Mearsheimer: No signs of quick end to US-Israel war on Iran | The Bottom Line...LINK
Sunday, April 05, 2026
As Iran war fail becomes more and more obvious, "former" Israel First faction of the jewz plays possum, claims to pivot away from neocon warmongering. They lie.
AI SUMMARY
Here’s a clear, concise summary of the main points from the article you’re viewing, keeping the focus on the key arguments and shifts described in the piece.
msn.com
msn.com
📰 Key Takeaways from the Article
🌐 1. Neoconservatives Are Breaking with Their Past Positions
The article highlights a surprising trend: several prominent neoconservatives—historically strong advocates of U.S. military intervention—are now criticizing Trump’s war with Iran. This marks a notable departure from their long‑held views.
msn.com
The article highlights a surprising trend: several prominent neoconservatives—historically strong advocates of U.S. military intervention—are now criticizing Trump’s war with Iran. This marks a notable departure from their long‑held views.
msn.com
🔄 2. Robert Kagan’s Shift
Robert Kagan, once a leading voice for aggressive U.S. involvement abroad, now argues that American intervention in the Middle East has produced blowback rather than security. He even compares Israel to South Vietnam in terms of unreliable alliances—positions that would once have been dismissed as fringe.
msn.com
Robert Kagan, once a leading voice for aggressive U.S. involvement abroad, now argues that American intervention in the Middle East has produced blowback rather than security. He even compares Israel to South Vietnam in terms of unreliable alliances—positions that would once have been dismissed as fringe.
msn.com
🗣️ 3. Bill Kristol and David Frum Also Express Doubts
Bill Kristol opposes the Iran war, criticizing the Trump administration’s lack of strategy, though he still supports externally driven democracy in Iran.
Bill Kristol opposes the Iran war, criticizing the Trump administration’s lack of strategy, though he still supports externally driven democracy in Iran.
David Frum, known for coining “unpatriotic conservatives” during the Iraq War era, now questions how Iranians can determine their own future and doubts the war’s strategic rationale.
msn.com
msn.com
🎭 4. Why the Change?
The article suggests these shifts may be driven less by ideological evolution and more by political positioning. As “Never Trump” conservatives, these figures may be opposing the war primarily because Trump is leading it.
msn.com
The article suggests these shifts may be driven less by ideological evolution and more by political positioning. As “Never Trump” conservatives, these figures may be opposing the war primarily because Trump is leading it.
msn.com
📉 5. Public Opinion and the Israel Factor
U.S. public opinion—especially among younger Americans—has grown more skeptical of Middle East interventions and more critical of Israel during the Gaza and Iran conflicts. Neoconservatives may be adjusting to maintain relevance as the political landscape shifts.
msn.com
U.S. public opinion—especially among younger Americans—has grown more skeptical of Middle East interventions and more critical of Israel during the Gaza and Iran conflicts. Neoconservatives may be adjusting to maintain relevance as the political landscape shifts.
msn.com
⚔️ 6. Not All Neocons Agree
Some neoconservative voices, such as Bret Stephens, Eliot Cohen, and analysts at FDD and the Hudson Institute, continue to support the war. The movement is divided.
msn.com
Some neoconservative voices, such as Bret Stephens, Eliot Cohen, and analysts at FDD and the Hudson Institute, continue to support the war. The movement is divided.
msn.com
🧭 7. The Bigger Picture
The article frames these developments as part of a broader realignment: neoconservatives distancing themselves from past interventionist failures and trying to shape the narrative as U.S.–Israel relations face new strains.
msn.com
ORIGINAL ARTICLE LINK
The article frames these developments as part of a broader realignment: neoconservatives distancing themselves from past interventionist failures and trying to shape the narrative as U.S.–Israel relations face new strains.
msn.com
ORIGINAL ARTICLE LINK
Friday, April 03, 2026
The jewz and their stooges have always wanted the destruction of Iran for a "Jewish Empire". All presidents since Israel's inception have helped them attain this goal. Trump is just the latest and loudest stooge. And it's going to get worse than the Vietnam or Iraq wars for America.
Trump has no good options to resolve the disaster he created in Iran – Mondoweiss
...Benjamin Netanyahu spoke in Trumpian language when he told Newsmax that the goals “are halfway done,” while adding that he didn’t want to “put a timetable on it.”
