PART 7: IS TRUMP FOR REAL? Is the war on Iran like the war on ISIS?
An MOR series
If you haven’t read Part 6 yet, you may do so here:
As I write, the joint US-Israeli war against Iran has convinced even the few doubters—whom I had managed temporarily to seduce—that Donald Trump (and the US bosses more generally) really do stand with Israel.
But the MOR model predicts that the US bosses will again rearrange the Middle East so that Israel finds itself threatened once more.
In other words, I am predicting that the US war on Iran will follow the same functional logic as the US war on ISIS, which made things worse for Israel.
There are important structural similarities between the two wars, and they are worth noting.
Before you conclude too quickly that Donald Trump is attacking Iran right now because the US bosses are anti-jihad and pro-Israel, it pays to examine the history.
Many believe that Donald Trump’s present war on Iran demonstrates that Trump is anti-jihad and pro-Israel. I think that conclusion is rash—as rash as concluding the same from Trump 1.0’s earlier war on ISIS.
In fact, that other war should make you suspect two things:
that there is continuity across US presidents, even when they present as supposedly very different; and
that Trump’s war on Iran will probably be very bad for Israel.
Why do I say this?
Though Trump did not start the war against ISIS, his administration accelerated and intensified that campaign, which culminated in the destruction of ISIS’s territorial caliphate in 2019. That made Trump look very anti-jihad, but that’s not the whole picture. Just like Obama, Trump fought against ISIS by teaming up with jihadis: he teamed up with the Iranian ayatollahs and their terrorist Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
What was the geopolitical consequence of the war on ISIS? It was this: With official US acquiescence, Iran—the State that predicates its existential meaning on the genocidal destruction of Israel—gained a narrative foothold for the consummation of its material control over Iraq, now transformed into Iran’s vassal. The ayatollahs thereby obtained a land corridor all the way to the northern border of the Jewish State.
I will examine below this structure, and the larger context, to justify my prediction that—just like the war on ISIS—Donald Trump’s war on Iran will also be bad for Israel.
The war on ISIS: US bosses and ayatollahs fought together
Consider, for example, what the Associated Press reported in January 2015:
“Two to three Iranian military aircraft a day land at Baghdad airport, bringing in weapons and ammunition. Iran’s most potent military force and best known general—the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force and its commander Gen. Ghasem Soleimani—are organizing Iraqi forces and have become the de facto leaders of Iraqi Shiite militias that are the backbone of the fight [against ISIS].”1
Notice that the Iranian intervention against ISIS was, simultaneously, the total takeover of Iraq by Iran. In fact, the title of the AP article was ‘Iran Has Never Been More Influential In Iraq.’
Yes, and who had engineered this Iranian takeover of Iraq? Why, the US bosses. An article in Foreign Affairs—about as officially mainstream as a geopolitics publication can possibly get (it’s the Council on Foreign Relations, incubator of US policy)—said it plainly:
“Since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iran has been closely involved with its neighbor Iraq. Tehran’s Iraqi Shiite allies, long suppressed under Saddam, now dominate the country’s politics. For Iran, which is short of friends in the region, Iraq’s transition from a hostile neighbor to a co-religionist ally has been a boon, and safeguarding the Iraqi state is now one of Tehran’s vital security interests.”2 (emphasis mine)
Yes. And who engineered “the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003”? Why, the US bosses. The US bosses engineered “the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003” that brought Tehran to power in Iraq.
Were the US bosses happy with this result? That same month, on January 15, “Asked [by reporters] about Iran’s military operations in Iraq,” Army General Martin Dempsey—the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (no less!)—expressed: “ ‘I think Iranian influence will be positive.’ ” And about the merging of Iraq with Iran, under Iranian control, Dempsey celebrated that “ ‘the two countries [move] more closely together economically or even politically…’ ”3
How about that.
