After maintaining a discreet distance from Israel’s war on Iran, which has been going on for a lot longer than 12 days, President Trump decided to weigh in with American power to help the Israelis finish the job. By doing this he has taken direct US ownership of the war and begun to ride two horses. The question is, to where?

It was clear that whatever great objectives Donald Trump had in the world they were likely to be derailed by an overt and direct US participation in war with Israel on Iran. Such a road, if taken, was likely to ruin MAGA both domestically and internationally.

As was noted in previous articles such a decision would cast a dark shadow over Trump’s primary desire to make deals with Russia and China. In fact, satisfied with his work in Iran, he made a very menacing statement against Russia and China:

“Iran, the bully of the Middle East must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier. The bombs today struck Iran. But it is a message that will be heard in Moscow and Beijing: If I offer you a deal, take it or the consequences will be fast and fiery.”

That is something Putin and Xi are unlikely to take kindly to.

On top of this the resistance to Trump internationally was likely to be emboldened, even if they approved of a US bombing of Iran as Israel doing the West’s “dirty work.”

Domestically Trump’s war also has the potential to create an anti-war movement made up of the substantial numbers who already detest Mr. Trump for what he is to them, joined by those who voted for him on his promise to be a peace-making president.

Perhaps we should write: MAGA RIP, died for Israel.

Trump seems to have been aware of the potential for his great project, which is fundamentally connected to his own personal project of self-aggrandisement, to unravel. And, therefore, he decided on a swift and limited US intervention that was designed to be not only a great theatrical event but involve a very swift exit 

How did it all come to this?

It is clear that Israel wants the US to destroy Iran. It has been the objective of Benjamin Netanyahu to embroil America in a war with Iran for 2 decades. President Trump very likely wants to avoid a war with Iran. He has nothing to gain from it. Instead of bombing Iran he would prefer to shut down its civil nuclear program. Its existence makes Iran a potential nuclear weapon state, which Washington wants to prevent. As a previous article suggested he was prepared to use Israeli military power to this.

Iran denies that it is striving to get nuclear weapons, although there is every reason for it to possess them. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, who had opposed any strike on Iran, recently told a Congressional Committee that Iran had no current program that would lead to weapon capabilities. She was contradicted by Trump and has since stated that Iran, in fact, was on the brink of success in this. That was a good indication of Trump’s intentions, because a few days later the US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites.

While all the indications are that Iran has not attempted to reach nuclear weapon capability it probably has reached a threshold/breakout level of enrichment, around 60%, which it could take to 90% grade in a short time, in order to have a bomb, if it felt it had to. And Israeli behaviour lately has made that into something of an imperative.

It was Trump who in 2018 withdrew the US from the 2015 Obama agreement and JCPOA – which had limited Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme to 3.6% enrichment and put it under strict surveillance. That act set off the chain of developments which led to the current situation. President Biden, of course, did nothing to return to President Obama’s deal and he pursued Trump’s policy. But if Trump’s policy now backfires, he has proved to be the author of his own misfortune.

When Trump tore up the JCPOA and reimposed the economic sanctions on Iran in 2018, he made a comprehensive set of demands that Iran had to satisfy before they were lifted.  They are likely to be the model for lifting sanctions now.  They were:

“First, Iran must declare to the IAEA a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear program, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity.

“Second, Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor.

“Third, Iran must also provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.

“Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems.

“Iran must release all U.S. citizens, as well as citizens of our partners and allies, each of them detained on spurious charges.

“Iran must end support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

“Iran must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias.

“Iran must also end its military support for the Houthi militia and work towards a peaceful political settlement in Yemen.

“Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety of Syria.

“Iran, too, must end support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region, and cease harbouring senior al-Qaida leaders.

“Iran, too, must end the IRG Quds Force’s support for terrorists and militant partners around the world.

“And too, Iran must end its threatening behaviour against its neighbours – many of whom are U.S. allies. This certainly includes its threats to destroy Israel, and its firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It also includes threats to international shipping … and destructive cyberattacks.”