In reality, Israel’s goal has been the destruction of the Islamic Republic from the start. It was why Netanyahu pressed Trump so hard for this war, as he has with every prior president who were each not stupid enough to buy into it as Trump has.
Netanyahu has been forced to dial back some of the most apocalyptic talk as Trump has, from the start, tried to convince the public that regime change was not the intention and that the war was going to be short and targeted. But he is still adamant about striking the country’s civilian infrastructure, as Israel and the U.S. have done from the start, and now talks of striking Iran until the population “rises up” against the government.
All of this indicates that Netanyahu will not so easily stop attacking Iran just because Trump wants to pull out. While Israel could not keep up anything like the sustained bombing that has hit Iran for the past month, it is still capable of launching missiles from without and carrying out stealthy attacks and assassinations from within.
Moreover, Iran has made it clear that ending the war on Lebanon is part of its conditions for ending the war in the Gulf. With the massive mobilization Israel has undertaken in invading southern Lebanon again, and the fever growing among the Israeli right for expanding Israel’s border to the Litani River and settling southern Lebanon, it is very difficult to see Netanyahu agreeing to leave there, even if he can be convinced to dial back his aggression against Iran.
Of course, Trump can always press Netanyahu hard enough to force him out of Lebanon. He could exert enough pressure to get Israel completely out of Gaza, as Joe Biden could have as well. As in that case, it seems unlikely to happen, despite its obvious political and, more importantly, human importance.
Trump has painted himself into a corner, and there is no clear exit. He ignored the appeals of his Arab friends before the war. He entered this war under the mistaken notion that killing the Supreme Leader in Iran would lead to an uprising that would bring a new government. He did that despite having no way to know what kind of government, if any, would emerge.
Trump has stood idly by making foolish comments while Israel has taken out every Iranian voice of moderation, leaving a government that is now in the hands of the most hardline elements of the IRGC and which is fueled by the notion that Trump has proven them right every time they have urged a more aggressive and uncompromising position.
Trump had no plan to address or mitigate the retaliation that everyone knew would come—the attacks on the Gulf states and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. These were not secrets; Iran had threatened to do these things if they were attacked for years.
It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of this disaster or the foolishness of starting it. While the death toll, we all hope, might be nowhere near as great, this war is already having a greater effect not only regionally but globally than either Iraq or Vietnam.
As each day passes, the magnitude of this catastrophe grows, and the trap Trump set for himself (along with Netanyahu) and walked right into tightens around his throat. And as Trump flails trying to find a way out or waiting for someone to throw him the lifeline he doesn’t deserve, he is only more likely to make even more reckless decisions, costing more lives from all the nations involved...MORE...
Trump has no good options to resolve the disaster he created in Iran – Mondoweiss
...Benjamin Netanyahu spoke in Trumpian language when he told Newsmax that the goals “are halfway done,” while adding that he didn’t want to “put a timetable on it.”
In reality, Israel’s goal has been the destruction of the Islamic Republic from the start. It was why Netanyahu pressed Trump so hard for this war, as he has with every prior president who were each not stupid enough to buy into it as Trump has.
Netanyahu has been forced to dial back some of the most apocalyptic talk as Trump has, from the start, tried to convince the public that regime change was not the intention and that the war was going to be short and targeted. But he is still adamant about striking the country’s civilian infrastructure, as Israel and the U.S. have done from the start, and now talks of striking Iran until the population “rises up” against the government.
All of this indicates that Netanyahu will not so easily stop attacking Iran just because Trump wants to pull out. While Israel could not keep up anything like the sustained bombing that has hit Iran for the past month, it is still capable of launching missiles from without and carrying out stealthy attacks and assassinations from within.
Moreover, Iran has made it clear that ending the war on Lebanon is part of its conditions for ending the war in the Gulf. With the massive mobilization Israel has undertaken in invading southern Lebanon again, and the fever growing among the Israeli right for expanding Israel’s border to the Litani River and settling southern Lebanon, it is very difficult to see Netanyahu agreeing to leave there, even if he can be convinced to dial back his aggression against Iran.
Of course, Trump can always press Netanyahu hard enough to force him out of Lebanon. He could exert enough pressure to get Israel completely out of Gaza, as Joe Biden could have as well. As in that case, it seems unlikely to happen, despite its obvious political and, more importantly, human importance.
