Observations About Iran

In The Context Of Israel and The US

Jun 28, 2025

Another event, another slew of 'conservative influencers' who are revealed to have feet of clay. Ranting and hysteria have not, hitherto, been the hallmark of debates on the Right, as the shrill monomaniacs have almost invariably found a home amongst the multitudinous pathologies that make up the rich tapestry of the Left, but the Fifth Columnists otherwise known as the neocons have long been an exception to the rule. Lately, they have been joined by a significant cohort of self-described America First disciples whose passions have been excited by the one subject that is the otherwise half-sensible critical thinker's Achilles heel – Israel.

Whilst it's true that there are any number of 'conservatives' who cannot shake off the 'Putin is Hitler' trope, there are also many who can see the neocons' Russophobia for what it is. Yet, when we come to Netanyahu and Israel, even the Russia realists allow their prejudice to overcome their capacity for reason. To me, it seems that there are several agendas at play, none of which are coherent because they can only be sustained if the evidence is cherry picked.

This is how we know that those representing themselves as the voice of reason – those who oppose Israeli/Trump policy – are dishonest; they neglect to mention any facts that do not comport with their lobbying, which is not something they do when they are addressing other subjects. When a profoundly ideological halfwit unburdens themselves of another dog's breakfast of an opinion, it can simply be filed alongside the rest of the dreck that routinely issues forth. When someone who normally gets stuff right because they work forwards from the evidence to the conclusion does likewise, it is a conspicuous and can only be deliberate. So, a quick and dirty synopsis may be in order.

In this case, using the descriptor 'United States' isn't going to be illuminating, given the various entities that have actually been responsible for US foreign policy since the Second World War. In my estimation, the Deep State/CIA nexus has been the dominant player; mostly, presidents have gotten with the programme, the exceptions being JFK, Carter and Trump. As it happens, Iran holds a special place in the agency's heart, as it was the first victim of a new, cost-effective, plausibly deniable modus operandi – the colour revolution. Almost without exception, intervention was linked solely to the preservation of the existing business interests of American elites and their partners. So it was with Iran.

In 1953, the president declared that the Iranian people should be benefiting more from the sale of the country's oil. He even had the temerity to start seizing oil company assets. This would not do, so a CIA officer was inserted (Kermit Roosevelt) and he managed to single-handedly enable a coup d'etat, which was executed with surprising ease; it subsequently became the template of future operations, with the odd tweak. Roosevelt fomented civil unrest with the use of locals who were prepared to riot provided they were being paid to do so.

The international press exaggerated the protests, terming them a 'revolution', pictures of the deposed Shah started appearing on the streets and the president was deposed. The Shah then returned and reversed the oil company seizures, thus restoring the status quo.(1) Note that the US government is absent from this operation. There was no national interest threatened; it was oil companies that would lose out, not the state. Instead, this was a strictly private affair; literally, taking care of business.

Twenty years later, during the Oil Crisis of 1973, the Shah blotted his copy-book by voting for much higher oil prices.(2) But it was his conduct in 1978 that sealed the deal, although all he was doing was standing up to British Petroleum's attempt to renege on an agreement that the Shah had leveraged in 1973.(3) London was forcing his hand by breaching their obligation to take a minimum of five million barrels a day – taking only three million, instead – thus imposing dramatic revenue pressure on Tehran, which provided the conditions for unrest, exacerbated by agitators trained by US and British intelligence.(4) The well-oiled regime change machine was off and running; the Shah didn't stand a chance.

In the latter stages of the coup, in November 1978, the Shah persuaded the Iraqi government to expel Ayatollah Khomeini to France. The Western media, with the BBC at the forefront, lionised him, allowing him to portray himself as an “”Eastern mystic” who did not seek power, but instead sought to free his people from oppression. Many Western media outlets, usually critical of such claims, became one of Khomeini's most powerful tools.”(5) The universal kid glove treatment doesn't happen by accident and, as noted previously, the mainstream media is far from independent.