After Trump’s ripping up of the deal Iran waited a year before it took retaliatory measures by increasing its enrichment of nuclear fuel and by decreasing its cooperation with the inspectors of the IAEA, who supervised Iran’s adherence to the JCPOA.

With Trump back in office in 2025 he set out to push Iran towards a new agreement that would, he hoped, eliminate all enrichment of nuclear fuel in Iran. There was, however, no chance of achieving that without a war. Nuclear enrichment itself is actually a right under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and international law and Iran does not see any reason why it should be made an exception to this, on the bidding of Israel, which itself is reported to possess over 100 nuclear devices and is the most likely state in the world to use them. And with the return of sanctions and the ripping up of the Obama deal by Trump what interest had it in bending to the US/Israeli will? It might as well move to the 60% threshold level, at least to have a bargaining position.

Trump decided he would push the IAEA and the European co-signers of the JCPOA to condemn Iran whilst re-establishing UN mandated sanctions on Iran and at the same time he would offer Iran a new JCPOA to limit its nuclear development abilities.

Trump then sent his envoy Steve Witkoff to push Iran towards a new agreement. Witkoff told the Iranians that they would be allowed to enrich Uranium to the 3.6% required for a civil nuclear reactor. However, a few days later, Trump insisted there would be no enrichment at all by Iran. Trump then proceeded to make negotiations even more difficult when he publicly demanded Iran to surrender to a “very strong document” that would give Washington complete supervision over Tehran’s nuclear energy program. Trump said he wanted a situation “where we can go in with inspectors, take whatever we want, and blow up whatever we want, but with nobody getting killed.”

Iran was unlikely to submit to a deal under those terms.

The Trump administration then proposed the outline of a deal that would apparently allow Iran to continue enriching uranium – but only temporarily. With talks at an impasse, the proposal was seen as a potential concession that could open a path to compromise.

Ayatollah Khamenei saw Trump’s proposal as nonsense. He said in a speech that it would be pointless for Iran to build nuclear power plants without being able to enrich uranium over the long term. The US proposal was seen by Tehran as an attempt to obstruct Iran’s nuclear industry and self-reliance.

With no prospect of a deal in the making the attention turned to the second part of Trump’s strategy.

The head of the IAEA regularly reports to the IAEA Board of Governors about its verification and monitoring of nuclear issues in Iran. In the latest report the IAEA’s General Director Rafael Grossi pointed towards Iran being involved in coordinated, secret activities, some of which were relevant to producing nuclear weapons. He also stated that Iran’s cooperation with IAEA was “less than satisfactory” in “a number of respects”.

The IAEA alleged that uranium traces were found, years ago, at some sites it had been investigating and, therefore, it believed Iran to have hosted secret experiments. It concluded that “these three locations, and other possible related locations, were part of an undeclared structured nuclear programme carried out by Iran until the early 2000s and some activities used undeclared nuclear material”.

Iran insisted that nothing nuclear had happened at those sites and that if any traces of radioactive materials had been found there by the IAEA, they must have been planted.

Iran had reasons to not trust Grossi who they believed was coordinating his statements with Israel and carrying out its directives.

Following Grossi’s report the IAEA Board of Governors declared Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years, and non-compliance with its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement, with the Agency raising the prospect of reporting it to the U.N. Security Council.

In response to this Iran said it would build a new enrichment facility in a secure location. The new site would replace the first-generation enrichment machines at Fordow nuclear facility with more advanced ones. This course would more than likely lead to a re-activation of international sanctions on Iran, which had been suspended under UN resolution 2231, when it endorsed the JCPOA.

Iran stated that it would respond to such a step by leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That would allow it, after a year, to pursue nuclear weapons without any legal restrictions.

At that point Trump decided that the Witkoff negotiations, which the President had given a deadline of 60 days to bear fruit, had exhausted their potential. He was told that the Europeans, who were in talks with the Iranians at that point, had found the Iranians to be intransigent, and there was no chance for his deal. He was convinced by Netanyahu, the strongest voice in his ear, that Iran had to be weakened before it would submit to the deal the President desired.