Trump has painted himself into a corner, and there is no clear exit. He ignored the appeals of his Arab friends before the war. He entered this war under the mistaken notion that killing the Supreme Leader in Iran would lead to an uprising that would bring a new government. He did that despite having no way to know what kind of government, if any, would emerge.
Trump has stood idly by making foolish comments while Israel has taken out every Iranian voice of moderation, leaving a government that is now in the hands of the most hardline elements of the IRGC and which is fueled by the notion that Trump has proven them right every time they have urged a more aggressive and uncompromising position.
Trump had no plan to address or mitigate the retaliation that everyone knew would come—the attacks on the Gulf states and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. These were not secrets; Iran had threatened to do these things if they were attacked for years.
It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of this disaster or the foolishness of starting it. While the death toll, we all hope, might be nowhere near as great, this war is already having a greater effect not only regionally but globally than either Iraq or Vietnam.
As each day passes, the magnitude of this catastrophe grows, and the trap Trump set for himself (along with Netanyahu) and walked right into tightens around his throat. And as Trump flails trying to find a way out or waiting for someone to throw him the lifeline he doesn’t deserve, he is only more likely to make even more reckless decisions, costing more lives from all the nations involved...MORE...
Trump has no good options to resolve the disaster he created in Iran – Mondoweiss
Thursday, April 02, 2026
Wednesday, April 01, 2026
Sunday, March 29, 2026
E. Michael Jones: "Israel is constantly fighting the United States now" [to keep America in the war with Iran]. "Israel, under no circumstances, wants peace [or a] cessation of hostilities"
Video: What's the Farsi Word for "Quagmire"?
OpenAI Text Summary
In a recent episode of False Flag Weekly News, E. Michael Jones critiques the prevailing narrative surrounding U.S. military involvement in Iran, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict and the justification for war. He highlights a series of claims made by war proponents, such as the need to secure the Strait of Hormuz, protect Gulf states, and counteract Iran's purported nuclear ambitions. Jones argues that these justifications are circular and largely fabricated; they stem from actions taken by the U.S. and Israel that have escalated tensions rather than alleviating them. He points out that prior to the U.S. and Israel's aggressive actions, including a deadly attack that targeted civilians, the Strait of Hormuz was not threatened, challenging the legitimacy of the war rhetoric.
Jones further dissects the nuclear weapons argument, asserting that the U.S. and Israel's aggressive policies have inadvertently incentivized Iran to pursue a more robust nuclear program. He asserts that Iran's late Supreme Leader had previously imposed a fatwa against the development of weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) removed barriers that kept Iran's nuclear ambitions in check. By enriching uranium beyond agreed limits, Iran seeks to regain leverage in negotiations and to deter potential military aggression, particularly from Israel. The narrative that Iran is a nuclear threat is thus framed as a consequence of U.S. actions rather than an independent motivation by Iran.
The discussion transitions to the broader implications of U.S. policy in the region, which Jones characterizes as ultimately self-destructive. He posits that the current war in Iran is driven not by American interests but by Israeli ambitions, particularly under Prime Minister Netanyahu's leadership. This conflict, he argues, is aimed at establishing a regional hegemony for Israel, which seeks to reshape the geopolitical landscape to favor its expansionist goals. Jones suggests that the U.S. has become a willing participant in this endeavor, jeopardizing its own interests and stability in the process. The consequences of this collusion, he argues, may lead to a prolonged quagmire for both nations.
Jones concludes by highlighting the strategic miscalculations inherent in U.S. military interventions, referencing political analyst Robert Pape's insights on the futility of military power in achieving political ends. Pape warns of the escalation trap that often ensnares aggressors, where initial military actions lead to retaliatory measures and further conflict, creating a cycle of violence. He emphasizes that past U.S. strategies of coercion through air power and military might have repeatedly failed to produce desired outcomes, and this trend is likely to continue in Iran. Jones calls for a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy, advocating for a shift in focus from imperial ambitions to a more pragmatic approach that prioritizes national interest and stability, suggesting that true change must start at home...LINK
OpenAI Text Summary
In a recent episode of False Flag Weekly News, E. Michael Jones critiques the prevailing narrative surrounding U.S. military involvement in Iran, particularly in light of the ongoing conflict and the justification for war. He highlights a series of claims made by war proponents, such as the need to secure the Strait of Hormuz, protect Gulf states, and counteract Iran's purported nuclear ambitions. Jones argues that these justifications are circular and largely fabricated; they stem from actions taken by the U.S. and Israel that have escalated tensions rather than alleviating them. He points out that prior to the U.S. and Israel's aggressive actions, including a deadly attack that targeted civilians, the Strait of Hormuz was not threatened, challenging the legitimacy of the war rhetoric.