Khomeini played the long game. He signed agreements with the secular Iranian opposition and allowed Westernised politicians to speak on his behalf. He gave no indication that he was planning to create a theocracy, even though he had always been an open proponent of sharia law and had taught of the importance of religion in addressing social and political issues. The leftist opposition were, nevertheless, giddy with excitement, despite the fact that Khomeini was the “very antithesis to all of the positions they supported.”(6)

By November 1978, the US Ambassador to Iran was warning of impending disaster and advocating an intervention. Senior figures in the administration maintained that Khomeini was moderate and progressive, when they knew that he was nothing of the sort. Having sat on their hands for a year, they now allowed themselves to be presented with a near fait accompli and increased contact with the Ayatollah, effectively abandoning the Shah to his impending fate.

The Shah then appointed a new government, headed by an opposition leader and promised to leave the country, which he did on the day the new prime minister was sworn in. Khomeini returned from exile and it was apparent that the gloves were now off. On the day of his arrival, he stated:

“I shall kick their teeth in. I appoint the government. I appoint the government in support of this nation.”(7)

Ten days later, he ousted the government. Carter had been blind-sided by his own intelligence community – who repeatedly told him that “Iran is not in a revolutionary or 'pre-revolutionary' situation” -(8) and made to appear weak and incompetent. The operation was a double-whammy; Iran's oil exports were shut off, BP played silly buggers and world crude oil prices nearly tripled.(9) As a result, Carter's popularity tanked – the Iranian hostage crisis, drawn out at Bush Snr's instigation – and he lost his re-election bid. Plus, the second Middle-Eastern head of state was toppled:

“In 1977 Bhutto of Pakistan … was removed; in 1979 the Shah of Iran was removed; in 1981 Sadat was assassinated, and in 1982 the Muslim Brotherhood revolted in Syria. Before 1977 the Middle East was on the verge of achieving stability and industrial and economic parity with the West through nationalist policies and high oil prices, but by the early '80s the Middle East was in flames.”(10)

And the mullahs seized the assets of all foreign oil companies and expelled their employees,(11) which may have come as something of a shock to some. The Islamic Republic of Iran was established and continues to this day and, although there have been numerous protest movements, the theocrats still rule the roost. Technically, they don't govern Iran, but they do have a super-power that allows them an end-run around the system:

“Iran has all of the needed elements for democratic governance — legislative, executive, and judicial — and all three function as in a democracy. It is the people, not the ayatollahs, who choose the candidates for those positions. But the ayatollahs do have, and exercise, the power to decide who cannot be a candidate.”(12)

I don't propose to go chapter and verse on 'American' policy since 1979 (for that, see Are We Being Played?), except to note that the CIA/Obama pivot from 2009 onwards is so hideously amoral and wantonly injurious to Israel's national security that it involved awarding sanctions waivers worth $10 billion in the weeks after the October 7^th massacre (despite 35 murdered Americans), even though they were in possession of reams of evidence that showed that the Iranians “helped plan the attack starting over a year ago, trained militants and had advanced knowledge of it”.(13) In addition to the 500 members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad who, in the weeks leading up to the attack, “received specialized combat training in Iran”.(14) According to Hamas prisoners, Iran even dictated the date of the attack.(15)

However, the focus of this missive is Iranian nuclear policy/capabilities and the Israel/Trump responses. And to highlight the bad faith reporting and sawn-off opinions that dominate the public square. One of the favourite narratives is that Iran doesn't have the bomb and is no danger to the US and there was, therefore, no justification for Trump's bunker-buster attack. Then there's the assertion that Iran was negotiating and that bombing the nuclear facilities whilst the talks were ongoing was an act of bad faith. And who can forget the classic – that Iran hasn't had a nuclear weapon programme since the Ayatollah nixed it in 2003.

That Trump has exceeded his powers and should be impeached is another doozy, as is the contention that he is Netanyahu's bitch. The likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon rail against both Trump and Netanyahu (both appear to be afflicted by Bibi Derangement Syndrome) and issue dire predictions about thousands of dead Americans and gas hitting $30 a gallon,(16) plus a regime change 'boots-on-the-ground' campaign, whilst neocon cracked-records call for exactly that. Straw men are everywhere and rational, informed debate is nowhere to be found.

