spiritual duty of every Christian to support Israel at all costs. According to this interpretation, if this is not done, the biblical prophecies will not be fulfilled and Christians themselves will not receive God’s salvation and blessing.
“God has promised to bless those who bless the Jews. I believe, as an Evangelical Christian, that the Jewish return to their current homeland in the twentieth century was, and is, a fulfillment of biblical prophecy”, explains prominent evangelical leader Richard Land, for example, explaining his conviction.
The influence of the Scofield Bible on evangelical movements has contributed to what is often described as almost unconditional support for Israel – something that has attracted renewed attention in the wake of international criticism of Israel for its hardline policy in Gaza, which has included accusations of genocide and led to calls for the country’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Israel supporters demonstrate in New York. Photo: shavnya.com/Unsplash
Evangelical Christians are a big deal in the US, making up over 25% of the population, and they’ve been seen as pretty influential in politics for a long time.
AIPAC finances evangelical candidates
As early as the first half of the 20th century, Christian Zionists supported Jewish immigration to Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel, and their support has continued ever since. Today, Israel is considered an important “alliance partner” – not only for geopolitical reasons, but also for theological ones. These voices are considered by most analysts to be crucial in pushing through the extensive US support for Israel.
The US has also long had an influential Jewish diaspora with a lobby that, for obvious reasons, has appreciated the support of evangelicals. In many cases, large sums of money have been donated to finance the election campaigns of Christian supporters of Israel and to ensure that the US legislative assemblies are dominated by allies of Israel.
AIPAC, together with the ADL, is perhaps the best-known Jewish lobby organization in the US, and after the last election, it declared with satisfaction that almost all of “its” candidates had won their respective elections – while also managing to “stop” a number of Israel-critical challengers.
NEW:
Lindsey Graham said that he prefers to help Israel instead to the hurricane victims in South Carolina:
“I’ve been going all over South Carolina, like most people I haven’t slept much. But look what’s going on in Israel. We have to help our friends to keep the war over… pic.twitter.com/wH8gWEBLDC
Both during Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Christian Zionist influence on American politics intensified – but also during Donald Trump’s first term, when the disputed city of Jerusalem was recognised as the capital of Israel and the US embassy was moved there.
Apocalyptic motives
Christian Zionists are mainly found within the Republican Party, where some examples of prominent evangelical-oriented leaders include Trump’s former vice president Mike Pence, Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Trump’s former vice president Mike Pence is Christian and a very strong supporter of Israel. Photo: US Embassy in Jerusalem/CC BY 2.0
James Lankford, John Thune, Tim Scott, Joni Ernst, and Josh Hawley are some other names belonging to the same movement and representing the same party. Its dominance has contributed to the Republicans pursuing an even more pro-Israel line than their competitors in the Democratic Party – although they too profess to see Israel as an indispensable ally.
Analysts often point out that Christian Zionists’ support for Israel is more ideological than pragmatic, and that they are driven by apocalyptic motives rather than strategic considerations. The movement has also long been accused of exacerbating conflicts in the Middle East, where it has tended to advocate escalation rather than peace talks with regional power Iran.
Here, too, the view is often based on biblical interpretations, where the conflicts in the Middle East are viewed through an apocalyptic lens. Reference is made above all to the Book of Revelation and its prophecies of a “final battle” in which Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that are ultimately defeated. Sometimes Iran, for example, is identified as part of the armies of “Gog and Magog” that will attack Israel – but also be destroyed by fire from the sky.
In a similar vein, Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians is generally seen as part of God’s will, as the Jews are the chosen people who have the right to reclaim the territory promised to them and partially occupied thousands of years ago.
Christian Zionists often identify Iran as part of the armies of “Gog and Magog.” Montage. Painting: unknown (early 13th century), photo: Khamenei.ir
When it comes to US foreign and security policy, evangelicals stand almost exclusively on Israel’s side, and in international forums there is also an agreement to always stand behind their allies and block any attempts at sanctions or condemnation from, for example, the UN.
