MOR explains Trump’s 'Epic Fury' war on Iran—the buildup (Part 4)
The Geopolitical Theorem - An MOR series
If you haven’t read Part 3 yet, you may do so here:
In this series, I have been laying out why I believe that the MOR model can elegantly and easily explain the evidence of US foreign policy, and why the mainstream model has already failed catastrophically—and quite definitively. Here is a quick guide to prior articles in this series.
PART 1. → I explain the basic epistemological rules for evaluating competing models of US foreign-policy behaviors. I also show that the US bosses have attacked jihadi forces before, and, every time, these have been jihadi forces that the US bosses themselves created. Moreover, the outcome of such attacks has been, each time, to strengthen jihadism overall and to weaken the security of Israel. There is, therefore, no automatic contradiction between US attacks against specific jihadi forces and what we claim is the dedicated pro-jihad and anti-Israel policy of the US bosses—to the contrary. The mainstream model, which claims that the US bosses are anti-jihad and pro-Israel, cannot explain the evidence; the MOR model easily can.
PART 2. → I present the geopolitical theorem. I claim we have a dramatic fact, which is to say an entirely diagnostic fact that—all by itself—suffices to refute the mainstream model of the US bosses as allegedly anti-jihad and pro-Israel. The US bosses began arming in secret the antisemitic and genocidal Iranian jihadis in 1981, in what became known later as the Iran-Contra Scandal or Iran-Contra Affair. And the US bosses kept on arming the Iranian jihadis in secret despite the fact that—in the middle of this—Iran killed 258 US citizens (the greatest terrorist attack against the US until that date). Why is this a dramatic—i.e. diagnostic—fact? Because the mainstream model requires this to be impossible. And yet there it is.
PART 3. I pretend that the mainstream model has not already been refuted to see how well that model does against the MOR model in explaining the evidence of US foreign policy after the discovery of Iran-Contra up until Trump’s ‘Epic Fury.’ I show that the MOR model easily accounts for all of the evidence. The mainstream model, by contrast, experiences one contradiction after another. The result is rather precisely what you would expect if 1) continuity across US administrations makes ‘the US bosses’—rather than any one president—the right category for geopolitical analysis; and 2) my geopolitical theorem is a real theorem.
And now, it is time for Part 4. It seems like the evidence is in. So let us now assess which model—MOR or mainstream—can explain better Trump’s ‘Epic Fury’ war on Iran. This piece will focus on the preliminaries: the buildup to ‘Epic Fury.’ The following pieces will consider the outcome of the war for Israel in Lebanon and in Iran.
Briefly summarized, this is what the two models claim:
MOR model. Donald Trump—like other US bosses before him—is pursuing a pro-jihad and anti-Israel policy. Trump attacked Iran only because his own public narrative and actions trapped him into that course of action. But Trump will find a way to make this end badly for Israel. Because Trump, like other US bosses before him, is a covert totalitarian antisemite working to produce, by proxy, a jihadi genocide of the Jewish people in the State of Israel. The larger goal is to destroy the democratic West.
Mainstream model. Donald Trump, a defender of Western values and institutions, is—like other US bosses before him—a strong ally of Israel and an enemy of jihadism. Protecting Israel from jihadi Iran is therefore a top priority of Trump’s foreign policy. He attacked Iran in order to defeat jihadism and protect Israel. He will reap enormous benefits for Israel from this war, and he will defeat Iran. In this manner, he will defend the West.
First, the buildup sequence—without commentary
I am betting most people have forgotten the curious structure of events leading up to ‘Epic Fury.’ So let’s refresh our memory:
2025
Dec 27-29 → Massive anti-regime protests erupt in Iran.
2026
Jan 2 → Trump threatens military retaliation if the ayatollahs fire on protesters.1
Jan 8-15 → The regime launches a massive crackdown (Trump’s own estimate: 32,000 killed).2
Jan 13 → Trump posts that “help is on its way,” encouraging Iranian protesters to step up the protests.3
Jan 15-16 → Trump does a U-turn, says he won’t attack, because the ayatollahs promised the killings/executions would stop.
Jan 17 → The ayatollahs deny they said that and announce the executions will continue.4
Jan 23 → Trump orders massive deployment to the Persian Gulf.