And it was hardly only that. As Foreign Affairs put it at the time of the battle for Mosul, “the IRGC … needs U.S. airpower and military assistance to defeat ISIS.”4 And the US provided that. Looking back, PBS later wrote: “In a 2016 offensive to take Mosul back from ISIS, the U.S. and Iran fought on the same side without ever publicly acknowledging it.”5
True, the above is from Obama’s time. But before you rush to conclude that this was just Obama and Co., and that Donald Trump was probably very different, let me knock that right down: Trump followed Obama’s policy precisely. In fact, Trump finished the battle for Mosul that Obama began. And he kept fighting ISIS alongside the ayatollahs.
And yes, if you read mainstream academics—for example those trained at Harvard’s Belfer Center in the Kennedy School of Government—they’ll tell you that Trump and the ayatollahs were “adversaries.” But suppose we look past the obligatory official narrative to focus on facts—facts that even these regime academics do not dispute. Then we have what these same academics wrote during the Trump 1.0 presidency under the title: ‘Cooperating with Iran to Combat ISIS in Iraq.’
“President Trump cannot maintain a simplified policy of fighting ISIS while aggressively containing Iran throughout the region. … [Circumstances force Trump] to work with Iran to push back ISIS in Iraq. … the two adversaries [Trump and the ayatollahs] can only reach their respective objectives through collaboration.”6
Two points about this.
The first is that, if you understood George Orwell’s 1984, then this kind of official language by approved academics in the mainstream should be teaching you that you live in the world that Orwell warned about. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Adversaries are Cooperators/Collaborators.
The bosses speak this way; therefore they are covert totalitarians. We have explained that logic here:
The second is an empirical point: as you can see above, it is part of the historical record that—just as Obama had also done—Trump collaborated with the ayatollahs against ISIS. No difference on the geopolitical facts of policy. Trump = Obama.
Makes sense: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Adversaries are Collaborators, and …Trump equals Obama.
But that latter equation, though it was embodied in the policy structure, was not presented as such in the discourse. The official narrative asserted a supposedly stark contrast dividing the personalities and policies of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Hence, Trump’s patent collaboration with the ayatollahs was narratively awkward.
An attempt to square the narrative circle can be glimpsed in a July 2017 piece in Newsweek, according to which “the U.S.”—meaning the Trump administration—
“has become increasingly concerned about Iran’s growing foothold in Iraq. …Iran and Iraq have pledged to join forces [against ISIS] … by boosting bilateral defense ties (…) the new deal will reportedly see Iran and Iraq’s armed forces work together on a number of strategic levels.”7
But the policy facts completely contradicted Newsweek’s assertion about the Trump administration supposedly “becom[ing] increasingly concerned about Iran’s growing foothold in Iraq.” For “Donald Trump,” as the same Newsweek piece reported, “has pledged increased support for Iraq.” In other words, Trump was increasing military support for the Iraqi government that was now controlled by the Iranian ayatollahs.
And—mind you—in the last 10 years, no country on the planet has received more US weapons, in dollar terms, than Iranian-controlled Iraq.
To put that in its most useful perspective, Iranian-controlled Iraq has been getting at least four times as much US armament as Israel.
When you are building a model of geopolitics, it is foolish to pay any attention to what the media and academic mouthpieces say, or what the policy protagonists themselves say about who they are allied with, and who against. Pay attention to how the bosses spend billions of dollars. If they spend billions of dollars strengthening Iran and weakening Israeli security, then that’s their policy—that’s what they want.
It doesn’t matter one whit what they say.
What was the aftermath of the US war on ISIS?
Now, if we can discipline ourselves once again to set narrative aside, and focus only on the facts on the ground, let us ask: What was the geopolitical consequence of the war against ISIS waged by the US and Iran?
It was this: The war against ISIS legitimated the Iranian military presence in Iraq, and thus gave Iran—which already controlled Syria and Lebanon via the Assad regime and the Iranian proxy Hezbollah—a land corridor to the northern border of Israel.
In short, Iran was the big winner.
Was this good for Israel? Well, no. The Iranian ayatollahs explain in public that the entire point of their jihadi revolution is to exterminate the Israeli Jews. So the geopolitical outcome of the US’s war on ISIS was very bad for Israel.
Let us now turn to interpretation.
Was this by design?
