The New York Times has the smoking gun: Israel tricked us into war with Iran!
At a meeting at the White House early in February, the Times reported this week, Netanyahu told Trump that Iran was ripe for regime change. He promised that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.
The next day, senior intelligence officials broke down Netanyahu’s pitch into four parts: Killing the Ayatollah Khameini, crippling Iran’s capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors; a popular uprising in Iran, and regime change with a secular leader replacing the Islamic Regime.
Per the New York Times, the U.S. officials believed the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. They thought the third and fourth goals were detached from reality, and told President Trump these goals were “farcical.”
The question became whether the first two goals—killing the Ayatollah and crippling Iran’s ballistic capabilities—were worthwhile in their own right.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Trump, ”If our goal is regime change or an uprising, we shouldn’t do it. But if the goal is to destroy Iran’s missile program, that’s a goal we can achieve.”
“I think we need to do it,” the president told his advisors. He said they had to make sure Iran could not have a nuclear weapon, and they had to ensure that Iran could not just shoot missiles at Israel or throughout the region.
So they did.
At that, they’ve been incredibly successful.
But you wouldn’t know it from the way the media has covered the war, starting with the New York Times. The piece was shared online breathlessly by the enemies Israel and Trump, claiming it proved that Israel dragged us into this with false promises. The nefarious Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington and oversold our ability to do a regime change in Iran, snookering President Trump into a war that could not be won!
In fact, the Times piece showed nothing of the sort. It showed an ally doing what everyone does—overselling an operation that’s in its interests—and our President immediately clocking the oversell, and picking instead the version that is most advantageous to us.
The piece didn’t just exaggerate its own reporting. It left out the role that Saudi Arabia played. Mohammad bin Salman, the Crown Prince of the KSA, urged President Trump to strike Iran, something that happened between Netayanhu’s visit and the decision to go to war. And since, MBS has urged President Trump not to stop until the job is done.
Why, you might ask, are there no breathless, 5,000 word New York Times pieces about MBS snookering Trump into war?
No Jews, no news! As we like to say.
Of course, it’s not just the Times. Not to be outdone, Stephanie Ruhle of MSNOW wants you to hand it to Iran!
They will literally cheer Iran using children as human shields because they are shielding Iran from Trump.
Meanwhile, the Economist desperately wants you to think Trump is losing in Iran.
Per The Economist, “Not all wars have a winner. But every war has at least one loser and if—a big if—the ceasefire marks the end of the war in Iran, the biggest loser will be Donald Trump. The conflict has set back his chief war aims and revealed the shallowness of his vision for a new way of wielding American power.”
This, of course, is nonsense.
We don’t know how this will end. Things are in flux. But some things are already true:
We’ve eviscerated Iran’s ballistic and nuclear capabilities, and revealed China and Russia as the perfidious, feckless losers that they are.
Our grandkids won’t have to fear a nuclear Iran.
We’re forcing China to buy oil at market rates, a huge leverage point for the President’s tariff negotiations with Xi Jinping.
We’ve restored the supremacy of the petrodollar.
We’ve brought Saudi Arabia and Qatar closer to us and closer to Israel.
We’ve exposed our NATO “allies” as freeloading traitors.
And we’ve reestablished ourselves as the world’s only superpower thanks to our energy dominance.
But if you ask the liberal media, it’s Iran that’s winning- because it’s at war with Trump.
