Unveiling U.S.-Israeli Collusion in Iran Strikes
President Donald Trump and Israel jointly executed a surprise military assault on Iran, shattering pledges of diplomatic resolution. Launched in June 2025, this attack exposed Trump’s anti-war rhetoric as a facade, intensifying Middle East tensions. Trump’s statements and Israeli officials’ admissions reveal a deliberate deception to mislead Iran about ongoing negotiations. Targeting Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, the strikes risk sparking a wider regional conflict. This investigation exposes the depth of U.S. complicity, debunking claims of Israel’s independent action.
Trump’s Hollow Anti-War Claims
Donald Trump repeatedly declared his opposition to new wars, emphasizing his first-term record as a peacemaker. He stated, “Something that Trump repeatedly said he was so proud of in his first term, that he was the first president in decades not to involve the US in a new war.” Publicly, Trump opposed Israeli military actions, highlighting diplomatic efforts, particularly with talks scheduled in Oman. These negotiations aimed to address Iran’s nuclear program, building on past agreements like the 2015 deal. Yet, Trump’s actions sharply contradicted his public stance, revealing a calculated plan to conceal aggressive intentions.
Diplomacy as a Deceptive Facade
Scheduled negotiations in Oman projected an image of U.S. dedication to peacefully resolving Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A source confirmed, “We have a negotiator in Oman right now,” suggesting active U.S. engagement in diplomacy. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal proved effective, with inspectors verifying, “Iran was complying with the deal. There was surveillance everywhere.” Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from this agreement fueled instability, setting the stage for renewed tensions. The promised talks served as a mere cover, masking meticulous military planning.
Trump’s Overt Admissions of Involvement
Trump’s Truth Social post on June 13, 2025, unequivocally confirmed his role in the Iran strikes. He boasted, “I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them in the strongest of words to just do it.” Trump further bragged, “The United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the world by far,” highlighting U.S. support for Israel’s arsenal. He claimed, “I gave them, I don’t know if you know, but I gave them a 60-day warning, and today is day 61,” admitting premeditation. These statements completely dismantle any notion of U.S. detachment from the assault.
Israeli Officials Confirm Coordination
Israeli officials openly acknowledged comprehensive U.S. collaboration in orchestrating the strikes. One official stated, “There was full and complete coordination with the Americans.” They claimed, “We presented the American administration with evidence of Iran’s breakthrough toward a nuclear bomb,” justifying the attack. Another official told reporters, “We had a clear US green light,” confirming Trump’s private approval contrary to public denials. This coordination guaranteed the attack’s element of surprise, amplifying its destructive impact.
U.S. Military’s Active Support
The U.S. strengthened Israel’s operation through strategic military deployments across the Middle East. Naval forces, including the USS Thomas Hudner, repositioned to counter potential Iranian retaliation, with reports noting, “The Navy has directed the destroyer the USS Thomas Hudner to begin sailing from the western Mediterranean Sea.” Trump ordered these movements to protect Israel, as confirmed, “Trump is already ordering US military forces deployed to the region.” These actions exposed American troops to significant risks, deepening U.S. entanglement. The Pentagon’s maneuvers highlight the collaborative nature of the operation.
Crafting a False Sense of Security
Trump and Israel deliberately misled Iran to believe diplomacy would prevail, ensuring the attack’s surprise. Reporters observed, “Every time Trump spoke optimistically about progress toward a diplomatic solution, so went this theory that was designed to lure the Iranians.” Israeli media confirmed, “The attack on Iran was preceded by a deception operation that included media and diplomatic components.” Trump’s late-night tweet, “The US seeks a diplomatic solution,” furthered this deception. This betrayal severely undermined trust in U.S. diplomatic integrity.
Triggering Regional Escalation
The strikes prompted swift Iranian retaliation, with missiles targeting Tel Aviv and Haifa, escalating the conflict. Reports confirmed, “At least 80 people – including 20 children – have been killed in Iran and four in Israel.” Professor John Mearsheimer warned, “What does it look like at the end when this is finally concluded?” describing the situation as “a major conflict.” The attack’s scale, involving multiple waves, suggests a prolonged engagement. The Middle East now faces heightened instability, driven by U.S.-Israeli actions.
Endangering Global Security
The assault threatens vital infrastructure, particularly oil facilities, posing severe global economic consequences. Mearsheimer cautioned, “What happens if this war goes on and the Israelis hit oil installations inside of Iran and the Iranians retaliate.” Netanyahu’s ambitions, claiming actions led to “the establishment of a new government in Lebanon,” signal broader regional designs. The presence of 90,000 U.S. troops risks American casualties, with Mearsheimer stating, “What they want to do is get Americans killed.” Such losses could deepen U.S. involvement, imperiling global stability.
Debunking the Nuclear Threat Narrative
The stated justification—halting Iran’s nuclear weaponization—falters under scrutiny, given contradictory intelligence assessments. The CIA concluded, “Iran does not produce a bomb, and was likely not actively seeking it.” The International Atomic Energy Agency found “no damage seen” at key nuclear sites like Fordow. Israel’s claim of Iran planning “nuclear terrorism on steroids” appears fabricated to rationalize aggression, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated. The strikes’ minimal impact on nuclear facilities suggests ulterior motives.
Regime Change as the Core Objective
Netanyahu’s rhetoric unveils regime change as the primary goal, overshadowing nuclear concerns. He declared, “Our fight is with the brutal dictatorship that has oppressed you for 46 years. I believe that the day of your liberation is near.” Professor Jeffrey Sachs noted, “What we’re seeing playing out in Iran is a Netanyahu US plan unveiled in 1996,” tying the attack to a long-term strategy. Mearsheimer dismissed regime change as “a pipe dream,” highlighting its impracticality. The focus on toppling Iran’s government reveals the attack’s imperialist underpinnings.
Israel’s Strategic Manipulation of U.S. Policy
Israel’s reliance on U.S. military support drove its strategy to entangle America in the conflict. Mearsheimer stated, “If you look at the weaponry that was used against the Iranians, it’s the Americans who provide that weaponry.” Israel aimed to provoke Iranian retaliation, ensuring U.S. involvement, as Mearsheimer noted, “The name of the game is to suck the Americans in.” This mirrors historical manipulations, like the Bay of Pigs, where allies drew the U.S. into conflict. Israel’s influence over U.S. policy exposes a troubling dynamic in their alliance.
Neoconservative Dominance in U.S. Policy
The strikes signify a triumph for neoconservative forces, marginalizing advocates of diplomatic restraint. Sachs lamented, “It’s clear that the neocons are triumphant. This is a magnificent triumph for the neocon takeover.” Bipartisan support, with Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz asserting, “I stand firmly behind Israel’s right to defend itself,” reflects this shift. Mearsheimer noted, “The restrainers in the end don’t matter,” highlighting Israel’s dominance over U.S. policy. This alignment erodes America’s global diplomatic credibility.
Exposing a Betrayal of Peace
The U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran reveals a profound betrayal of Trump’s anti-war promises and diplomatic principles. Trump’s admissions and Israel’s confirmations expose a carefully planned deception, undermining trust in U.S. negotiations. The strikes, driven by a neoconservative agenda and Israel’s influence, prioritize regime change over a questionable nuclear threat. Escalating regional tensions and endangering global security, the attack highlights a dangerous U.S. foreign policy trajectory.