I say yes, because one can here find the hand of the US bosses in everything.
In order to have a war on ISIS, it was first necessary that ISIS should exist. And, as it turns out, it was the US bosses themselves who created ISIS in the first place.
Was that abject stupidity—a massive blunder—or a masterstroke of Machiavellian cleverness? The details of behavior—and the consistency of that behavior—become important when attempting to discriminate between these two hypotheses.
It is an undisputed fact, and one reported extensively in the mainstream media, that both jihadis and non-jihadis were thrown together in the military prisons that the US Army built in Iraq. It is also undisputed that the US generals in charge allowed the jihadis to control the social life within the prisons. The terrorists used that power to coerce everyone into jihad. They taught the importance of killing infidels, how to make bombs, and how to develop the guts to become a suicide bomber—with chalk and a blackboard (literally).
A former detainee from Camp Bucca, Adel Jasim Mohammed, described it like this:
“ ‘Extremists had freedom to educate the young detainees. I saw them giving courses using classroom boards on how to use explosives, weapons and how to become suicide bombers,’ Mohammed said.
‘For the Americans we felt it was normal. They did not stop them [the radicals].’ ”8
Nazim Al-Juburi, a prominent Al Qaeda defector, said the following on Iraqi TV:
“We have spoken to the Americans more than once and told them that they make a big mistake by giving many of our detained people in Camp Bucca and other prisons a chance to be educated on this [jihadist] ideology.”9
When the New York Times reporter approached to ask a few meek questions about all this, the man in charge, General Douglas Stone, replied—with refreshing frankness—that his prison system in Iraq was indeed a “jihadi university”—his words.10
After five years of operation, US authorities closed down this “jihadi university”—where Al Qaeda in Iraq, later renamed ISIS, had been incubating—and they set all of the jihadi terrorists free.
The US generals did this, mind you, against the desperate pleadings of the Iraqi government and the local sheiks. The Iraqi government begged to be allowed to hold the terrorists in Iraqi prisons, but the US bosses refused—they deliberately set the terrorists loose. And then the US bosses made sure that their ISIS pets, released into the wild, got US military weapons and training.
You may read about all that here:
At this point, the following question is natural, and fully expected:
But if the US bosses deliberately created ISIS, why would they attack their own creation?
One of the great benefits of the MOR model is that such apparently paradoxical behaviors cease to be paradoxical. This is precisely what a good model is supposed to do.
Empirically, we know that the US bosses attack their own creations with very high frequency. They attacked Manuel Noriega in Panama, a former US client. They attacked Saddam Hussein in Iraq, another former US client. And so forth. Happens all the time. As Jared Israel used to say: “The US doesn’t have friends; only future enemies.” On the basis of the evidentiary pattern, therefore, there is zero reason to expect that some player will be spared by the US bosses merely because the US bosses had been supporting him.
To explain this evidentiary pattern, the MOR model makes a claim about the psychology and values of the US bosses: they are totalitarian psychopaths. In other words, to them everything and everyone is just a tool or an obstacle. The bosses may have created X themselves, but that does not obligate any loyalty to X; they can and will attack X if it suits their purposes.
The most dramatic example of the pattern is how the US bosses used the German Nazis. First they created the German Nazis:
Then, during World War II, the US bosses supported the Nazis in many ways.
But when it became obvious that the Nazis would not defeat the Soviets, and that the Soviets were now rushing towards the Atlantic and would soon have all of Europe, that’s when Great Britain and the United States began to plan the Normandy invasion to fight the Nazis. Not before!
I document and explain all of that here:
When the dust settled, the US bosses took their Nazi pets into receivership. The entire Nazi intelligence infrastructure in Eastern Europe, Fremde Heere Ost, was simply absorbed, along with numerous SS officers. We are talking about tens of thousands of Nazis and Nazi-collaborator assets. This is what became the CIA.
Just as most people don’t understand that the US bosses created the Nazis, then fought them when necessary, then absorbed a remnant to create their own intelligence service, most people don’t know that the US bosses created the ISIS forces which they later fought.