From that point on Trump became a cheerleader for Israel, even describing the Israeli air force as “our air force” in a social media post.

There was a strong element of stage-management in the co-ordination of all these aspects, in order to box Iran into a corner from which it could not escape without risking destruction.

Israel launched its Pearl Harbour strikes on Iran during these negotiations between the US and Iran. One of its first targets was Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, proving that Israel was out to deliberately sabotage any further negotiations.

Pearl Harbour is usually referred to as a “day of infamy”, but Western politicians and media acted with unguarded delight to the sneak attack on Iran by Israel.

Trump’s ending of the New World Order does not alter the fact that, in relation to the Middle East, the US and Israel are very much a double act. While the US supports Israel as its fortress in the region it also ensures that all Israel’s neighbours (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Iran) are periodically disabled through war, bombing, economic sanctions, promotion of internal opposition/insurrection, facilitating of terrorist groups, Islamic fundamentalism etc. Anything to disrupt and destabilise functional states will do.

This is the basis of Israel’s power and predominance in the region. It is made in America and Israel would quickly collapse without it. The aspect Israel brings to it is Biblical fanaticism that gives Zionism a catastrophic character, meaning Israel is in a permanent state of existential crisis, against states and peoples it threatens, bombs and assassinates. This fanatical recklessness, which takes things to existential proportions, means that it will do anything to anyone, regardless of international law or morality, to survive. And it will do this with impunity because the US has its back, front and sides. This makes Israel the formidable and dangerous force it is in the world. Only a withdrawal of US tax dollars can change this.

Israel is the only state able to sustain a military budget against GDP of nearly 9 per cent, without economic collapse. It can conscript permanently, plan war permanently and attack permanently. The UK for instance is only barely capable of 2.5 per cent. Israel’s full expenditure on related aspects like intelligence is also hidden. So, its military budget is likely to be much higher than stated. That is unsustainable for any state without massive subvention from another state. And, of course, we know that other state is the US.

The war on Iran showed that Iranians overwhelmingly did not want regime change or indeed regime collapse – especially through the agency of Israel. There are, of course, undoubtedly Iranians who want reform and a loosening of the system, but they do not want the possibility of what happened in Iraq to happen to them, despite all the best efforts of the BBC Persian Service’s subversion. Its paid, dissident network is likely to pay the price for Israel’s extensive use of agents in Iran, which has blurred distinctions between opposition and enemy of the state.

Shortly, after Iran’s Pearl Harbour sneak attack I was listening to BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. They interviewed the former Israeli Ambassador to the US to talk about Trump’s relationship with Israel. He said something along the lines of the following: Israel would be telling Trump that they could not end the Iranian nuclear programme without US help. If US help was not forthcoming Israel would be forced to use its “bigger weapons”. Its bigger weapons would include a cyber-attack on Iran which would destroy its water and electricity supplies and make the country a giant Gaza. This would result in the mass migration of Iranians, northwards, creating a regional crisis. He also noted, chillingly, that so far both sides, Israel and Iran, had only used their “small weapons”. Israel knew that Iran had a formidable range of ballistic missiles that could seriously damage Israel if they were used. Trump had been made aware of this.

A lot of people suggested that the Israeli objective in Iran was not the destruction of its nuclear programme but, if fact, regime change – something dear to Western hearts.

It is not regime change, however. It is regime collapse. Why? Because for decades Israel has got western support by projecting Iran as a great threat to it and the West. Why should the West fund Israel with no threat from an Iranian enemy and its “proxies” having been declared neutralised? Particularly, if Iran were to magically metamorphose into a Western-orientated democratic state.

The state of Israel, without Western subvention and tax dollars, would be impoverished. Jews would increasingly leave for the better life of the West. So, its aim is to create a state of collapse in Iran to disable it for decades, neutralising it, but still making it a danger to Europe in its instability. In other words, create a second Syria.