Family of threatened chief prosecutor
There are many examples of the Christian right’s unconditional support for Israel. When it was first reported that the International Criminal Court was considering issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, 12 Republican senators – including Ted Cruz and incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio – responded by declaring that such an order would have direct consequences for the court’s chief prosecutor, his employees, and their family members.
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are two prominent Christian Zionists. Montage. Photo: U.S. Senate Photographic Studio, Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0
“Target Israel and we will target you”, they threatened, promising “strong sanctions” against the court’s employees and associates, as well as to “bar you and your families from the United States”.
“You have been warned”, the Republicans declared, adding that the US would withdraw all support for the ICC if the court took action against Israel.
Similarly, prominent evangelicals have repeatedly claimed that the UN and its various bodies are “anti-Israel” or even “anti-Semitic” when Israeli crimes have been condemned, and senators such as Ted Cruz have declared that the US must leave the organization entirely if Israel is expelled.
Although there are a few dissenting voices, there is also much to suggest that the US under Donald Trump’s administration will pursue a more pro-Israel policy than has been the case under the Biden administration.
“No one is safe from their wrath”
Critics argue that it is very difficult in practice for US politicians to advocate a line where the US puts its own national interests ahead of Israel’s, given the strong influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which devotes considerable resources to fighting candidates who are not perceived as sufficiently loyal to Israel.
– No one is safe from their wrath, explains left-wing figure Connor Farrell.
To ensure that politicians truly promote Israel’s interests on all issues, it has emerged, for example, that all Republican members of Congress have a personal lobbyist from AIPAC with whom they are in close contact and who influences how they vote on various issues. However, this is something that politicians generally prefer not to tell voters, according to libertarian Congressman Thomas Massie.
–It doesn’t benefit anybody. Why would they want to tell their constituents that they’ve basically got a buddy system with somebody who’s representing a foreign country? It doesn’t benefit the congressman for people to know that. So they’re not going to tell you that, says Massie.
For over 40 years, Israeli and US leaders have repeatedly sounded the alarm about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat, without ever producing a single piece of credible evidence. These lies have not only misled the public, they have also paved the way for repressive sanctions, assassinations, and a military intervention that is now very close to escalating into a catastrophic major war.
The Bush administration’s lies about Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons of mass destruction were used as a pretext to invade Iraq – a war project estimated to have cost between 500,000 and one million lives. In hindsight, it turned out that no such weapons existed – they were simply lies to force through a desired regime change and assert power over the region.
Today, the invasion of Iraq is considered one of the worst betrayals by Western leaders in modern times and is often cited as a textbook example of how those in power will not shy away from manipulating their own citizens or the rest of the world to get their way. Although the case of Iraq is extreme in terms of suffering and scale, the approach is by no means unique.
Forty-one years ago, during the Cold War, the British defense magazine Jane’s Defense Weekly sounded the alarm with an unexpected report. “Iran is engaged in the production of an atomic bomb, likely to be ready within two years”, it claimed. The same claims were trumpeted by the Israeli media and US Senator Alan Cranston, who insisted that Iran was about seven years away from being able to manufacture its own nuclear weapons.
However, there was never any real basis for these claims, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also dismissed the alarm as unfounded. In retrospect, it was also clear that the statements were politically motivated scare tactics rather than serious predictions. Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons, either in the 1980s or later.
The fact that the alarms about Iran’s supposedly imminent nuclear threat had no grounding in reality mattered little. The steady stream of similar pronouncements continued to pour out from high-ranking Israeli and American officials.
For more than 40 years, Israeli and American leaders have profited from alarmist claims about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat. Photo: facsimile/X
All predictions were wrong
Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in the early and mid-1990s, when he was a member of parliament, that Iran could be only a few years away from acquiring nuclear weapons and demanded decisive action. During the same period, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres claimed that Iran would have a nuclear warhead by 1999, and in the US, a report by the House of Representatives’ Republican Research Committee claimed that Iran was “98 percent certain” to already have all the components needed to build “two or three operational nuclear weapons”.