So this is tried and true: the US bosses will create a force, and then, when it becomes convenient or necessary—whether because it was always their plan or because of some shift in the geopolitical and/or grammatical (narrative) chessboard—they will attack their own creations. And they may also rescue a remnant, as they did with Fremde Heere Ost and much of the SS.
ISIS was attacked because it became useful to the US bosses to attack ISIS. I think this was the plan all along. And the US bosses also rescued a remnant of ISIS (see below).
We may now return to our title question:
Is the current war on Iran like the war on ISIS?
ISIS was created by the US bosses and then attacked. The US bosses are now attacking Iran. But was Iran—like ISIS—also created by the US bosses?
It was.
The US bosses—with Jimmy Carter in the lead—installed the ayatollahs in power in Iran. We now have the definitive demonstration of this, as MOR’s Iran-Contra series is finally complete (we will spin it off as a book soon). The US creation of the Iranian jihadi regime was but the first in a long series of policy moves, spanning almost half a century, that consistently benefited the ayatollahs.
You need to see the—very quickly summarized—list of policy moves. The pattern, I claim, radically undermines the notion that Donald Trump attacks Iran because he is anti-jihad. I recommend that, before jumping to any of the suggested articles, you read through the list to the end, so that you may apprehend this pattern.
In the 1970s, as all the evidence suggests, the US bosses coordinated with PLO/Fatah in Lebanon for the training of Ayatollah Khomeini’s guerrillas. The relationship of the CIA to PLO/Fatah in Lebanon was not widely understood at the time (though it was reported).
In 1979, Jimmy Carter made dramatic political and diplomatic moves to get rid of the Shah of Iran. Recently declassified CIA documents about a close relationship between the CIA and Ayatollah Khomeini before the Iranian revolution have confirmed what many believed even then: that Jimmy Carter had installed Khomeini in power.
Both points above are documented in the final chapter of our Iran-Contra series:Right after this, in the middle of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan & George Bush got busy sending billions of dollars in weapons to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. When this was discovered, it became the Iran-Contra Scandal.
Iran-Contra was never explained. The mainstream media and academia are still repeating the official ‘arms for hostages’ story, as we document in Part 3 of the Iran-Contra series:But the official story was long ago shown to be a lie, because no hostages yet existed in 1981, when Reagan-Bush ordered the first secret shipments of weapons to the Iranian jihadis. We document that in Part 2:
In 1988 the US bosses arranged a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq War when the ayatollahs, despite all the secret US help, were losing the war to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
Then, in 1991, the US bosses drew Saddam Hussein into a trap and precipitated the 1991 Gulf War, which severely weakened Iraq. The whole idea, as top US policymaker Zalmay Khalilzad explained in public, was “strengthening Iran and containing Iraq.” I explained this long ago on my previous website:
As a result of US pressure, Israel signed in 1993-95 the Oslo Accords, by which PLO/Fatah was brought into militarily strategic territories of Israel—Judea & Samaria and Gaza—to govern the Arabs there.
Mind you, PLO/Fatah was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini, a top leader of the German Nazi Final Solution: the Shoah, the genocidal murder of the European Jews. And PLO/Fatah, as mentioned above, was a co-creator of jihadi Iran, which promises out loud to repeat the Shoah in the Jewish State.
These claims about PLO/Fatah are documented here:During the 1990s, the US bosses allied with the ayatollahs to support the Bosnian Muslim jihadist, Alija Izetbegovic, and to import thousands of jihadi warriors into Europe. This scandal saw the light of day only briefly. Then it was suppressed (you may learn more about it in the extended footnote).11
After that, the US bosses invaded Iraq in 2003, removed Saddam Hussein, and essentially handed Iraq over to Iraqi Shiite forces controlled from Iran.
Meanwhile, the US bosses created a prison system in Iraq that incubated the jihadi terrorists of ISIS.
After five years of that, the US bosses released the ISIS terrorists into the wild. Then they made sure that ISIS received US weapons and military training.
Both points are documented here:When ISIS created the most unbelievable terrorist mayhem—shocking all Westerners to the bone—this became the needed narrative excuse for the US to go to war against ISIS.