Leaving aside the increasingly obvious anti-Israel stance of Carlson, he and others who are otherwise firmly aboard the MAGA train are hyperventilating without cause. Part of the anguish is due to a reflexive pushback, a knee jerk reaction that is produced whenever “neocon rhetoric overlaps with the truth”,(17) admittedly a rare phenomenon, but it should be remembered that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I say 'part' because I am not wholly convinced that this explanation can carry much water for a person otherwise endowed with the ability to think clearly. It should be obvious to all concerned that, if your logic involves finding “moderation and rationality in the rule of the Mullahs in Iran”,(18) then there's been a glitch in your software. Not only that – these people have

“...taken this position while unloading on the Israelis for fighting an enemy that threatened to wipe out their country with a nuclear device...They shed tears for the Iranian government’s leaders, who are made to look like peace-loving victims of Israeli aggression.”(19)

So, there is at least a possibility that other motivations are lurking behind the surface stupidity. I may be wrong, but I don't remember this much stuff and nonsense when Obama was dropping ordnance on seven separate countries at the rate of 72 bombs per day – that's 26,172 in 2016 alone -(20) to go with the 23,144 that rolled out of the bomb bays the year before.(21) Or the seven-month bombing campaign that NATO – under US command – carried out against Libya in 2011. That abomination did, at least, draw a weak-kneed, after-the-fact House Resolution that amounted to a slap on the wrist. Many of these operations were against countries that had not been designated as adversaries by Congress. Which brings us to the question of legality.

Rep Thomas Massie – together with his buddy across the aisle – had already introduced a War Powers resolution, five days prior to Trump's air-strikes.(22) Leaving aside the fact that he hadn't felt the need to do similar while Obama was leaving bomb craters all over the Middle East, the resolution was a cluster, a monument to Leftist thinking, whereby a desired outcome is sought by any means possible, common sense and the Constitution be damned. The War Powers Act of 1973, the legislation that Massie et al is trying weaponize, states that the president can utilise US forces in response to

“a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”(23)

Because it has suited the machinations of the Deep State, the ongoing Iranian campaign against the United States has been normalised. But, over the past forty-five years, the Mullahs have targeted US forces and interests relentlessly:

“It has proxied the killing of American troops through the IRGC and Hezbollah, kidnapped American citizens, murdered Americans ... threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, and engaged in maritime piracy...Iran also funds Houthi drone strikes on international shipping lanes and has made the destruction of both America and Israel the ideological touchstone of its regime.”(24)

And there is precedent aplenty; Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary pirates; William McKinley and the Boxer Rebellion in China; Reagan in Grenada; Clinton all over the show; and so forth. Presidents have exercised military options for centuries, with no formal declarations of war or congressional authorisation. But one bombing run, that was reportedly over the target for a mere thirty-five minutes, and now the pearl-clutching begins. Democrats cannot help themselves, but Massie is a Republican. He prides himself on his integrity, but it is increasingly clear that he's a contrarian, not a critical thinker.

Trump had no intention of engaging in another forever war, regardless of those that attempt to force his hand:

“Eliminating or crippling Iran’s nuclear weapons development infrastructure is vital. President Trump says that Iran is nearing nuclear weapons capability. Coordinating with the Israelis in removing or diminishing that threat serves both countries’ national security interests. Morphing that limited aim into a regime change war isn’t in America’s interest. It appears that the president agrees...

Trump’s opposition to direct U.S. military intervention chagrins neocons and some Israel boosters, but Trump has been many times adamant: He opposes the Washington establishment’s eagerness for color revolutions, regime change wars, nation-building exercises, and whatever else in the past the State Department and CIA have concocted.”(25)

So far, he's been able to keep to 'one-and-done' and resist the calls for regime change – which is not to say that he hasn't offered words of encouragement to the 85% who reportedly loath the Mullahs –(26) just that he believes it's down to them. But the contention that Iran is not a danger to Americans is clearly a crock, as Iranian-backed militias have launched over 170 attacks on US bases and assets since 17^th October 2023.(27) Not to mention the Mullahs' rhetoric with regard to the 'Great Satan', an epithet first coined by Khomenei, but repeated since, latterly by President Raisi in 2022.(28) Not forgetting 'Little Satan', otherwise known as Israel, a pejorative that features prominently in Iranian propaganda.(29)