At around the same time, under President George H.W. Bush, the CIA assessed that Iran had all the components needed for a couple of bombs, and predicted that Iran would have nuclear weapons by 2000 – a forecast that was later postponed to 2003.
These forecasts were also completely divorced from reality. The key was to portray the Iranian regime as a global threat that must be fought – and crushed with military force if necessary. This has continued, with constant alarmist and propagandistic warnings rather than serious and objective analysis. In 1995, for example, the New York Times reported that high-ranking US and Israeli officials warned that Iran would acquire a nuclear bomb by 2000.
“Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought”, the newspaper trumpeted, citing information from US and Israeli officials, and it was claimed that Iran’s atomic bomb was “at the top of the list” of dangers for the coming decade.
The warnings about Iranian nuclear bombs year after year after year have been likened to climate alarmists’ recurring warnings about global warming. Photo: facsimile/New York Times
Not yet – but soon?
When these deadlines passed without anything actually happening, the timeframes were pushed forward. In 1997, new estimates suggested that the Iranian bomb would not be ready until around 2007–2009.
During the 2000s, the warning signals and doomsday messages continued to echo. In 2005, Israel’s defense minister (Shaul Mofaz) stated that Iran would pass a “point of no return” in its nuclear weapons program within two years – which placed the critical date around 2007. In 2007, the Israeli intelligence service Mossad claimed that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability by 2009.
A 2009 forecast was even more alarming, claiming that Iran would be “nuclear armed” within a year. At the same time, more and more analysts began to question the credibility of the timelines and question why the forecasts were constantly being pushed forward, and why the new estimates should be more credible than the incorrect ones that had been made previously.
It’s kinda like climate change
12 years ago Sept 2012
Benjamin Netanyahu warned the United Nations on Thursday that Iran will have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by next summer and urged the
world the draw a clear “red line” to stop it in its tracks. pic.twitter.com/3j2Ixum83z
Despite the 2015 international nuclear agreement, leaders in Israel and the US continued to warn of Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. In September 2012, Netanyahu made a high-profile appearance at the UN General Assembly: he held up a sketch of a bomb and drew a red line with a red pen at 90 percent enrichment, warning that Iran would reach this final stage toward a bomb by spring or summer 2013 unless it was stopped.
In 2015, Netanyahu addressed the US Congress and criticized the new nuclear agreement, saying: “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb”.
In August 2021, it was time once again for Israel’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz to sound the alarm that Iran was only “about 10 weeks away” from obtaining enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear warhead.
Powerful interests want to see Iran burn
This, it should be emphasized, is only a small selection of all the statements and warnings about alleged threats that have never materialized. Over the past four decades, both American and Israeli leaders have had an even stronger incentive to portray Iran’s nuclear program as an urgent, global threat. First, the threat creates a political and strategic basis for justifying massive military support for Israel and permanent US military operations in the region.
Every warning about “imminent” nuclear weapons provides justification for congressional decisions on increased defense spending, arms exports, and a military presence in the Gulf region, which benefits arms manufacturers and maintains a powerful US presence in the oil-rich region.
Furthermore, the threatening rhetoric also strengthens Israel’s demands for international support against Tehran, which consolidates the country’s position of power in the region and legitimizes “preventive” military operations against Iran. By constantly repeating that “we only have weeks or months left”, it has been possible to maintain a permanent high-risk situation that facilitates quick decisions on sanctions or military threats whenever political leaders want to take a harder line against Iran.
At the same time, political financing in the US has also played a decisive role. Many members of Congress receive large contributions from pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC, which consistently advocate a tough line against Iran to protect Israel’s security and interests. The Israel lobby’s ads in US election campaigns often portray any negotiations with Tehran as a moral failure, which has pushed US foreign policy in an extremely pro-Israel and neoconservative direction.
Similarly, Christian groups in the US, especially evangelicals, have long viewed Israel’s continued existence as a religious duty, whereby “those who bless Israel shall be blessed themselves” – and constitute a significant voter base that demands a tough confrontation with Iran. For these groups, a potential major war is not only a geopolitical possibility but also a step in prophetic eschatological patterns.