Jan 28 → The rationale, however, changes abruptly: Iran must now sign an agreement to end its nuclear program; if not, Trump attacks.
Feb → Trump imposes negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.
Feb → The Iranian negotiators attend the talks, but in the end the ayatollahs refuse to sign.
Feb 28 → The U.S. and Israel attack Iran.
Some commentary: Is Trump very macho or just the opposite?
There are some interesting absurdities in the sequence above. Look closely, first, at points 2-5. They’re interesting.
Trump looked very, very macho when he promised to protect the Iranian protesters.
“Trump initially wrote on his Truth Social platform, warning Iran that if it ‘violently kills peaceful protesters,’ the United States ‘will come to their rescue.’ … ‘We are locked and loaded and ready to go,’ Trump wrote.”5
And Trump encouraged the Iranian protesters:
“ ‘Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!’ Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. ‘Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY.’ ”6
And yet, after promising to rescue the Iranian protesters, right after this Trump declared—absurdly—that he wouldn’t move after all because …(I can hardly credit this)… because the ayatollahs had told him that the killings would stop.
Just watch:
On the mainstream model, which says that Trump is anti-jihad and pro-Israel, how is this absurd? Let us count the ways.
Trump couldn’t even confirm where his alleged ‘information’ was coming from. When asked who had told him that the killings would stop, he said he had been “informed by very important sources on the other side” (see video above).
Trump communicated implicitly that murderous jihadis should be considered truthful. For him to back down, it was enough that the ayatollahs had said (allegedly) that they had “stopped the killings.”
Trump communicated implicitly that the Iranian jihadis can murder their own people—even after he threatens the Iranian jihadis with war—so long as they pause after the killings. He was proposing not to punish the ayatollahs after he himself asserted they had massacred multitudes.
Trump thanked—thanked—the Iranian ayatollahs for allegedly suspending executions. “Trump thanked them for promising to stop the planned executions of 800 protestors.”7
Trump paid the price of looking like a complete idiot and a complete phony—all so that he could get out of attacking Iran. Just look at his face and the way he talks in the video above when he explains that he has it ‘on good authority’ that the killings in Iran have supposedly stopped—he doesn’t look like he believes a word he is saying. And he confesses that: “I hope it’s true. Who knows, right?”
The Iranian jihadis claimed they had not said any of that. The ayatollah regime immediately and defiantly contradicted Trump in public and announced it was going ahead with the executions right away.
As explained in Part 2, the mainstream model requires that provoking the US bosses to attack Iran should be the easiest thing in the world. But here we see Trump resorting to the greatest nonsense imaginable—and paying the price of looking like an idiot—just so that he can avoid attacking Iran.
This behavior—absurd under the mainstream model—is precisely what the MOR model expects, and it is consistent with the amazing events documented in Part 2.
But can the MOR model explain why Trump made his threats against the ayatollahs in the first place? Yes. The reality of Westerners needs to be managed with something. If Trump had said nothing, or said that he didn’t care, or said that he approved of the killings in Iran, the jig would be up. The official presentation of Trump—and the rest of the US bosses—as anti-jihad and pro-Israel, which relies to a great extent on the gullibility of innocent Westerners, requires some occasional tough talk.
And talk is cheap: talking tough usually has zero cost for the US bosses. If the ayatollahs had collaborated with Trump by saying, Okay, yes, the killings will stop, then Trump could have at least claimed—with a bit more credibility than he did—that his threats had had a political effect in Iran. He would have looked less ridiculous, even though he was making a U-turn, and he could have posed—weakly—as a defender of ordinary Iranians.
But the ayatollahs chose instead to make Trump look like a fool and a liar, and that was no small thing. After Trump claimed that the ayatollahs would stop the killings and executions…
“ ‘Trump says a lot of nonsense and gibberish,’ Tehran’s prosecutor, Ali Salehi, replied … ‘Our reaction will be forceful, preventive and swift. Indictments have been issued for numerous cases and sent to courts.’ ”8
Iranian protesters—and many others—felt betrayed by Trump’s U-turn, but they became hopeful again when Trump appeared to do another U-turn—heading now (it seemed…) in his original direction—as he deployed the US military to the Persian Gulf on 23 January. And he sounded like he still meant to defend ordinary Iranians:
“ ‘We have a big force going toward Iran. I’d rather not see anything happen, but we’re watching them very closely. I stopped 837 hangings on Thursday,’ Trump added.
