Is it ‘America First’ or ‘Israel First’? Is President Trump his own man – or is he just Israel’s bitch?

We will probably find out the answers to these questions shortly.

The United States has assembled an unprecedented amount of naval and air power in the vicinity of Iran. Over half of the operational US Navy and a large part of its air force is now deployed to either intimidate Iran into bending to the American will or suffering the consequence of resistance.

The US does not muster up great power just to stand it down again. It is not in the business of the Grand Old Duke of York. It usually makes unreasonable demands of states, which they cannot afford to make, as a preliminary to them being bombed for failing to unconditionally surrender to American demands. Sham diplomacy is just a starter before the main course.

This is a US/Israeli manufactured crisis to prepare Western opinion for a military assault on a sovereign state which represents no threat to the US interest – as was the case with Iraq in 2003.

The difference is that whilst there was a US plan for regime change in Iraq, however badly it was handled, there is no notion of an alternative government for Iran. It is regime change to chaos.

Senator Ted Cruz, who is close to Trump, has stated that the Ayatollah had been presented with the option of leaving Iran or suffering death by the US. He referred to the successful US operation made to kidnap the head of state of Venezuela, after he had refused a similar “deal” from Trump.

It has been stated by Senator Lindsey Graham, another person close to Trump, that it is not the responsibility of the US to install a new government in Iran. It is up to the Iranians. We must therefore conclude that the intention in Washington is to destroy a functional state, break it into pieces, and produce the Syrian or Libyan model of controlled chaos. It is an open question then whether the chaos can be controlled. It is much more likely that it will create a swamp in which Israel fishes. And it is unlikely that states in the region whose leadership is close to Trump or Israel are likely to remain unscathed in the fallout.

It is likely that Iran realises this. It must know that the situation with the US needs to be settled now – in one way or another. It knows it is, by far, the weaker party in any war with the US/Israel. Despite numerous substantial provocations made by the US and Israel, Iran has always shirked the full fight – knowing Israel’s big brother will stand up for it, come what may. The US has the most special of special relationships with Israel, meaning it can do virtually anything it wants, and Washington will support it.

In this shirking of the fight Iran has acted entirely rationally since the US can reduce it “to the stone age” if it thinks that is desirable. Iran has always restrained itself in any response against Israel and has responded with nothing more than fierce rhetoric and measured threats against the US. These threats, including the recent temporary closing of the straits of Hormuz by the IRG, are fundamentally deterrence strategies to prevent US bombing. They are not expressions of aggression. Iran was giving warning of the potential of a selective closure, targeted against the Western oil supply that would send the money markets into a tail spin.

Iran exists outside the Western sphere and has done so since 1979. All other countries in the region, including the Gulf Arab fiefdoms, have a relationship with the West, particularly economically through the oil industry and elite wealth. Iran exists outside the financial structures of the West, as a result of sanctions and embargoes, and maintains an inherent spiritual detachment. That is at the basis of Western intolerance of the country.

Iran has been walking on gilded splinters* for a long time.

Up until now the US has always allowed for the Iranian restraint, but the message being sent out by the unprecedented array of force and dire threats of regime change has communicated the message, loud and clear, to Tehran that this is no longer an option. The options open to the Iranian government have been reduced to deal or die. They have been presented with an existential crisis of the state by Trump and with this there is no incentive to shirk a fight and every incentive to come out fighting with all guns blazing.

It has been the Israeli objective to overthrow the Iranian government for decades. Benjamin Netanyahu has been telling Washington since 1996 that Iran is only months away from becoming a nuclear power with a nuclear bomb.

Israel has worked up to this great, and perhaps unprecedented, opportunity to employ a powerful US blow in toppling the Iranian government and making the state of Iran into a second Iraq. It has made two attempts itself on Iran – the 12-day war of last June and the recent failed insurrection – with the US in tow, both times. That, along with numerous assassinations, incidents of sabotage and terrorist attacks against Iran over the decades. But Israel can never defeat Iran by itself and would likely come off worse in any war – short of nuclear – with Iran. And only its big US brother allows it to act with such impunity and recklessness.

In the talks in Oman and Geneva with the Iranian government the US has gone in with an Israeli shopping list – not with any desire to improve the lot of people in Iran. It is a shopping list which Iran cannot accept without dismantling its defences to both the US and Israel.

The US/Israeli demands are about nuclear enrichment (which was already taken care of by the Obama deal Trump ripped up), ballistic missile defence deterrence against Israeli attacks and Iranian support for groups resisting Israel aggression.

With regard to the issue of enrichment Trump has been very economical with the truth. He says that back in June 2025 “Iran decided that they were better off not making a Deal” and they were, as a consequence, hit by US air strikes. That omitted the fact that while negotiations between the US and Iran were going on Israel sneakily attacked Iran with Trump’s backing, prior to the sixth round of negotiations. It also omitted the fact that Trump claimed to have “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear development sites with US airpower in June 2025.  