All in all, there are several influential groups that, for economic, geopolitical, or religious reasons, have an interest in keeping Iran’s “imminent” nuclear threat alive – even though none of the predictions have ever come true and there is no indication that they have ever been close to doing so.
What is Trump basing his decisions on?
Many had hoped that things would be different with Donald Trump, given his claims that he would be the one to “end all wars”.
– My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier, he has confidently declared.
In reality, however, a different picture emerges, with Trump choosing to completely ignore the assessment of his own intelligence chief when the latter states that there is no indication that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
– Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003, DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard recently stated, referring to the intelligence community’s collective assessment.
Trump keeps repeating that “Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon” to desensitize his base about going to war with Iran.
– I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one (nuclear weapon), Trump stated, when journalists asked him why he was ignoring the assessments of his own experts and advisors.
“I dont care what she said, I think they were very close”
President Trump’s reaction to the claims, of his own National Intelligence Chief, @TulsiGabbard
Claiming that Iran was not close to building a Nuclear Weapon. pic.twitter.com/TSek6D4ARr
The fact that IAEA chief Rafel Grossi also confirms that there is no evidence “of a systematic effort (by Iran) to move toward a nuclear weapon” does not seem to matter to the US’s top leaders either. Trump has, by all accounts, decided to follow Netanyahu’s war line – despite the fact that it has been proven false for decades.
“We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon.” @iaeaorg Director General affirms his agency’s findings about Iran’s nuclear program. pic.twitter.com/TmHx7rtfjJ
Trump’s popularity has been largely built on promises to end expensive, protracted, and globalist wars. Now, the capricious president is dismissing his promises with vague neoconservative arguments that the US cannot become “great” as long as Iran has or could obtain nuclear weapons, and that this should therefore be the top priority for all American patriots.
During his previous term, Trump was heavily criticized for failing to deliver on his campaign promises. Many analysts explained this by saying that they were blocked by political opponents, but other critics also pointed out early on that he chose to surround himself with advisors with questionable agendas that were directly harmful to the US, such as his ultra-Zionist son-in-law Jared Kushner and the neoconservative hawk John Bolton.
This time, it would be different. Now, the administration would be made up of reliable and stable people who put the US first and prioritized what was good for the American people –not powerful special interests or foreign regimes.
That does not seem to have been the case. When it comes to Iran and the Middle East, the Americans and the world have, on the contrary, got a president in Trump who in practice may be even more belligerent than several of his despised predecessors. In recent days, his feed has been filled with warmongering neoconservative rhetoric and demands for Iranian submission.
“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” he thunders in a post on Truth Social, among other things.
“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin”, he threatens in another.
“AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”, he proclaims in a third.
Trump rants about Iranian nuclear weapons. Photo: facsimile/Truth Social
Who makes the decisions?
Trump has certainly long had an eccentric public persona, but even many of his own supporters on social media are wondering what is really going on. Wasn’t Joe Biden the crazy president who was dragging the US into war and misery – not Trump?
Others cannot understand why the US president continues to shout about Iranian nuclear weapons when all relevant experts have already stated that there is no evidence whatsoever that such a threat is imminent. Where did he actually get his information from, how does he make his assessments, and why are they so irrational? These are the questions being asked. No answers seem to be forthcoming, except that the US is sticking to its line that Israel’s wishes take precedence over everything else.
Therefore, it does not matter to Trump that it is Israel – not Iran – that has illegally and in the utmost secrecy acquired a large number of nuclear weapons and used them to press for US military support or deter hostile neighbors in conflicts.
Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon on how the president’s enemies are working to destroy MAGA with the war on Iran.
(0:00) Will the Iran War Be the Downfall of MAGA?
(6:55) Fox News’ Pro-War Propaganda
(12:42) The Never-Trumpers Pretending to Be On Trump’s Team
(15:30)… pic.twitter.com/PdUZFiUNNZ
There is widespread concern among Trump’s voter base that, despite all his promises of peace, Trump once again appears to be throwing the US into a major war based on lies and disinformation – exactly as was the case with the invasion following the fabricated chemical weapons allegations in Iraq in 2003. Many Americans are resigned to the fact that this is not at all what they voted for.