‘They would have been dead. Everyone would have been hung. This is like from 1,000 years ago.’
‘I said, If you hang those people, you’re going to be hit harder than you’ve ever been hit. It’ll make what we did to you around nuclear look like peanuts,’ he continued.”9
Four days later, however, another U-turn! Even as the ships were sailing toward the Persian Gulf, the entire public rationale for the deployment was completely transformed. Trump now began saying that the point of this was for Iran to abandon its nuclear program.10
Huh?
Trump was now giving the Iranian ayatollahs a way out. To survive in power, all they had to do was sign on the dotted line and to agree to dismantle their nuclear program.
But wait. After the 12-Day War, Trump had told us that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” and then, just in case people were confused about his meaning, he clarified with the redundant phrase “totally obliterated.”
“Standing at Trump's side, [Secretary of Defense Pete] Hegseth echoed, ‘Iran’s nuclear program is obliterated.’ ”11
But now Trump wanted a nuclear deal? So the Iranian nuclear program wasn’t “totally obliterated”? Trump and Hegseth lied? I don’t know. But nobody seemed to agree with them. Moreover, “an assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency with the help of U.S. Central Command” leaked, and this report claimed that Iran’s nuclear program had not been damaged in this way.12
“According to two people familiar with the initial report, the bombing sealed off the entrances to two of the nuclear sites but that most of the damage was done to structures above ground, leaving the lower structures intact. The assessment also found that at least some enriched uranium had been moved from the nuclear sites ahead of the blasts and that centrifuges are largely intact.”13
The Trump White House cancelled a briefing where they would have to answer questions about this. And then the White House cited a report by the ayatollahs claiming that the nuclear facilities had been ‘badly damaged.’ Once again, as with the earlier claims that the killings of Iranian protesters had stopped, Trump was asking us to have faith in the (alleged) declarations of Iranian officials. (And notice that if the ayatollahs wanted the bombing to stop, this is what they needed to say.)14
But anyway—coming back to the buildup to ‘Epic Fury’—what did signing a nuclear deal have to do with protecting ordinary Iranians, the originally stated reason less than a week earlier to justify the troop deployment? Nothing. Or less than nothing: Trump was now saying that if the ayatollahs signed a nuclear deal, they could stay in power! They could go on killing innocent Iranians…
This is a huge problem for the mainstream model. What if the ayatollahs signed? Then they would escape. And if they did escape, how was that good for Israel? The Iranian ayatollahs still had proxy genocidal forces around Israel. They were still committed to the extermination of the Israeli Jews (and the destruction of the West…).
None of this a problem for the MOR model. In fact, it is perfectly consistent with it—and with Trump’s earlier behaviors.
As we explained back when the 12-Day War happened, Trump’s behavior there was consistent with saving the ayatollahs, not with protecting Israel. In that war, Israel was operating freely above Iranian airspace and hitting whatever it wanted. Israel may have been just hours—depending on what it chose to hit—from causing the collapse of the ayatollah regime (especially considering what the subsequent protests soon revealed about the boiling point that the Iranian population had reached). Trump’s behavior certainly seems to indicate that the US bosses believed regime collapse was imminent: he kept pleading with the ayatollahs to come back to the negotiating table and sign a nuclear deal so that he could stop the Israelis. He said he wanted to “save … the Iranian Empire.” I kid you not.
And he did save the Iranian Empire. When the ayatollahs wouldn’t cry Uncle—because their own internal jihadi grammar did not allow this genuflection—Trump entered the 12-Day War, dropped a few bombs, immediately claimed the Iranian nuclear program had been “obliterated,” and then turned around and imposed a ceasefire on the Israelis. While he did that, he swiveled his head at the Iranians and warned, in ALL CAPS:
“ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT.”15
The internal grammar of jihadi Iran required the ayatollahs to hit back with something, so they retaliated (weakly) against US positions in Qatar and Iraq. Yet Trump—despite his super macho threats—held his fire.