Jones further dissects the nuclear weapons argument, asserting that the U.S. and Israel's aggressive policies have inadvertently incentivized Iran to pursue a more robust nuclear program. He asserts that Iran's late Supreme Leader had previously imposed a fatwa against the development of weapons of mass destruction, and the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) removed barriers that kept Iran's nuclear ambitions in check. By enriching uranium beyond agreed limits, Iran seeks to regain leverage in negotiations and to deter potential military aggression, particularly from Israel. The narrative that Iran is a nuclear threat is thus framed as a consequence of U.S. actions rather than an independent motivation by Iran.
The discussion transitions to the broader implications of U.S. policy in the region, which Jones characterizes as ultimately self-destructive. He posits that the current war in Iran is driven not by American interests but by Israeli ambitions, particularly under Prime Minister Netanyahu's leadership. This conflict, he argues, is aimed at establishing a regional hegemony for Israel, which seeks to reshape the geopolitical landscape to favor its expansionist goals. Jones suggests that the U.S. has become a willing participant in this endeavor, jeopardizing its own interests and stability in the process. The consequences of this collusion, he argues, may lead to a prolonged quagmire for both nations.
Jones concludes by highlighting the strategic miscalculations inherent in U.S. military interventions, referencing political analyst Robert Pape's insights on the futility of military power in achieving political ends. Pape warns of the escalation trap that often ensnares aggressors, where initial military actions lead to retaliatory measures and further conflict, creating a cycle of violence. He emphasizes that past U.S. strategies of coercion through air power and military might have repeatedly failed to produce desired outcomes, and this trend is likely to continue in Iran. Jones calls for a reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy, advocating for a shift in focus from imperial ambitions to a more pragmatic approach that prioritizes national interest and stability, suggesting that true change must start at home...LINK
Friday, March 27, 2026
Monday, March 23, 2026
Tucker Carlson Interviews Joe Kent on war with Iran: "How did Donald Trump, after ten years of saying one thing, do, in the pivotal acts of his presidency, exactly the opposite?" Answer: The jewz
Joe Kent Reveals All in First Interview Since Resigning as Trump’s Counterterrorism Director – The Occidental Observer
From a friend. This transcript was generated by Chat GPT by copying and pasting Youtube’s accompanying transcript text and asking it to summarize each section (~8 minutes at a time) into several paragraphs with the important points highlighted. It is long, but most of the important points can be found by searching “Israel” and “Netanyahu”
From a friend. This transcript was generated by Chat GPT by copying and pasting Youtube’s accompanying transcript text and asking it to summarize each section (~8 minutes at a time) into several paragraphs with the important points highlighted. It is long, but most of the important points can be found by searching “Israel” and “Netanyahu”
Key point:
This section expands on Joe Kent’s critique of the information ecosystem that shaped U.S. policy toward Iran, focusing on the concept of an “imminent threat” and the narrative about Iran’s nuclear program. Kent emphasizes that Iran was not on the verge of building a nuclear weapon—they were months or years away, and there was no intelligence indicating an immediate threat. This underscores the central point that justifying a preemptive war on the basis of an imminent threat was not supported by credible intelligence.
This section expands on Joe Kent’s critique of the information ecosystem that shaped U.S. policy toward Iran, focusing on the concept of an “imminent threat” and the narrative about Iran’s nuclear program. Kent emphasizes that Iran was not on the verge of building a nuclear weapon—they were months or years away, and there was no intelligence indicating an immediate threat. This underscores the central point that justifying a preemptive war on the basis of an imminent threat was not supported by credible intelligence.
Kent explains that much of the perceived threat was manufactured or amplified by a network of pro-Israel think tanks, media figures, and Israeli officials, who effectively “shifted the red line.” While President Trump consistently stated that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon, external actors framed the issue as Iran’s enrichment activities being a pathway to a bomb, creating pressure for a zero-enrichment policy. This, Kent argues, short-circuited U.S. negotiations because Iran was willing to negotiate if the red line acknowledged their existing, non-threatening enrichment—but the narrative imposed by outside actors made that impossible.
