Israel's attacks on Iran show how the Zionist state has transformed the US

(LifeSiteNews) -- In a dangerous escalation, Israel has bombed Iranian nuclear facilities and assassinated up to a dozen of its atomic scientists, negotiators and political leaders in a series of air strikes it claims were made in self-defense.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed this was a “unilateral” attack by Israel.

However, Antiwar.com reported a dramatically different story, stating:

A senior Israeli official told the Jerusalem Post that Tel Aviv and Washington worked together to convince Tehran that diplomacy was still possible after Israel was ready to attack Iran. Just hours before Israel’s massive assault began, President Donald Trump maintained he was still committed to talks.

The Israeli outlet reports, 'The round of US-Iranian nuclear negotiations scheduled for Sunday was part of a coordinated US-Israeli deception aimed at lowering Iran’s guard ahead of Friday’s attack."

More shocking details followed, contradicting what Israel and President Trump and his administration have been claiming about the attack.

Barak Ravid of Axios, moreover, later reported that Tel Aviv was given 'a clear US green light' to start bombing, citing two unnamed Israeli officials.

Sources speaking with Axios said the perceived split between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was coordinated behind the scenes. 'Two Israeli officials claimed to Axios that Trump and his aides were only pretending to oppose an Israeli attack in public — and didn’t express opposition in private,' the report explained. 'The goal, they say, was to convince Iran that no attack was imminent and make sure Iranians on Israel’s target list wouldn’t move to new locations.'

The sources said that Trump and Netanyahu discussed the attack during a phone call on Monday. After the call, reports said Trump pressed Netanyahu not to attack Iran, but that was another effort to deceive Iran.

The attacks have been framed as a necessary step to prevent the enrichment of uranium by Iran, which was allegedly being developed into nuclear weapons. Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has stated that Iran has repeatedly denied it. Newsweek reported in a March 27 article:

Speaking before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard stated that the intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.'

Even if the claims of nuclear weapons development were true, Iranian nuclear sites are reportedly half a mile below mountains and cannot be reliably disabled even with nuclear weapons, as Alastair Crooke noted yesterday.

The strikes on Iran are almost certainly intended to spark a war, as the British-Iranian academic Dr. Neema Parvini has warned. AP News confirmed Iranian nuclear facilities are so deep that even a U.S. strike could not hit them.

Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor told LifeSiteNews last November that there is a serious danger that Donald Trump will be led into a war with Iran. MacGregor, Alastair Crooke and others have emphasized that there has been no evidence that Iran has been developing a nuclear weapon, while Netanyahu has been promoting the fiction for over a decade to justify U.S. support for an Israeli attack on the nation.

READ: Colonel Macgregor: Trump must avoid leading the US into a disastrous war with Iran

Then, in April 2025, former Middle East negotiator Alastair Crooke warned, “We are going to war” - for Israeli expansionism, the real reason for Netanyahu’s constant appeals to the United States to join Israel in attacking Iran.

READ: Former UK diplomat warns 'we are going to war' with Iran because of Israeli expansionism

Iranian sources today described the attacks as a “declaration of war.” Saudi Arabia and Qatar have condemned the “Israeli aggression.” Russia has said Israel’s attacks were “unprovoked” and “illegal.”

Pascal Lottaz of the Neutrality Studies website expressed last night that the “unprovoked attack” by Israel on Iran was “horrible” and “the largest single escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran ever.”

In response to Netanyahu’s claim that the attack was preemptive, Lottaz responded,

It seems that more and more the word "preemptive" is going to be used. And of course, the word preemptive is reminiscent of how the United States defended the attack on Iraq back in 2003. Because the word preemptive is actually a concept in the so-called just war theory, which back in 2003 was invoked time and time again as a justification for the attack on another sovereign nation. And it seems that Israel is trying to conjure up exactly the same kind of [false] narrative now that Iran was just months away from actually producing a nuclear weapon.

This is an unprovoked aggression by the Israelis against the Iranians. And this time is truly and utterly unprovoked because just let's remember that there were negotiations going on.

I just simply, I don't think that the Americans can be uninvolved in this. They must have at least green-lit this strike.

He further adds, “And the reason Mr. Netanyahu is giving is, of course, the nuclear, the so-called nuclear threat. But this is utter BS. This is just not true. We know that the Iranians have said time and again they're not looking, they're not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. They are in talks with the Americans.”

The usually mild-mannered, soft-spoken Lottaz uncharacteristically called Israel “a fanatic fascist regime” and their actions last night “utterly horrible. It's again, an unnecessary, a completely utterly avoidable war done by an apartheid regime, a genocidal apartheid regime of injustice that is now trying to take out the biggest one of its opponents.”

Last week, Iran claimed to have stolen information detailing Israel’s secret and undeclared nuclear arsenal, which was itself developed with technology and material stolen from the United States.

Iran has “vowed revenge,” and U.S. negotiator Steve Witkoff has warned of a “mass casualty event” in Israel due to Iran’s retaliation. As Israelis face emergency measures, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s private plane has reportedly left Israel for Greece.