Opponents of US involvement in Israel’s war against Iran also point out that those who are most vocal in calling for another US war are power brokers who do not actually support Trump or the MAGA movement, but see the war as an opportunity to split or crush the movement that has built up around him.
The coming days and weeks will not only define Trump’s political legacy, but the future of the entire Middle East. Perhaps even the world’s.
A selection of warnings about an imminent Iranian nuclear threat:
1984 – Jane’s Defense Weekly: Iran may have nuclear weapons within two years. 1992 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to having a bomb by 1999. 1993 – Yitzhak Rabin: Iran is building nuclear weapons, the world must act. 1995 – US government: Iran's nuclear weapons plans must be stopped 1998 – Madeleine Albright: Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. 2000 – Bill Clinton: Law against support for Iran's weapons program. 2002 – George W. Bush: Iran threatens with nuclear weapons plans. 2004 – U.S. National Intelligence Estimate: Iran probably moving toward nuclear weapons. 2005 – Ariel Sharon: Iran close to technical solution for bomb. 2006 – George W. Bush: Iran's nuclear plans threaten peace. 2007 – US intelligence: Iran paused its weapons program in 2003 but is rebuilding capacity. 2008 – Ehud Olmert: Iran close to irreversible nuclear weapons point. 2009 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran three to five years from bomb. 2010 – Barack Obama: Iran's nuclear program a major threat. 2011 – Leon Panetta: Iran could have a bomb within a year. 2012 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to the “red line” for nuclear weapons. 2013 – Moshe Ya’alon: Iran very close to the nuclear threshold. 2014 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran on its way to becoming a nuclear power. 2015 – Benjamin Netanyahu: JCPOA (nuclear agreement with Iran) paves the way for Iran's bomb. 2017 – Donald Trump: Iran could quickly obtain nuclear weapons. 2018 – Mike Pompeo: Iran is seeking nuclear weapons despite JCPOA. 2019 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran close to manufacturing an atomic bomb. 2020 – Donald Trump: Iran economically weak but nuclear threat remains. 2021 – Joe Biden: Iran must comply with JCPOA to stop nuclear weapons. 2023 – Yoav Gallant: Iran closer to the bomb than ever. 2024 – US intelligence: Iran months away from nuclear weapons. 2025 – Benjamin Netanyahu: Iran could build nine nuclear weapons. 2025 – Donald Trump: US could bomb Iran if nuclear program is not stopped.
If the Samson option really exists, it reveals much about the basis for Israel's disproportionate influence and the silence of the international community. The fact that Israel is repeatedly allowed to act without consequences is rooted in a form of blackmail, with world leaders cowering in fear that the “nuclear card” will be played.
Analysts believe that the “Samson option” means that Israel, faced with the threat of annihilation, intends to take as much of the surrounding world with it as possible—including countries in Europe.
After the G7 summit reaffirmed that Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons and that Israel has the right to defend itself, I once again express criticism of the double standards being applied and question why Israel’s nuclear capabilities do not provoke the same kind of mania. I’m reading an analysis that sheds light on this complex situation.
Although it is a fact accepted by experts around the world that Israel has had nuclear bombs since shortly before the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel still maintains a facade of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities.
According to recent estimates by the independent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which has been monitoring the world’s nuclear weapons and the states that possess them since 1966, Israel appears to have at least 90 nuclear warheads that are believed to be capable of being launched anywhere within a maximum radius of 4,500 km with their F-15, F-16I and F-35I “Adir” aircraft, their 50 land-based Jericho II and III missiles, and approximately 20 Popeye Turbo cruise missiles launched from submarines.
The relevant question that arises is why the international community does not question Israel’s objectives, given that Iran has signed the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which Israel has refused to do.
There have been international efforts to bring all Israeli nuclear facilities under the protection of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but Israel refuses to sign an agreement to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state.