A collapsed Iran, like Syria, would be a problem for Turkiye, which might be forced to intervene in the Turkish/Azerbaijani part of northern Iran. This could easily become a killing field with Israel signalling its intention of using the Kurds as a lost tribe of Israel deserving of a state. This scenario was openly discussed by a former Turkish Admiral on the media and it was reported that the authorities began mobilising defence units in Azerbaijan province.

Turkiye would be the new major “threat” to Israel, with an Iranian demise – with the complication that with its NATO membership Turkiye needed to be tackled in a different way than Iran, through subversion, terrorism and insurrection.

However, Iran recovered from Israel’s Pearl Harbour attack within 48 hours. It had been expecting Israeli attacks for months – although not whilst negotiations were still proceeding. Israel’s “Day of Infamy” was organised when Iran’s guard was down, and meetings were taking place to plan defence and response to the inevitable Israeli attack when talks with the US collapsed.

It is probable that the Iranians, realising war was imminent, moved much of their missile capability and stored enriched uranium to safer, secret places, before the Israeli attacks. There was a swift and measured daily response from then onwards to the continuing Israeli strikes, which the iron dome failed to stop. The much-vaunted iron dome began to look like an iron sieve rather than an iron dome. The scenes of destruction in Israeli cities and panic in the streets was unprecedented and amazed the world. The Israeli myth of invincibility was being ripped apart.

It was curious how Iran was managing to successfully bomb Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities for nearly a week in retaliation for the war Israel started. Why was the West doing nothing to defend Israel? Did Trump intend this? The Western media avoided asking this pertinent question.

Iran used its ballistic missiles sparingly and gradually. It was evident that Iran had much more of an arsenal underground than the Israelis believed. Perhaps only 10% of capacity had been used and the bigger weapons, Sejil and Fattah missiles, were kept up the sleeve, as insurance for the future, to deter further Israeli attacks.

The Iranian response was always measured and purposely kept below the level of Israeli attacks to encourage de-escalation. Iran, like a boxer forced into the corner by the initial heavy blows of an aggressive opponent, fought back through measured and disciplined counterpunches. It neither threw in the towel or gambled on big, do or die, punches. And it hurt its previously undefeated opponent sufficiently enough that he was glad of the bell. Netanyahu, it appeared had taken on one campaign too many.

Iran also resisted attacks on US assets, to prevent any excuse for a direct American participation in the war against them. Only when the Americans finally bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities did Tehran reply in kind to demonstrate its capacity but also ensured no US losses by the giving of ample warnings of time and place to Trump.

It seems that Trump, seeing Israel having taken on a losing war, missile to missile against Iran, decided to intervene. The attack was conceived during the Biden Presidency and rehearsed twice with the Israeli command during his term. Trump just gave the go ahead after Tel Aviv had put out feelers to the Gulf Arab states in order to end the conflict.

Pepe Escobar said that we should not rule out the possibility that Trump had organised a dramatic piece of theatrics in Iran. For one thing, granite or basalt is much harder than concrete to penetrate. Certainly, there was little military effect in Trump’s war or opening salvo. Iranian missiles went on firing that night, as they had the previous 8 nights, uninterrupted. Escobar called it “Operation Limp Dick.” Iran was told 48 hours before the strike that it was happening and only 2 or 3 people were injured by these massive bombs. If the uranium had not been moved out by then there was ample time to do so. The US then proceeded to make extravagant, exaggerated claims about success and seemed to be saying “that’s all folks” to Tehran.

It was in both the US and Iranian interest to accept a success of the US bombing mission so that Trump could say “job done” and there was no repeat of it, or further bombings. The President probably concluded that another round of bombing would be damaging for him domestically, opening up divisions in MAGA.

It was hoped that success would be accepted without question, even though this was not the truth of the matter.

The leaked Defence Department report suggesting that the US strikes had merely achieved a 3-month delay on Iran’s bomb – rather than an obliteration of it – put Trump in a rage. A day later the chief of the CIA came out to back up the President’s version of events that Iran’s nuclear programme was “obliterated”.