Kent stresses that this process bypassed traditional intelligence channels. Israeli officials, sometimes presenting themselves as intelligence sources, would convey claims directly to U.S. policymakers. These claims often lacked verification but shaped policy decisions, creating an ecosystem where media, think tanks, and foreign officials collectively reinforced a narrative of imminent Iranian nuclear threat. The result, Kent contends, was a policy driven by external lobbying and narrative manipulation rather than by verified intelligence.
Ultimately, Kent portrays this as a critical failure in U.S. policy-making: true negotiations were undermined, and the perception of urgency was manufactured, not factual. This reinforces his broader argument that honest, evidence-based assessment—rather than politically or ideologically driven narratives—is essential for making sound foreign policy decisions.
Kent continues discussing U.S. policy on Iran, focusing on gatekeeping and selective briefing. He explains that he and other intelligence officials were often unable to directly present the full scope of intelligence to the president because of gatekeepers in the White House. This meant that only a small circle of advisers shaped what reached the president, limiting robust debate and creating a narrow perspective on Iran.
He emphasizes that there was a disconnect between intelligence and what the president was told. Classified intelligence indicated Iran was months or years away from a nuclear weapon, yet narratives presented—amplified by media and external actors—suggested an imminent threat. This created policy decisions based on perception rather than verified facts.
Joe Kent Reveals All in First Interview Since Resigning as Trump’s Counterterrorism Director
https://www.youtube.com/@TuckerCarlson
Joe Kent Reveals All in First Interview Since Resigning as Trump’s Counterterrorism Director
https://www.youtube.com/@TuckerCarlson
...MORE...
Iran says Ukraine a legitimate target for retaliation as Juden-fascist Zelensky joins his Judeofascist leader Netanyahu's war on Persia
Top Iranian MP declares Ukraine a ‘legitimate target’ — RT World News
Tehran may engage in self-defense against Kiev over its “drone support” for Israel, a senior legislator says
Ukraine has become a party to the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran, senior Iranian MP Ebrahim Azizi has said, threatening potential retaliation against Kiev.
The head of the national security commission of the Iranian parliament took to X on Saturday, warning that Kiev’s decision to send anti-aircraft assets to the region to prop up the attackers gives Tehran the right to strike Ukraine in self-defense.
“By providing drone support to the Israeli regime, failed Ukraine has effectively become involved in the war and, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, has turned its entire territory into a legitimate target for Iran,” Azizi wrote.
Over the past two weeks, Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly signaled his readiness to get involved in the war in the Middle East. He has claimed the US had asked Ukraine for help defend its Gulf allies against Iranian strikes on American assets stationed there, while other regional “partners” have purportedly reached out to Kiev as well.
Zelensky said he had given instructions to “provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the necessary security.”
This week, he also claimed to have reached deals with some nations in the region to sell them Ukrainian-made drone interceptors and send in experienced anti-aircraft teams...MORE...
Top Iranian MP declares Ukraine a ‘legitimate target’ — RT World News
Ukraine has become a party to the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran, senior Iranian MP Ebrahim Azizi has said, threatening potential retaliation against Kiev.
The head of the national security commission of the Iranian parliament took to X on Saturday, warning that Kiev’s decision to send anti-aircraft assets to the region to prop up the attackers gives Tehran the right to strike Ukraine in self-defense.
“By providing drone support to the Israeli regime, failed Ukraine has effectively become involved in the war and, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, has turned its entire territory into a legitimate target for Iran,” Azizi wrote.
Over the past two weeks, Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly signaled his readiness to get involved in the war in the Middle East. He has claimed the US had asked Ukraine for help defend its Gulf allies against Iranian strikes on American assets stationed there, while other regional “partners” have purportedly reached out to Kiev as well.
Zelensky said he had given instructions to “provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the necessary security.”
This week, he also claimed to have reached deals with some nations in the region to sell them Ukrainian-made drone interceptors and send in experienced anti-aircraft teams...MORE...
Top Iranian MP declares Ukraine a ‘legitimate target’ — RT World News
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)