Dangers of 'massive conflict'

There are serious fears that the Israeli strikes may lead to runaway escalation, dragging the United States into a regional or world conflict. Planned talks between the U.S. and Iran towards de-escalation have now been cancelled.

Speaking before the attacks, Trump told reporters on Thursday, “Look, there's a chance of massive conflict.”

President Trump took to Truth Social after the attacks to appeal to Iran to make a deal “before there is nothing left,” but his sincerity is now highly questionable.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu warned today that “this operation will continue.”

With Netanyahu facing the dissolving of his coalition at home, the context of these attacks, which Israel says are “only the beginning,” cannot be explained by the media narrative of the present day.

What is happening in Iran explains why some analysts say there is no difference between foreign and domestic policy, and also why many critics charge there is no difference between the U.S. government and that of Israel, and that the American government has for years done whatever Israel has demanded.

Greater Israel and the war on terror

In an exclusive interview with LifeSite’s John Henry Westen, Colonel MacGregor told viewers this week that the president was opposed to a war when he discussed Iran with Donald Trump in 2020.

Now, says Macgregor, things have changed. Trump is backed by “wealthy Jewish donors,” he says, “who are advocates for Mr. Netanyahu ... and his Greater Israel Program.”

In this report, LifeSiteNews explains where Netanyahu’s agenda comes from, what “Greater Israel” means, and how this has powered the transformation of the United States into an instrument of permanent war. This is the story of how the convenient, supposed “war on terror” was made in Jerusalem, and explains why we are faced with a war with Iran today.

Netanyahu and the birth of the war on terror

Israel has been pursuing a military strategy of regional dominance since the 1970s. Netanyahu, who once changed his name to “Ben Nitay” to sound more American, began building an influence network almost 50 years ago to realize this strategy.

When his brother Yonatan was killed in the raid on Entebbe in 1976, Benjamin Netanyahu organized a charitable foundation in his name.

The world’s first conference on international “terrorism” was convened by the Jonathan Institute in Jerusalem in 1979 by Netanyahu and his father, Benzion Netanyahu.

Mainly attended by Israeli, U.S., and UK state officials, it aimed to shift Western strategy from diplomacy and negotiation to war and stressed the strategic role of the media.

It produced a shift in US policy under Reagan, with the U.S. now seeing military intervention as the answer to the new threat of "terror."

Those enemies were in reality nations or organizations Israel considered to be threats to its planned Greater Israel conquests and expansion in the Middle East.

RELATED: UK civil servants revolt over ‘Israel’s genocide’

Terrorism was no longer a diplomatic issue but is now a “civilizational struggle” between “democracies” and “terror” states, with the democracies themselves often engaged in terrorist actions against innocent civilians but justified as necessary "self-defense."

Terror fever had taken over the U.S. government. This was the birth of the “war on terror” which would be declared in September 2001.

The proceedings of the conference were published in a 1981 book by Netanyahu. It is called International Terrorism: Challenge and Response.

Where should the “response” be directed?

At the second conference in 1984, Netanyahu’s father told the audience that the terrorist has his home in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran.

But we must also consider a third factor which shows clearly what the terrorist is. I refer to his patrons, promoters and overlords, all of which are states with repressive regimes in which freedom as we know it has no place. Known are his connections with countries of the Middle East such as Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran, which earned the title of terrorist states because they habitually use terror to further their aims. But not so well-known, and often obscure, are the ties of the terrorists with the Soviet Union; and these are by far more important, more decisive, and more crucial for the future of the free world.

The Yinon Plan for Greater Israel

Yet the plans had already been made in Israel for the targets of the war on terror. A plan for "Greater Israel," noted by Macgregor and openly celebrated by Israeli ministers today, was published over 40 years ago.

READ: Syria's power vacuum is a major step toward the Zionist dream of a Greater Israel

When the Israelis bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor Osirak in 1981, Reagan wrote in his diary, “I swear I believe Armageddon is near”. Israel did not warn the U.S. beforehand.

In 1982, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East was published by Oded Yinon.

The inside cover shows a map of “Greater Israel,” saying the territories shown were claimed by the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, as the “Promised Land.”

This plan, known as the Yinon Plan, is announced as “a strategy for Israel for the 1980s.”

The next decade would see those plans become U.S. policy.

Israel's plans transformed the United States

In 1996, U.S. neocons authored a report for Benjamin Netanyahu.

It was called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” It stressed U.S.-partnered attacks on Iran, Syria and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

The next year the neocons Robert Kagan and William Kristol founded the Project for a New American Century. Its “Statement of Principles” from June 1997 demanded the peace dividend after the Cold War be canceled and replaced with massive increases in defense spending.

It said, “We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.”

One democratic ally would be foremost in this vision, and the hostile regimes had been identified for decades.

One year before 9/11, PNAC published “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in September 2000. It was co-authored by Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan’s father.

The paper urged a massive expansion of military spending to create a “dominant force” to counter global terror.

It warned that the American public would not accept this and that defence cuts following the end of the Cold War would make it impossible.

Kagan’s paper argued for a wholesale “transformation” of the U.S. economy, diplomacy, and military posture.