The US attacks undoubtedly caused damage to the nuclear programme sites in Iran. But is it possible to obliterate a nuclear programme with bombing and where was Iran’s 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium?

The Israelis were obviously dissatisfied and attempted to get in a powerful blow under the cover of Trump’s bizarre staggered ceasefire before the US President, offering expletives, turned back the Israeli planes, which he had, of course, previously referred to as “our air force.”

Should Trump be congratulated for any of this? Only if one thinks that smashing something functional up and then succeeding in achieving a stop to the catastrophe that one’s actions brought about as a result of it is worthy of praise!

John Mearsheimer made the following estimation of the events:

“Benjamin Netanyahu has just declared victory in the 12-day Israel-Iran war. This is nonsense.

Contrary to what Netanyahu asserted, Israel failed to achieve its two principal aims.

Indeed, it made it less likely that it will ever achieve either of those goals.

First, Israel — even with US help — did not eliminate Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and in fact attacking Iran makes it more likely that Iran will get nuclear weapons, not less likely.

Second, Israel failed to get regime change in Iran and if anything the regime’s has greater control over the country today than it had on 12 June, the day before Israel’s bombing campaign started.

On top of all this Iranian missiles and drones inflicted significant punishment on Israel, which was running out of air defense missiles and clearly did not have the resolve needed to wage a war of attrition, which the Iranians did have.

In my world, that’s called losing, not winning.”

During what Trump referred to as the “12 Day War” on Iran the Israelis killed over 600 Iranians, including 60 high-ranking military officers and top scientists, and their families. This was almost as many Palestinians they killed in the regular bombing and shooting of starving Gazans, forced to queue in Israeli controlled food rationing concentration zones, during the same period. These massacres, amounting to 50 Bloody Sundays in little over a week, were accomplished under the cover of the war, in a similar way in which the Jewish Holocaust was accomplished, but this time with the full knowledge of the world’s press.

As to the future, Washington’s position seems to be one of enticing the Iranians back to the negotiating table where, having seen what America is capable of, they would now surrender their entire nuclear energy programme in return for remaining in power. The Gulf states are behind this US position – despite the mild condemnations they have issued of the American attack.

Because it can’t be said for certain that Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon has been completely eliminated it is unlikely Netanyahu is going to settle for an end to the war. Trump, even if he wants to escape that fact, is unlikely to be allowed to do so by either Netanyahu or the warmongering element in Washington.

Israel, which is in an almost permanent existential state of its own making, is likely to take any possibility of Iran being on the verge of having nuclear weapons as a real existential crisis and a reason for ultimately nuking Iran – the only way it has of ending its nuclear programme. And that itself makes an Iranian nuclear shield necessary.

It is very possible that in a future situation like this Israel is very likely to inform Trump of its intention of nuking Iran unless he did something to stop Iran. And what is Trump likely to do then?  

Meanwhile Iran is likely to be put under fierce pressure to give up its enrichment programme and destroy all enriched uranium – and crucially allow the IAEA to confirm that this has been done.  Other concessions by Iran, for example, ending ballistic missile development, may also be required.  Until then, US sanctions won’t be lifted and further military action by Israel or the US is a possibility if Iran refuses to comply. The Iranian parliament has passed a bill suspending cooperation with the IAEA.

At this point there is a very simple reason why an arrangement permitting Iran a defined level of nuclear enrichment – an enhanced Obama deal – should be concluded by Trump. This is because if he doesn’t do this every state mindful of its security will be encouraged to enrich until they get a bomb, in order to protect themselves from Israel. Israel going round the region destroying and slaughtering and destabilising multiple states every couple of years is intolerable and a recipe for nuclear proliferation.

Lyse Duchet, the BBC’s senior international correspondent, gleefully said that Iran had been noted for playing the long game – unlike other “regimes” – but that its long game was now over, due to changes in the world since the events of October 7th.

How wrong she is! Iran will only drop its long game for the longer game of Eurasian development and alternative ways of resisting Israel.

The bell has gone after Round One, but it will soon sound again – and for whom does it toll?

Published in Irish Political Review July 2025