Why? Because if he didn’t, he couldn’t keep the lid on the Israelis and protect the ayatollahs—that’s what the MOR model says.
And, now, right before ‘Epic Fury,’ Trump was desperately doing the same: in the middle of his force deployment, he abandoned his ‘defense of ordinary Iranians’ rationale and pivoted absurdly to demand that the ayatollahs abandon the very nuclear program he had supposedly “obliterated” already. And if the ayatollahs signed, they could stay in power!
This looks exactly like the 12-Day War—Trump looking for a way out so that he can “save … the Iranian Empire.”
The Jerusalem Post apologizes for Trump’s absurdities
I must here point out something truly amazing—not for MOR, but for any who believe that the major media are free and independent. To the best of my abilities (and those of my AI tools) nobody pointed out just how absurd it was for Trump to pivot from ‘I will save the Iranians’ to ‘I will make the ayatollahs sign a nuclear deal.’ Only one article—in the Jerusalem Post—even focused on this. And this piece apologized for Trump!
The Jerusalem Post piece was titled ‘Why US moved from backing Iranian protesters to bargaining over nuclear program.’ The key passage is worth quoting in full:
“The pivot from the protests to the nuclear issue
Upward of 30,000 people were reportedly killed in last month’s unrest. That crackdown was the original trigger for the US armada heading to the Middle East – a signal that ‘help is on its way.’
In early January, Trump’s rhetoric tied potential US action directly to Tehran’s repression. By the end of the month, however, the justification had shifted. The focus moved from aiding protesters and urging them to ‘take over your institutions’ to warning that Iran must halt its nuclear program or face consequences.
Abruptly, the armada on the way to the Mideast was there not to back the protesters, but to pressure Iran to stop nuclear development.
Why the pivot? Why did the protest file, which only weeks earlier was central to Washington’s posture, suddenly recede?
Because Washington concluded that the nuclear file was more urgent, more controllable, and less politically costly than an overtly pro-protest policy.
In early January, the regime appeared brittle, and the moral case was clear. But a morally compelling cause does not automatically translate into a workable policy.
Washington’s Arab and Muslim partners—Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, and Qatar—quietly and firmly warned that a US strike framed as ‘saving protesters’ could trigger broad Iranian retaliation, including attacks on Gulf infrastructure and US bases. Energy markets would be shaken. The region could spiral.
Those allies pressed for restraint and for channeling US leverage into a nuclear arrangement rather than into regime-targeted intervention.”16
The nonsense that the Jerusalem Post is dishing to its readers is simply astounding. Why should Iran’s retaliation be different if Trump frames his threats as motivated by the nuclear issue or by the attacks against Iranians? What are they talking about? His attack would be the same attack. And the Iranian doctrine is the same doctrine. If Iranian retaliation was the concern, why was a military confrontation over the nuclear issue acceptable but a military confrontation over mass killings unacceptable?
This makes exactly zero sense. Yet the Jerusalem Post, rather than expose the absurdity, presented their patent incoherence—with no additional comment—as an explanation that you were supposed to find obviously reasonable.
(Really, they think we are idiots. Are we gonna prove them right?)
And what if the ayatollahs—with Trump’s troops already deployed to the Persian Gulf—now once again refused to sign on Trump’s proposed nuclear agreement? If he didn’t attack, he might convince too many people that MOR and others in the skeptical camp (all five of them…) had been right all along.
Well, the ayatollahs refused to sign. And then, trapped by his own narrative, Trump was grammatically forced to attack.
That is the MOR model.
Did Trump make a final U-turn?
To be perfectly fair, I should recognize that when Trump announced the onset of ‘Epic Fury’ combat operations on 28 February 2026, after repeating at length his rhetoric about how “Iran will never have nuclear weapons,” he added the following:
“Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere.
When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.
For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight.
Now you have a president who is giving you what you want, so let’s see how you respond.
America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.
Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach.
This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”17
Was Trump making another U-turn? Was the liberation of ordinary Iranians back on the table? Was Trump declaring that he would achieve regime change in Iran? MOR’s detractors were sure of it; we didn’t believe that for a second.