It would not surprise me to learn that some of the 'Death to America' street protests are less authentic than claimed, but the Mullahs clearly control the military or missiles wouldn't have been raining down on Tel Aviv. And when both Israel and America are the enemy, there is a convergence of interests. It would hardly be surprising if there was also a convergence of policy once someone who favours the olive branch over the monkey wrench is back in the White House, although Trump has been clear that the Mullahs must never have the bomb.

The criticism from MAGA has ignored some salient facts. The Iranians have been pursuing a nuclear weapons programme since the mid-eighties:

“In the 1980s the Iranian government - despite Ayatollah Khomeini’s opposition to the bomb on the grounds that it was Islamically prohibited – approached Pakistan’s military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, for help. Between 1986 and 2001, Pakistan gave Iran key components needed to make a bomb, although these tended to be secondhand – Khan kept the most advanced technology for Pakistan.”(30)

Libya and North Korea were also provided with nuclear technology. It is estimated that North Korea has around 50 nuclear warheads, although Gaddafi was reportedly persuaded to dismantle his programme by Dubya, who told him that the US would destroy it if he didn't, which sounds somewhat familiar. Carlson states that perhaps he wouldn't have wound up “sodomized with a bayonet” if he had managed to build a bomb and he may well be right.(31) Obama's Arab Spring bombing campaign would have appeared to be a less attractive option against an enemy with a tactical nuke, but the observation is, nonetheless, disingenuous.

Gaddafi wasn't a hardliner dedicated to taking out other countries; he wanted one as a deterrent, as Carlson implicitly notes. And, as Erdogan has warned the world, “moderate Islam” is “ugly”, because “Islam is Islam”.(32) We may not be at war with Islam, but those who reject 'moderate Islam' in favour of a more accurate interpretation of Mohammed's creed are definitely at war with us, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. And the Mullahs can be counted amongst their number. If they had the bomb, they'd use it. They have no need of a deterrent as no other country in the region has one (other than Israel) and the White is held either by a Leftist who showers them with cash or a president who has forsworn any new wars:

“For the last 46 years, Iran has been murdering its own people and exporting terrorism either directly or through proxies in Lebanon, Syria, among Palestinians, and elsewhere. Ridding that backward, theocratic regime of its nuclear apparatus is one goal. Pace some naïve commentators, there can be no doubt that if Iran possessed the bomb, it would use it. How many times have its spokesmen observed that Israel is a “one-bomb country?””(33)

Some, even on the Right, have little objection to Obama's Iran Deal, although they (and the ever-deceitful Leftists) aren't prepared to explain the detail. In the first instance, instead of a baseline that reflects reality (which is that allowing a country run by murderous theocrats a nuclear weapon is madness), the deal proceeded on the basis that Iran would eventually be able to build a bomb. And by 'eventually', I mean in pretty short order. Obama and his disciples claimed that they were ameliorating Iran's programme, whereas Trump's position is that Iran must not have a programme. And Obama's 'amelioration' does not much resemble what you and I might consider a genuine brake on proceedings:

“Sunsets kick in over a few short years, and the regime would receive a windfall of an estimated $245 billion in sanctions relief in the first year, and over $1 trillion by 2030 when Iran’s nuclear program would be free and clear from meaningful limitations—rescuing a tottering, ill-intentioned and widely hated regime by pumping it full of cash that it would use to build nuclear weapons and sow regional chaos.”(34)

I'm not overly exercised by all the debate over centrifuges and how much enriched uranium Iran now has, other than to note that a civilian nuclear programme does not require 60% enrichment. Neither do I think that all the chaff about how long it would take to convert into a bomb and whether that would be weeks or months is relevant, nor whether it exceeds treaty limits or not. It is perfectly clear that the Mullahs are trying to build a nuclear device and equally obvious what they planned to do with it:

“In August 2015, shortly after the signing of the nuclear deal with Iran, the supreme Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a book of 416 pages under the title Palestine... The timing of the publication was no coincidence. It was meant to celebrate Iran’s victory over the “Great Satan,” the United States, and more specifically the “Little Satan,” Israel, which had worked assiduously to forestall the nuclear deal. To propagate his message all over the world, he then prophesized that Israel would cease to exist within 25 years.”(35)

They are akin to a 'je ne regrette rien' serial killer on parole who states that his best work is ahead of him and who is mail-ordering bomb components. What would be the point in waiting until he's got all the parts he needs when he's in breach already? There are several other fallacies that can be swiftly dealt, one of which is the deliberately obtuse referencing of the fact that the Iranians were negotiating. Whilst they were certainly talking to the Americans, it is probably a mistake to characterise that as 'negotiating'.

Iranian negotiators are renowned as world-class exponents of Parseltongue and the Shiite doctrine of taquiyya sanctions the deployment of deceit in pursuit of ideological goals.(36) In short, they cannot be trusted. The fact that they were in talks means nothing, as do all the denials about their programme. Plus, of course, Trump had given them sixty days and Israel struck on Day 61. Carlson and co know these things, but choose not to take them into consideration when formulating their pronouncements.

It is said that Tucker has taken against Bibi himself due to the Israeli Prime Minister's arrogance. Perhaps that's true and perhaps Netanyahu is arrogant; I know not. Nor would I care. Israel's situation is one thing and advocacy on behalf of Israel is quite another. Taking against the country because you don't like its chief representative is a strand of critical thinking with which I am not familiar, but messages and messengers are separate entities. Allowing feelings to dictate opinions is supposed to be a Leftist issue.

Then there is the assertion that Netanyahu is trying to get Trump embroiled in regime change. That may very well be so, but I'd hardly blame him for that. His job is to safeguard Israel and the Israelis have earned the right to be what some would consider a little overwrought. However, just because they're paranoid, it doesn't mean that others don't have it in for them. Whenever Iran has been flush with cash (due to Obama's munificence during his three terms in office), the Mullahs have splashed it on their proxies, all of whom attack Israel indiscriminately:

“The Israelis have cause for wanting to end to the Iranian regime. Iran’s threat to Israel is more imminent. Israelis are currently on the brunt end of Iranian missile strikes. A nuclear-armed Iran would be a mortal threat to the Jewish state. So, the Israelis’ national interest differs in that sense. Iran, possessing nuclear arms, threatens U.S. interests overseas and here at home.”(37)

It would seem that Trump understands the dynamics. I have little doubt that whoever it was that was OIC autopen during Biden's fraudulent administration had access to the same information, but calibrated their policies very differently. Netanyahu may well feel the need to move swiftly and get stuff done while Trump is in the White House, because a changing of the guard will be potentially devastating.

So, Netanyahu and then Trump launch targeted strikes and allegedly gutted the Mullahs' nuclear programme. The intelligence community, as well as attempting to kneecap Tulsi Gabbard, tried to fan the embers and kibosh the subsequent ceasefire by leaking an 'assessment' to their stenographers in the media, claiming that the programme has only been delayed, not destroyed, and various senators dutifully stepped up to stir the pot.(38) The same message was regurgitated across platforms using the same language, a fail-safe indicator that we were being slathered with propaganda, not organic news, because it takes a long time to even diagnose building damage, let alone repair it – especially when it's deep underground.(39) And Trump has made it clear that he's up for a Round Two at some point in the future, if necessary.(40)

An observation about the hysteria about 'regime change' and the use of the phrase as a sledgehammer that silences debate. Advocating for regime change amongst us right-thinking people is (obviously. Duh.) verboten but, in my humble opinion, there's a little nuance that gets stomped by the 'MAGA' jackboot. If you're an absolutist, you'll find no argument here. I'm easy, but I could make a case, as follows. 'Regime change' has come to mean one of two things – an astroturfed coup d'etat, managed by a CIA front like USAID or NED, which tends to follow in the slipstream of a government's refusal to sign their country over to the IMF and BlackRock, or a forever war which inevitably ensues when attempting to 'spread democracy' in a country which hasn't requested it.