Another fact that is not disputed is that Israel has attacked Iran with the stated aim of crippling its nuclear weapons programme, which is supported by large parts of the international community, but at the same time the International Atomic Energy Agency has been unable to establish that this is not about energy. Fundamentally, Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but not to develop nuclear weapons, and so far there is no concrete evidence to support the allegations circulating in the media.
Another unexplored question is why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons without having to commit to any agreements, while Iran, if it wanted to, is not allowed to possess nuclear weapons at all.
Another interesting aspect is that Israel has been in violation of UN Resolution 487 since 1981. This originated in an attack on a nuclear research facility in Iraq carried out by Israel on June 7, 1981, which was condemned by the UN Security Council as a “clear violation of the UN Charter and the norms of international conduct”. According to the Security Council, Iraq had been a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty since it came into force in 1970.
The resolution, which is still in force, called on Israel to “place its nuclear facilities under the protection of the International Atomic Energy Agency”, but as already mentioned, Israel has never complied with Resolution 487.
Israel has no nuclear power plants, but experts agree that there is a huge nuclear facility. The Shimon Peres Negev Nuclear Research Center was built in the late 1950s/early 1960s and is said to have received French assistance and was named after the former Israeli prime minister after his death in 2016. The facility is a heavily guarded complex in the Negev desert, less than 70 km from the border with Egypt.
Iran has ballistic missiles that can reach the nuclear research center about 1,500 km from Tehran, so why would Tehran attack Israeli cities in retaliation for Israel’s attempts to destroy Iran’s nuclear industry when they could instead attack Israel’s nuclear facility?
The answer probably lies in the “Samson Option”, a protocol for mutual destruction whose existence has never been acknowledged by Israel, but never denied either. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who also investigated the Nord Stream attack, was the first to report on the Samson Option, which concerns Israel’s deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against a country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed large parts of Israel. But it will not only be its enemies that are attacked, but several of the world’s major cities under the motto “we fall, we all fall”.
Israel has twice come close to using its nuclear weapons. In 2017, it was claimed that Israel had been on the verge of launching a “demonstration” nuclear explosion shortly before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war in order to scare its enemies.
The plan was revealed in interviews with retired General Itzhak Yaakov, conducted by Avner Cohen, an Israeli-American historian and leading researcher on Israel’s nuclear history, which were published only after Yaakov’s death.
In 2003, Cohen revealed that during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when it once again appeared that Israeli forces were about to be overrun, then-Prime Minister Golda Meir had approved the use of nuclear bombs and missiles as a last resort. This doomsday plan, codenamed Samson, was named after the Israelite strongman who, captured by the Philistines, tore down the pillars of their temple and destroyed himself along with his enemies.
Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear engineer and peace activist, revealed Israel’s nuclear secrets back in 1986. Mordechai was lured to Rome, where he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and taken back to Israel on an Israeli navy ship, where he was charged with treason. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison and spent much of his time in solitary confinement. In April 2004, he was released but remains subject to a series of strictly enforced restrictions that prevent him from leaving Israel and speaking to foreigners.
Ahron Bregman, senior lecturer at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London’s Institute of Middle East Studies, who served in the Israeli army for six years in the 1980s, has said that everyone believes Israel has nuclear weapons and that the fact that Israel found it necessary to arrest Vanunu and put him in prison, and continues to impose strict restrictions on him, only proves this.
If the Samson option is true, it explains much of Israel’s influence and the passive attitude of the international community towards Israel. Israel’s ability to get away with carte blanche, no matter what it does, is based on a kind of blackmail where no one dares to oppose it for fear of the “nuclear card”. The few countries that have missiles capable of shooting down Israel’s missiles today are probably Russia, China, and North Korea, as their missiles are faster.
It therefore remains to be seen how this will end, but given that Trump has already given Israel his full support, I find it difficult to see how the outcome could be any different this time. And while those in power make their moves, more people will die on both sides, but the winner laughing all the way to the bank will be the war industry, which, as usual, is profiting from the ongoing chaos.
All Jenny Piper's articles can be found on her blog.
