Jonas E. Alexis
April 12, 2026
If you do not think that Israel’s attacks on Iran ended up having the opposite effect of what the Israeli government expected, then you should look at a recent article from The New York Times, which was also reported by The Times of Israel. Listen to this:
“The report, which detailed how Trump arrived at his decision to go to war on February 28, said Netanyahu told Trump that Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks; Tehran would be so weakened by US-Israeli attacks that it would be unable to block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz; it would likely be unable to strike US assets in neighboring countries; and the regime was ripe for collapse, thanks to help from Kurdish fighters capable of invading the country from Iraq. While Trump’s CIA chief and secretary of state would later characterize Netanyahu’s regime change prediction as “farcical” and “bullshit,” the president and many of his advisers were sold on the ideas that Iran’s leadership could be taken out and that its military arsenal could be destroyed.”
Israel was clearly wrong. Iran stood its ground. Not only that, Iran gave both Trump and Netanyahu the finger by asserting control over the Strait of Hormuz and by disrupting both Israeli and U.S. assets in the Middle East.
In other words, the Israeli government and its allies in America did not expect Iran to come out strong in this conflict. Netanyahu obviously believed he was still untouchable and that Iran was too small to seriously challenge the Zionist empire, or what Ruhollah Khomeini called “the great Satan.”
As Jeffrey Sachs pointed out, in a war like this, almost no one truly wins, because lives are lost and the economy suffers.
However, Sachs also said one thing is certain: the outcome of the war appears to favor Iran. This is a reasonable and defensible view. Trump, with his strong threats, apparently believed he could scare Iran into surrendering and reopening the Strait of Hormuz after only a few attacks. But once again, Iran did not back down. According to Press TV and other news reports, Iran actually has the advantage.
Could the Zionist regime have predicted this outcome? Of course not, because they are blind to higher realities. They thought they could concoct one fabrication after another and attack a country at will. As Jewish Neocon Michael Ledeen once declared: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”
Ledeen made this statement in the 1990s, and he likely did not expect that Iran would be an exception to it. The Israeli regime has now been wounded, and Iran has shown the world that even a smaller country can have a strong impact.
In addition, both China and Russia have clearly said that they oppose the actions of Israel and the United States against Iran. If Trump had considered using nuclear weapons, it could have led to a much larger global conflict.
Trump may have recognized how serious the situation was and decided to step back. He then claimed that the United States had already achieved its goals in Iran and that the war was effectively over, suggesting it was time to pursue a peace deal.
The main question is this: why did Trump agree to meet with Netanyahu at the White House and consider going to war with Iran? I have argued that the Israeli government obviously has leverage over Trump, and the Epstein files cannot be dismissed easily. Tucker Carlson has recently suggested something similar.
Carlson also gave an example, claiming that Netanyahu had compromising information about Bill Clinton and used it to pressure him over the release of Jonathan Pollard from prison. So, is it farfetched to say that Netanyahu is using the same tactic? For example, consider this video clip carefully from U.S. Representative Dan Goldman of New York:
There may be things in Trump’s past that he would not want the public to know. The situation became more unusual when Melania appeared to contradict an earlier statement from the Trump administration by saying that the Epstein files are real and that victims deserve to be heard. This contradiction upset some people in the administration.
However, this does not necessarily mean that Melania is acting out of courage or principle. It is also possible that she is trying to protect herself. Some commentators, including Larry Johnson, have suggested that she probably was an Epstein girl, and that this could mean others have influence over her as well.
So, what is the conclusion from this situation with Iran? I recently listened to a Chinese professor who argued that the United States and Israel cannot return to the way things were before the war. In other words, their global position has been seriously weakened, and many countries may no longer view them in the same way.
This was already happening during the conflict, as even NATO chose not to get involved alongside Israel and the United States. This reportedly frustrated the Trump administration. In short, both Israel and the United States faced a significant loss of credibility.
So, the attack on Iran turned out to be a major mistake by the Israeli regime and the Zionist empire in the United States. In response, countries like China, Russia, India, and others in BRICS strongly criticized the actions of Israel and the United States. Friedrich Hegel might have described this kind of unexpected outcome as “the cunning of reason.”