As we’ve seen above, the war against ISIS produced narrative normalization for Iranian tutelage over Iraq, and even partly for the ayatollahs themselves. The more profound consequence was that, in the aftermath of the war, the ayatollahs—the genocidal antisemites—obtained a land corridor going all the way to the northern border of Israel.
The context of a half century of consistent US foreign policy in the Middle East just about screams that Obama and Trump, when they attacked and defeated ISIS, were doing it as one more prong in a longstanding policy of “strengthening Iran.”
Donald Trump’s Middle Eastern policies in 2025
More recently, Donald Trump’s Middle Eastern policies in 2025 have been consistent with the broader pattern. I will consider each major pro-Iranian Trump move in 2025 in its own turn.
1. Lebanon
In February 2025, Harrison Morgan, “a US Army Middle East and North Africa foreign area officer,” wrote in the Modern War Institute of West Point how astonished he was that “Hezbollah suffered a rapid military defeat.”12 The IDF could have kept going and liberated the entire country from Hezbollah, a genocidal terrorist force created by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that has strangled and destroyed Lebanon. And that would have made Israel’s border with Lebanon safe.
But that’s not what Trump wanted.
Trump ordered Netanyahu to stop, and he imposed a ceasefire in Lebanon. Then he had the Israelis ‘negotiate’ with the Lebanese government.
Trump’s idea of negotiation was an Israeli capitulation. The Lebanese government produced a piece of paper—like others they have produced in the past—promising to disarm Hezbollah. And then Tom Barrack, Trump’s negotiator, turned around and said to the Israelis: Okay, the Lebanese have done their part. Now you get out of Lebanon.13
A bit of Lebanese history will suffice for you to see the consistency here.
In 2004, with Franco-American drafting, the UN issued Resolution 1559, ostensibly to restore “the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon,” and to that end “call[ed] upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.” That was an oblique reference to Syria. The same document called for “disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias,” thereby seeking to extend “the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.”14
In practice, however, this appears to have been theater designed to hand Lebanon over to Hezbollah. For while Syria did withdraw, its ally Hezbollah was left untouched. Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s Muslim rivals were disarmed. (This repeated an earlier pattern, when, under the Taif Agreement, the Christian rivals of the jihadis had been disarmed while leaving the jihadis intact.)
Hezbollah subsequently became more and more powerful, and, from 2006 onward, it reigned supreme. In January of that year, even Security Council Report—funded by the Carnegie Corporation and the Open Society Foundations of Soros (never accused of sympathizing with Israel)—acknowledged in a January 2006 document that “The Lebanese government has not tried to forcibly disarm Hezbollah.” Moreover, as the document also observed, “[Hezbollah’s] electoral success as a political party now makes it difficult for the Lebanese government to implement the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and the Taif Agreements” with regard to disarming Hezbollah.15
In July 2006, a Hezbollah commando unit crossed southward and killed and captured Israeli soldiers. Israel responded with an air and ground offensive, while Hezbollah fired missiles and rockets at Israeli civilian populations. The conflict lasted 34 days and ended with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, drafted by the French in close coordination with the US, with the urgent objective—the same objective as always—of pushing Israel out of Lebanon.
The Israelis were promised a ceasefire, the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, and a reinforcement of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). And they were promised that Hezbollah’s terrorist and genocidal army would finally be disarmed.
Hezbollah was not disarmed.
In the same year of 2006 that Hezbollah took over the Lebanese government and the US bosses pulled Hezbollah’s chestnuts out of the fire, the US bosses also began sending all kinds of armament to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). One State Department document reads:
“Since 2006, U.S. investments of more than $3 billion to the LAF enabled the Lebanese military to be a stabilizing force against regional threats.”16
But not against Hezbollah! Hezbollah has exercised such decisive influence within Lebanese political institutions, including the cabinet, the Military Supreme Council, and the parliament, that Lebanon has been described in major international media as “a Hezbollah-run State.”17 The weapons the US sends to Lebanon are for Hezbollah, and hence for Iran.