“The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

One year after 9/11, Netanyahu addressed Congress as a private citizen to urge a U.S. war on Iraq to prevent it from allegedly developing nuclear weapons – or other weapons of mass destruction.

On September 12, 2002, he said the U.S. should adopt the strategy of preemptive war – and consider attacking Syria, Libya and Iran as well. Netanyahu warned that Iraq and Iran were closest to developing nuclear weapons. None of the allegations were proven to be true.

Months later, the U.S. National Security Strategy adopted the doctrine of preemptive strikes in its Article V.

The war industry grows

A vast industry for the war on terror grew after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The national security state was born, with sweeping powers of surveillance giving rise to a billion-dollar business of monitoring, “security,” and censorship.

CIA-backed companies like Oracle and Palantir won their first government contracts in the 9/11 boomtime for big tech. DARPA’s LifeLog was cancelled, and Facebook launched on the same day. Homeland Security handed out huge contracts to Big Tech, powering a generation of data billionaires now digitizing the U.S. government.

Eight to nine trillion dollars have been spent on the wars against mostly fictitious, facilitated or exaggerated terror since 2001. The total cost of two-and-a-half decades of the militarization of the U.S. economy is reported to be $21 trillion.

The Netanyahu-neocon transformation of America has been a roaring success.

What can Trump do?

If Donald Trump is not a “neocon” - and he and his Vice President JD Vance have both said they condemn the “forever wars” the neocons launched – what can he do about all this?

Speaking of the last months of the Biden administration, Responsible Statecraft argued in June 2024, “A decisive American president can do anything he wants, whether or not a powerful lobby opposes him.”

The powerful lobby here is that of Israel, and its main agent in U.S. politics now “sponsors” almost every member of Congress.

AIPAC was founded in 1954 to counter U.S. outrage over the massacre of 60 Palestinians by the Israeli army. Its precursor, the American Zionist Council for Public Affairs, was set up with funding from Jewish mobsters with ties to Meyer Lansky.

Noting how Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton compelled Israel to walk back its demands and actions in return for U.S. support, Responsible Statecraft reminded readers of Clinton’s furious response to Netanyahu:

“Who the f*** does he think he is? Who is the f***ing superpower here?”

Americans may be asking themselves the same question. The question has two answers: blackmail and bribery.

Israel's network of blackmail and bribery

As LifeSiteNews has reported this week, Israel has been operating what amounts to a digital blackmail network for almost a decade.

READ: Why do so many Western leaders support Israel? The answer may be on your phone

The expertise of its intelligence unit 8200 has developed phone and computer hacking technology, which has been used to extract personal data from the phones of Western presidents, prime ministers, and U.S. State Department officials.

Israeli technology was used by Mike Waltz, who was fired for trying to push President Trump into a war with Iran – in the national interest of Israel.

READ: Trump admin's firing of arch-Zionists worries Israeli officials, gives America Firsters hope

Why else do so many congressmen and senators trumpet their support for the strikes, which could spark a disastrous and perhaps uncontrollable war?

The simple answer is that these are not the American people's representatives nor their national interest. As Col. Douglas MacGregor has tirelessly pointed out, they represent the donor class.

What we see here are the cheerleaders of the death machine that cycles donations to campaigns, not only through AIPAC, but through the circle of influence buying, warmongering and weapons manufacturing that has produced an economic model of permanent war.

This has effectively bought most of the political class.

To understand the moves to bomb Iran is to understand the sponsorship of political factions in the U.S. and the West. This can be understood by those paid for by the various death industries, and those who are not.

The members of the House and Senate who are cheering for war are funded by the war machine, whose money was raised by or borrowed against taxation. It has funded their entire careers. The genius of Netanyahu and the neocons was to make an industry of Israel’s war aims and sell it to the senators who would vote for its wars.

Who pays for all this? In terms of life, the people the U.S. keeps “genociding” in forever wars, such as the one million historic Christians JD Vance says were killed by the war in Iraq. In cash terms, it is the U.S. taxpayer, whose money is used to sponsor a death machine which now dominates the airwaves – if no longer the world.

"Yet there is a moral cost too," said Vance, allied to making false cases for war which result in the deaths of millions.

JD Vance said in that May 2024 speech that the American people would not have supported the Iraq War if they had not been told there was a threat from weapons of mass destruction. “That was wrong,” he said. The case for war was compelling, but it was not true.

“It's sort of weird to me that no one, even though Republicans are theoretically the Christian conservative party, that no one makes this argument that traditional neoconservative foreign policy keeps on leading to the genocide of Christians.”

He said, “But it does, which is one of many reasons why neoconservative foreign policy is strategically and morally stupid.”

Last summer, the now-vice president spoke out for the moral case against the death machine and the media campaigns which promote it. Its cheerleaders in the U.S. House and Senate remain one powerful faction who have profited from it, and so do the mostly Israel-connected tech titans who are now moving to create an AI-powered surveillance state in the U.S.

The questions raised by the latest episode of decades of forever war strike at the heart of home. Who is in charge of this superpower, and where is America going next?