April 12, 2026
If you do not think that Israel’s attacks on Iran ended up having the opposite effect of what the Israeli government expected, then you should look at a recent article from The New York Times, which was also reported by The Times of Israel. Listen to this:
“The report, which detailed how Trump arrived at his decision to go to war on February 28, said Netanyahu told Trump that Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks; Tehran would be so weakened by US-Israeli attacks that it would be unable to block traffic through the Strait of Hormuz; it would likely be unable to strike US assets in neighboring countries; and the regime was ripe for collapse, thanks to help from Kurdish fighters capable of invading the country from Iraq. While Trump’s CIA chief and secretary of state would later characterize Netanyahu’s regime change prediction as “farcical” and “bullshit,” the president and many of his advisers were sold on the ideas that Iran’s leadership could be taken out and that its military arsenal could be destroyed.”
Israel was clearly wrong. Iran stood its ground. Not only that, Iran gave both Trump and Netanyahu the finger by asserting control over the Strait of Hormuz and by disrupting both Israeli and U.S. assets in the Middle East.
In other words, the Israeli government and its allies in America did not expect Iran to come out strong in this conflict. Netanyahu obviously believed he was still untouchable and that Iran was too small to seriously challenge the Zionist empire, or what Ruhollah Khomeini called “the great Satan.”
As Jeffrey Sachs pointed out, in a war like this, almost no one truly wins, because lives are lost and the economy suffers.
However, Sachs also said one thing is certain: the outcome of the war appears to favor Iran. This is a reasonable and defensible view. Trump, with his strong threats, apparently believed he could scare Iran into surrendering and reopening the Strait of Hormuz after only a few attacks. But once again, Iran did not back down. According to Press TV and other news reports, Iran actually has the advantage.
Could the Zionist regime have predicted this outcome? Of course not, because they are blind to higher realities. They thought they could concoct one fabrication after another and attack a country at will. As Jewish Neocon Michael Ledeen once declared: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”
Ledeen made this statement in the 1990s, and he likely did not expect that Iran would be an exception to it. The Israeli regime has now been wounded, and Iran has shown the world that even a smaller country can have a strong impact.
In addition, both China and Russia have clearly said that they oppose the actions of Israel and the United States against Iran. If Trump had considered using nuclear weapons, it could have led to a much larger global conflict.
Trump may have recognized how serious the situation was and decided to step back. He then claimed that the United States had already achieved its goals in Iran and that the war was effectively over, suggesting it was time to pursue a peace deal.
The main question is this: why did Trump agree to meet with Netanyahu at the White House and consider going to war with Iran? I have argued that the Israeli government obviously has leverage over Trump, and the Epstein files cannot be dismissed easily. Tucker Carlson has recently suggested something similar.
Carlson also gave an example, claiming that Netanyahu had compromising information about Bill Clinton and used it to pressure him over the release of Jonathan Pollard from prison. So, is it farfetched to say that Netanyahu is using the same tactic? For example, consider this video clip carefully from U.S. Representative Dan Goldman of New York:
There may be things in Trump’s past that he would not want the public to know. The situation became more unusual when Melania appeared to contradict an earlier statement from the Trump administration by saying that the Epstein files are real and that victims deserve to be heard. This contradiction upset some people in the administration.
However, this does not necessarily mean that Melania is acting out of courage or principle. It is also possible that she is trying to protect herself. Some commentators, including Larry Johnson, have suggested that she probably was an Epstein girl, and that this could mean others have influence over her as well.
So, what is the conclusion from this situation with Iran? I recently listened to a Chinese professor who argued that the United States and Israel cannot return to the way things were before the war. In other words, their global position has been seriously weakened, and many countries may no longer view them in the same way.
This was already happening during the conflict, as even NATO chose not to get involved alongside Israel and the United States. This reportedly frustrated the Trump administration. In short, both Israel and the United States faced a significant loss of credibility.
So, the attack on Iran turned out to be a major mistake by the Israeli regime and the Zionist empire in the United States. In response, countries like China, Russia, India, and others in BRICS strongly criticized the actions of Israel and the United States. Friedrich Hegel might have described this kind of unexpected outcome as “the cunning of reason.”
Loading…
vtforeignpolicy.com