Donald Trump has continued with this pattern: In 2025 he approved $230 million in weapons transfers to Lebanon—to Hezbollah.
2. Iraq.
We’ve already explained above that Iraq, thanks to the US invasion of Iraq, is now best understood as the westernmost province of Iran.
Iraq has been—by far—the single largest recipient on the entire planet of US weapons transfers in the last ten years. In 2025, Trump continued with this pattern by approving $100 million for new weapons transfers to Iraq.
All of that is for Iran.
3. Iran.
In the Twelve Day War of 2025, Trump saved the ayatollahs.
He tried very hard to give the ayatollahs an out, by inviting them to come back to the negotiating table, and if they did, he would stop the Israelis, he promised. The Iranians urgently needed this because they didn’t even have air defenses that could stand against the Israeli onslaught. Trump said out loud, in his Truth Social network, that he wanted to “save … the Iranian Empire.”18
When the political grammar of Iranian jihadism made it impossible for the ayatollahs to bend the knee, Trump dropped a few bombs to take narrative control of the war, and then imposed a ceasefire on the Israelis. He warned the Iranians not to fire back or they would be destroyed. But when the Iranians—once again trapped by their own jihadi grammar—fired back anyway, Trump held his fire so he could maintain the ceasefire on the Israelis.
We explain all that here:
4. Gaza
In Gaza, right as the Israelis were about to give Hamas the coup de grâce, and finish them, Trump intervened to stop the Israelis and impose another ceasefire and saved Hamas.
We should also consider two important moves in 2025 that were not specifically towards the Iranian axis but were nevertheless pro-jihadi.
5. Qatar
When Israel attacked Hamas leaders that Qatar was sheltering, Trump was furious. He forced Netanyahu to apologize to the Emir of Qatar, a major sponsor of jihadi terror and a patron of Hamas—therefore an intellectual author of the October 7 (2023) massacre and hostage-taking in Israel.
Then Trump announced he was extending NATO-level protection to Qatar, and that he would be training the Qatari Air Force.19
6. Syria.
Remember above when I said that the US bosses, though they attacked and defeated their own creation, ISIS, had nevertheless rescued a remnant (as they did with the German Nazis)? This was the ISIS franchise in Syria, created by Muhammad Al Jolani (Ahmed al Sharaa), which the US bosses allowed to survive in northern Syria (Idlib) under protection of the Turks.
Al Jolani has changed the name of his terrorist force several times, but don’t be distracted by that: Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, leader of ISIS, is who sent Al Jolani to Syria to create the Syrian branch of ISIS. Al Jolani is ISIS.
In 2025 the Israelis were advancing easily in Syria and could have joined the democratic Rojava Kurds in the northeast to liberate the whole country from jihadism. Donald Trump didn’t want that. So he stopped the Israelis and installed Al Jolani and his ISIS terrorists as the new government of Syria.
Don’t forget: the ISIS terrorists became famous for slowly—and proudly—beheading their victims on video. The surviving leader of those terrorists is Al Jolani, whose hand, drenched in innocent blood, Donald Trump amiably went to shake in Riyadh when he installed Al Jolani in Syria (see photo above).
If all that were not enough, Donald Trump has supported that Al Jolani’s ISIS terrorists destroy the democratic Rojava Kurds in northern Syria. We explain all of that here:
What will Trump do now?
Yes, the US bosses are attacking the ayatollahs. And that must be explained. The mainstream model says: Trump attacks Iran because he is anti-jihadi and pro-Israel.
That model can in principle explain why Trump is attacking Iran right now. But it fails utterly to explain everything else that has happened in the past half-century. And that needs to be explained too.
We need a model that explains everything.
The MOR model has no problem explaining the major US policies in the Middle East of the past half century:
The MOR model: The US bosses have consistently weakened Israeli security and strengthened jihadism because the US bosses are totalitarian antisemitic psychopaths who use jihadism in their efforts to produce an anti-Jewish genocide in Israel.