Of course, there once was a nuclear deal between the US (and other states) and Iran, which placed very severe limits on Iran’s nuclear programme (in particular on its uranium enrichment) and subjected it to unprecedented scrutiny by the IAEA.  If the deal were in force today, it would restrict Iran to a mere 300kg of uranium enriched to no more that 3.67 per cent, far from the quantity or purity needed for a nuclear weapon.  Trump tore that deal up in 2018 at the request of Benjamin Netanyahu and unilaterally reimposed ferocious economic sanctions on Iran, which, in combination with a concerted push on the money markets against the Iranian Rial generated the recent protests that produced thousands of deaths.

The US has a shifty way of signing agreements and not honouring them. That is clear in relation to both Iran and Russia. And the Obama Presidency repudiated agreements, like that with Yanukovych, in 2014, just as Trump has done so with Iran. 

Iran negotiated an agreement with the United States. It complied with every requirement. It submitted to intense and continuous inspections. Then the Trump administration came in, in 2016, tore up the agreement, reimposed sanctions and demanded concessions outside the original agreement.

Iran saw that agreements with the United States were worthless unless Congressional approval was given. The President Obama agreement was done through executive order and had no legal basis – making it easy for President Trump to rip up.

Compliance with the United States gained Iran nothing and it revealed that only it’s strength and deterrence capability could prevent United States aggression. Ultimately, Iran knows that it requires weapons of mass destruction to deter the US and Israel from attacking it.

With the ripping up of the Obama deal the possibility of less antagonistic relations between the US and Iran was eliminated at the request of Israel.  America First lost out to Israel First.

What has the US position in the negotiations with Iran to do with the protests in Iran, one might ask? It is pretty clear that the protests derived from the sanctions exerted by the US on Iran, producing discontent within the population that added to pre-existing discontents.

However, can the pretence be maintained that the protesters in Iran would welcome the concession by their government to the US/Israel demands or the destruction of their state on behalf of Israel?  

The three major demands of the US would have no effect at all on any discontent the protesters have concerning their government. Only the removal of sanctions would do that.

The protests metamorphed into an insurrection, through the use of imported weapons and agent provocateurs, resulting in the deaths of thousands. They were really just an instrument for pursuing the Israel/US geopolitical agenda. Nothing at all to do with the lives of people who live in Iran.

If the US was serious about encouraging reform in Iran it would offer a deal including the end of sanctions. But, of course, that might result in a more functional Iran – the last thing Israel would want.

On 15 February the Iranian deputy foreign minister told the BBC that Iran was ready to consider compromises to reach a nuclear deal with the US if the Americans were willing to discuss lifting sanctions and the embargo on its oil sales. The deputy foreign minister emphasised Tehran’s offer to dilute its 60%-enriched uranium as evidence of its willingness to compromise and make it clear that Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme was entirely peaceful in intent.

As to whether Iran would agree to ship its stockpile of more than 400kg of highly enriched uranium out of Iran, as it did in the 2015 nuclear deal, Takht-Ravanchi said “it was too early to say what will happen in the course of negotiations”.

Russia, which accepted 11,000kg of uranium enriched to a low level as part of the 2015 multilateral accord that Trump pulled out of three years later, has offered to accept this material again.

Other proposals previously reported in the media included an offer from Tehran to temporarily suspend nuclear enrichment for 5 years, with the possibility of more.

Iran’s negotiator also reiterated Tehran’s refusal to discuss its ballistic missile programme with American negotiators – a key demand of Israel, which wants impunity to attack Iran without an Iranian response like the one which shook it into called for US help to end the 12 Day War last June.

Even if there is an agreement between the US and Iran on the nuclear issue it is very likely the only concession Iran will get is the lifting of the immediate military threat. That is unacceptable because the US/Israeli demands for disarmament of Iranian defences will then become the issue, without there being any removal of sanctions, the oil embargo or return of seized assets.

Because Trump ripped up the Obama Deal and calls himself the Great Deal Maker it is imperative for him to reach a deal with Iran that he can present as an improvement on the one he ripped up. Such a deal should indeed be possible if Trump is not prepared to assert the Israeli demands – Israel First.

But can he sell such a deal to Netanyahu? Witkoff came back to Washington with a deal last year and was subsequently obliterated by the US Zionist lobby, which told Trump it did not meet Israel’s demands.

Trump’s Truth Social post of 14 February suggests differences of opinion and interest between Trump and Netanyahu. Trump likely understands that a protracted war with Iran might not be so good for his mid-term prospects in the Autumn. He likely favours a deal or a quick demonstration of force against Iran that could be portrayed as successful.