The MOR model requires that Trump would find a way to make the outcome of the war—somehow—good for jihadis and bad for Israel, just like he did when he attacked Iran in the 12-Day War, like he did when he attacked ISIS, and like earlier US bosses did when they attacked the Afghan jihadis. So we made that prediction, while our detractors claimed that Trump’s attack had supposedly refuted the MOR model. Trump, they said, really was defending Israel. Just wait and see, they said.
We waited. And now we see. Who was right? What has been the outcome of this war?
Coming up next.
The Times of Israel. (2026, January 3). ‘Locked and loaded’: Trump and Iranian officials exchange threats over protests.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/locked-and-loaded-trump-and-iranian-officials-exchange-threats-over-protests/
Breen, K. (2026, February 20). Trump says 32,000 people were killed in Iran’s crackdown on protesters. CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-iran-protest-crackdown-death-toll/
Hall, R. (2026, January 13). Trump tells Iran protesters “help is on its way,” signaling possible U.S. military action. TIME.
https://time.com/7345860/trump-iran-military-strikes/
Serjoie, K. A. (2026, January 17). ‘He doesn’t care about us’: Iranian protesters say they were betrayed by Trump. TIME.
https://time.com/7347090/iran-protesters-trump-help/
The Times of Israel. (2026, January 3). ‘Locked and loaded’: Trump and Iranian officials exchange threats over protests.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/locked-and-loaded-trump-and-iranian-officials-exchange-threats-over-protests/
Hall, R. (2026, January 13). Trump tells Iran protesters “help is on its way,” signaling possible U.S. military action. TIME.
https://time.com/7345860/trump-iran-military-strikes/
Serjoie, K. A. (2026, January 17). ‘He doesn’t care about us’: Iranian protesters say they were betrayed by Trump. TIME.
https://time.com/7347090/iran-protesters-trump-help/
Serjoie, K. A. (2026, January 17). ‘He doesn’t care about us’: Iranian protesters say they were betrayed by Trump. TIME.
https://time.com/7347090/iran-protesters-trump-help/
Christenson, J. (2026, January 23). Trump sends USS Abe Lincoln carrier group to Middle East to keep Iran honest. New York Post.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/23/us-news/trump-sends-uss-abe-lincoln-carrier-group-to-middle-east-to-keep-iran-honest/
Folk, Z. (2026, January 28). Trump tells Iran ‘massive armada’ is heading its way as he urges nuclear deal. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2026/01/28/trump-tells-iran-massive-armada-is-heading-its-way-as-he-urges-nuclear-deal/
Hutzler, A. (2025, June 25). ‘Obliterated’: The firestorm over how Trump described damage to Iran nuclear sites. ABC News.
https://abcnews.com/Politics/obliterated-firestorm-trump-damage-iran-nuclear-sites/story?id=123201314
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
CBS News. (2025, June 13). U.S. launches strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump says.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-launches-strikes-iranian-nuclear-facilities-trump-says/
Keinon, H. (2026, February 23). Why US moved from backing Iranian protesters to bargaining over nuclear program - analysis. The Jerusalem Post.
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-887676
Magid, J. (2026, February 28). Full text of Trump’s declaration of ‘major combat operations’ against Iran. The Times of Israel.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-trumps-declaration-of-major-combat-operations-against-iran/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/30/iran-trump-peace-deal-analysis?CMP=share_btn_url
You're not alone in noticing
History is repeating as Trump 'appeases' (wink, wink) the ayatollahs repeatedly. Note that while you view Trump as a 'covert totalitarian antisemite', I see him as an actor representing totalitarian antisemites--and while I once had hopes for him doing something good, his preservation of the irgc and repeated u-turns, abandonment of anti-fascist Iranians long ago prompted me to put no faith in him whatsoever.
There has been much teasing over the last couple of years about the Pahlavis retaking power in Iran, but it hasn't come to fruition, and shows no signs of coming to fruition.
There are many people online and in real life who are loyal 'marks' of the system (these are the people that think pro-wrestling is real). They squeal about how much they hate Trump, they call him a pedophile, an unconvicted felon, a racist etc---but they fully support him when it comes to preserving the irgc, and they fully support the rabid anti-Israel propaganda program that has been in place under Trump/Patel.