Regime change in Iran would not fit the template and may be a blessing for the country's benighted population and most other countries in the Middle East, which allowed the B-2 bombers to traverse their air-space and which have historically shot down Iranian missiles aimed at Israel.(41) Offering encouragement to those who oppose the Mullahs – from afar – might be something that Trump is considering, to the horror of the 'purists' in the MAGA camp who are comfortable with this particular terrorist state, but not others. Iran has conducted over 1,700 public executions this year alone,(42) yet there is nary a peep from Massie, Carlson and their fellow travellers.

I don't find the Israel/Iran imbroglio to be complicated. Israel is a secular state and Judaism is not a religion of conquest. Iran is ruled by Mullahs whose religion advocates for the destruction of infidels and the reconquest of previously occupied territories. One funds proxies that rain down missiles on civilians, the other has the Iron Dome. It may be undeclared, but Iran has been at war with Israel for over fifteen years. When the Israeli Air Force attacks targets in Iran, it is responding in kind, for which it is routinely condemned.

“Iran advertised countless times its resolve to wipe Israel off the map, in so many words. Israel was not inclined to submit to that outcome and it closely monitored Iran’s practical steps to acquire deliverable nuclear bombs. Israel, in turn, advertised that Iran’s nuclear program would not be allowed to succeed.”(43)

Come the time, Trump piled on too, because America is also a target and because he had the bombs that might finish the job. All else is a distraction. Negotiations, enrichment levels, however close the Iranians were – none of that is important. Anything beyond about 4% is part of a weapons programme and Iran had stockpiles at 60%. That's all she wrote. All the sound and fury around regime change is simply a head fake. Trump isn't Bush Jnr; he's explicitly against 'nation-building'. So, the spluttering and angst was either performative or delusional. Plus, in one fell swoop, he has taken “Israel’s “Iran has nukes!” card off the table”.(44)

Why, then, all the drama? Why would commentators in good standing, who have demonstrated an ability and a willingness to root out the truth, now cast aside the rational and endorse a parallel universe characterised by wilful blindness and cherry picking? If I had to guess, some of the BS is animated by an ancient prejudice and the rest is a consequence of a phenomenon that the topic of Israel, in particular, has a habit of revealing.

Unfortunately, many of those who are nominally part of the resistance are not fearless truth-seekers – they are part of the control mechanism. They just have more licence to be critical of our lords and masters, but they are still trying to gain our confidence, then misdirect our energy into an approved narrative. Others have come to similar conclusions:

“So it’s pretty clear that the social media swarm is guided by something else besides the desire to protect Trump’s legacy, something that they can’t say directly. And that’s because what we’ve been seeing unfold over the past few months, and with increasingly hysterical fervor since the success of Israel’s surprise attack, is an information operation purposed to defend Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Self-described America First activists want Iran to get the bomb, just as our most proudly anti-American president did.”(45)

However, the environment is not static. Every time there is a need to activate the sleeper cells in pursuit of a risky target, more assets get burned. Whoever it was that called in the chips on this one is not the most subtle of operators. When influencers suddenly leave the reservation – in unison – it's jarring. When previously sensible people have an incoherent fit of the vapours, it's not possible to unsee it. I imagine they'll manage to carve off a few of the more gullible, but most of us will understand what's just occurred. Some more, highly visible forgeries thrown on the fire. Not just pawns, some big pieces too. Must have been important to someone.

Citations

(1) https://expose-news.com/2022/11/28/economic-hit-men-are-the-first-line-of-defence/

(2) Lacey, Robert (1981). The Kingdom (1st American ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, page 406.

(3) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/08/a-darker-horizon-the-assassination-of-shapour-bakhtiar.html

(4)https://web.archive.org/web/20110522024534/http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

(6) Ditto

(7) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/08/a-darker-horizon-the-assassination-of-shapour-bakhtiar.html

(8)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_about_the_Iranian_Revolution

(9) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2011/08/a-darker-horizon-the-assassination-of-shapour-bakhtiar.html

(10) http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/BritIslam.htm

(11) https://litci.org/en/iran-1979-an-interrupted-revolution/