Some have suggested that Netanyahu advised Trump that if he proved unwilling to do Israel’s business, Israel would drag the US into doing it. Trump is finding out that there cannot be America First and Israel First.

It seems to be the Israeli intention to turn Trump into President George W. Bush.

Lyse Duchet, chief BBC correspondent, who has gone to Iran to circle like a vulture over proceedings – like Nick Robinson did from his Kyiv hotel waiting for the Russians – was asked whether she thought that sanctions were mostly to blame for the protests she was describing. She replied by stating that while the US had admitted responsibility for stoking the January protests through crashing the Rial, “the problem was corruption and mismanagement. The system must be changed.”

This was on 22 February, when student protests were reignited.

The BBC evidently feels it is still the ultimate moral arbiter in the affairs of Iran and over the destiny of the Iranian people.

When the Iranian deputy foreign minister gave his interview to the BBC it was upon the insistence that it was not carried on the BBC’s “Persian Service.” The extract below, dealing with BBC/British interference in the internal affairs of Iran, in 1979 show why.

First, however, is Jeffrey Sachs’ open letter to the UN Security Council of February 16, 2026, ‘No US War on Iran,’ putting the reasonable argument against what is being done and the background to it.

* “I Walk on Gilded Splinters” by Dr. John is a 1968 song, inspired by Creole culture, symbolising the ability to walk through pain, danger, and hardship with resilience and spiritual power, defying extreme adversity while maintaining pride and magical, gilded strength.

*

No US War on Iran: An Open Letter to the UN Security Council

The current threat of an attack by the US did not begin with any failure by Iran to negotiate. On the contrary, it began with the United States’ repudiation of negotiations that had already succeeded.

By Jeffrey Sachs

Distinguished Members of the Security Council,

The President of the United States is issuing grave threats of force against the Islamic Republic of Iran if it does not accede to US demands. His actions risk a major regional war that would be devastating. Asked if he wanted regime change, he responded that it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen.” When asked why a second US aircraft carrier has been sent to the region, President Trump answered “in case we don’t make a deal, we’ll need it … if we need it, we’ll have it ready.”

These threats are in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which declares that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

These threats come in the context of Iran’s repeated calls for negotiations. Moreover, on February 7, Iran’s Foreign Minister delivered a speech in Doha proposing comprehensive negotiations for regional peace, following a round of talks in Oman supported by the diplomacy of the Arab states and Turkiye. Even as a second round of negotiations has been announced, the US is resorting to escalating threats of force.

Today, the world is in urgent need of a renewed commitment to diplomacy.

The issue facing the UN Security Council in these perilous days is whether any member state, by force or threat of force, may place itself above the United Nations Charter that governs us all. At stake is the integrity of the UN-based international system.

One of the crucial roles of the Security Council is to call on member states to settle disputes by peaceful means such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or judicial settlement, without the threat of force or resort to force. Today, the world is in urgent need of a renewed commitment to diplomacy.

The current threat of an attack by the US did not begin with any failure by Iran to negotiate. On the contrary, it began with the United States’ repudiation of negotiations that had already succeeded.

On July 14, 2015, after years of extensive diplomacy, Iran and the P5 countries plus Germany concluded the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program would remain exclusively peaceful. In return, economic sanctions on Iran were to be lifted. The JCPOA placed Iran’s nuclear activities under strict and continuous scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency and thereby ended the risk of a nuclear-arms breakout by Iran, a risk that Iran had consistently denied.

On July 20, 2015, the UNSC unanimously adopted Resolution 2231. That resolution “endorses the JCPOA” and calls upon all states to take the steps “necessary to support the implementation.” It terminated previous sanctions resolutions and incorporated the JCPOA into international law. The Security Council explicitly recognized Iran’s “right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and established a robust verification regime.

Yet on May 8, 2018, three years after the successful UNSC Resolution, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA. This withdrawal was actively lobbied for by the Israeli government. Since the late 1990s, Israel’s leadership has repeatedly, falsely, and hypocritically claimed that Iran was on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon, even as Israel itself had secretly acquired nuclear weapons outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has until today refused to join the treaty and subject itself to its controls.

When President Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, the US reimposed wide-ranging sanctions in direct contradiction of Resolution 2231 and launched a campaign of economic warfare designed to cripple Iran’s economy that continues to this day.

The current threats by the US are therefore part of a long-standing pattern of feigning interest in negotiations while in fact pursuing economic warfare and military force. In June 2025, following the renewal of negotiations earlier that year, the United States and Iran entered a sixth round of talks. The US had characterized the negotiations as constructive and positive. The sixth round was set for June 15, 2025. Yet on June 13, 2025, the US supported Israel’s bombing of Iran. A week after that, the US attacked Iran under Operation Midnight Hammer.

The US assault on the UN Charter has now escalated once again to the brink of war, with US threats of force and acts of economic warfare proceeding daily. The US has been escalating its military presence near Iran and has repeatedly threatened to launch an imminent attack.

The administration has also been candid about its strategy of economic warfare. On January 20, in an interview in Davos, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described how the US had deliberately engineered the collapse of the Iranian currency, a dollar shortage, and a collapse of imports, all with the goal of fomenting economic suffering and mass unrest. Bessent described the resulting unrest as “moving in a very positive way here.”

The current threats by the US are therefore part of a long-standing pattern of feigning interest in negotiations while in fact pursuing economic warfare and military force.

The most striking aspect of the US campaign for regime change in Iran is the repeated US insistence that Iran must negotiate. Iran has negotiated, repeatedly. The JCPOA was negotiated and ratified by the UN Security Council. Even after Iran engaged in renewed negotiations last summer, it faced large‑scale air strikes on its territory. Now, the US openly avows the policy of economic collapse and regime change.

No country is safe if the United States can make brazen threats against Iran and indeed several other states in recent weeks, including Cuba, Denmark, and others.

It is both sad and poignant to recall that the United Nations was the brainchild of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He envisioned an era of great-power cooperation and multilateralism under international law as the basis of international peace and security. His wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, oversaw the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The US at that time envisioned an era in which diplomacy would prosper, and a time in which law and justice rather than brute force would prevail, a time when we would honor the words of the Prophet Isaiah inscribed on the wall on First Avenue facing the United Nations: “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war anymore.”

To allow the UN Charter to be ruthlessly violated, no less by its host country, is to invite the return to global war, this time in the nuclear age. In other words, it is to invite humanity’s self-destruction. On behalf of We the Peoples, the UN Security Council carries the authority and heavy responsibility to keep the peace.

Sincerely yours,

Jeffrey D. Sachs
University Professor at Columbia University

Appendix. I humbly offer below an illustrative Draft Resolution by which the UNSC could fulfil its duty in the current context.

The Security Council,

Recalling the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the obligation of all Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, as set forth in Article 2(4) of the Charter,

Reaffirming that the maintenance of international peace and security rests upon respect for international law, the authority of the Security Council, and the peaceful settlement of disputes,

Recalling its resolution 2231 (2015), adopted unanimously on 20 July 2015, by which the Security Council endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and called upon all Member States to take actions necessary to support its implementation,

Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with their obligations, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination

Acting under the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Calls upon all Member States to immediately and unconditionally cease all threats or uses of force and to comply fully with their obligations under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations;
2. Acknowledges that the JCPOA constituted a valid multilateral negotiation endorsed by the Security Council, and recognizes that the abandonment of the JCPOA resulted from the unilateral withdrawal of the United States;
3. Decides that, under its authority, the UNSC mandates all States concerned to immediately engage in negotiations to conclude a renewed comprehensive arrangement on the Iranian nuclear issue, building upon the principles of the JCPOA and fully consistent with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;
4. Calls upon all Member States to refrain from actions that undermine diplomatic efforts, escalate tensions, or weaken the authority of the United Nations;

Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

*

The BBC and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Extract from Prince Manucher Farmanfarmaian’s ‘Blood and Oil, Memoirs of a Persian Prince’:

“What seemed insidious at the time was the BBC Farsi service, which appeared to take genuine glee in Iran’s turmoil and which, with a conscientiousness that belied objectivity, reported every demonstration, interviewed every opposition leader, and criticized the Shah’s every move. The BBC carried enormous weight with Iranians. The legitimacy it gave to the forces against the Shah was a benediction – and implied Western support if not outright involvement: “The people are expected to gather tomorrow at the Shayad memorial and walk to the university,” the BBC would report, and after hearing this, crowds would show up to march.

The BBC had been a factor in our political dramas since the time of Reza Shah. It had played a role during Mossadeq’s time and had often been a thorn in the Shah’s side during the 1960s and 1970s. The BBC medium wave station, beamed into Iran from the Persian Gulf, lies on the band right next to Tehran Radio…

The people of the United States do not realise how Britain – and the BBC – have shaped the Middle East… They don’t understand Britain’s very real ability, even today, to lynch governments. The BBC, funded by the Foreign Office, interprets the news as it sees fit. And when the BBC speaks, the people of Iran and the rest of the Middle East listen…

The Iranian Media was under strict control, and therefore the BBC became Khomeini’s mouthpiece. He would have enjoyed much less access to the country’s widely scattered population. The cassettes of his sermons that came in regularly from Iraq would not have had the same impact. His own voice would not have been heard with such immediacy. He would not have been able to speak to the people every night in their homes, direct the uprisings with such precision, or react to every move made by the Shah, without the BBC. Thanks to the BBC Khomeini was able to transform the people’s resentments and prejudices into action and inflame them with an idea that was then still unthinkable: getting rid of the Shah.” (pp.443-5)