Can this model explain Trump’s current war on the ayatollahs? Yes, it can. Just as it can explain the war on ISIS. We will give a detailed account of how Trump was narratively—grammatically—trapped into attacking Iran in a future piece.
For now, we make the prediction the MOR model is logically obligated to make:
MOR prediction: The present war on the Iranian ayatollahs will be concluded with geopolitical chess moves that will once again weaken Israeli security.
It is possible that Trump will continue with the Syria policy of replacing the Iranian axis with the Turkish axis, which is in fact far more dangerous for Israel, because Turkey is a more competent State with a more advanced military. Don’t be too surprised if Turkey is given some kind of caretaker role over Iran when the dust settles.
But perhaps Trump will do something else. We cannot predict the specific moves. What the MOR model predicts unambiguously is that Trump will weaken the security of Israel and once again assist jihadism.
Soon, the evidence will be in. Our claim is that the mainstream model, which asserts that the US bosses are supposedly the biggest allies of the Jews, and of the Jewish State, will be utterly unable to explain what is about to happen, just as it fails completely to explain just about everything that happened in the last half century.
Stay tuned.
‘Iran Has Never Been More Influential In Iraq’; Associated Press; 12 January 2015; by Hamza Hendawi Qassim Abdul-zahra.
http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-has-never-been-more-influential-in-iraq-2015-1
Ostovar, A. (2016, November 4). From Tehran to Mosul: Iran and the Middle East’s great game. Foreign Affairs.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2016-11-04/tehran-mosul
“Dempsey: US eyes new ways to aid Iraq forces”; Daily Mail; 8 January 2015; by Associated Press
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2902314/Dempsey-US-eyes-new-ways-aid-Iraq-forces.html
Ostovar, A. (2016, November 4). From Tehran to Mosul: Iran and the Middle East’s great game. Foreign Affairs.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2016-11-04/tehran-mosul
Sayah, R. (2017, December 8). After fighting common enemy ISIS, how will rising tensions between U.S. and Iran affect Iraq? PBS NewsHour.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/after-fighting-common-enemy-isis-how-will-rising-tensions-between-u-s-and-iran-affect-iraq
Tabatabai, A., & Esfandiary, D. (2017). Cooperating with Iran to Combat ISIS in Iraq. The Washington Quarterly, 40(3), 129–146.
https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/cooperating-iran-combat-isis-iraq
O’Connor, T. (2017, July 24). Iran and Iraq military unite against “terrorism,” creating potential problems for U.S. Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/iran-iraq-military-unite-terrorism-potential-problems-us-641118
“US Iraq jail an ‘al-Qaeda school’ ”; 12 December 2009; Aljazeera.net
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009121274712823455.html
BBC Monitoring Middle East – Political; Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring; May 2, 2008 Friday; “Iraq: TV carries second part of interview with former Al-Qa’idah member”; LENGTH: 2860 words; ["Death Industry" programme, presented by Rima Salihah recorded]
“U.S. Remakes Jails in Iraq, but Gains Are at Risk”; The New York Times; June 2, 2008; SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1; LENGTH: 2798 words; DATELINE: BAGHDAD; By ALISSA J. RUBIN; Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/world/middleeast/02detain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Alija Izetbegovic had published in the 1970s a book titled Islamic Declaration where he expressed his admiration for the Iranian regime of Ayatollah Khomeini and called for the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslim populations in Bosnia. His objective was to create in Europe a purist Islamic state, under Sharia law, in imitation of Iran. In 1983 the Yugoslav government had condemned Izetbegovic to 14 years in prison—later reduced to 5—for preaching civil war in Yugoslavia. Barely out of prison, in the elections of 1990, when he competed for the Bosnian presidency, Izetbegovic republished Islamic Declaration as campaign platform. This was one of the main causes of the civil wars in Yugoslavia.
In that conflict, the most notorious cause célèbre of the international demonization of the Serbs was Srebrenica, where it is alleged that the Serbs committed a great massacre of Muslims. Examining the documentation—much of which barely saw the media light of day—some investigators, yours truly included, have concluded that what happened in Srebrenica were Muslim massacres of Serbs.
In this controversy the research published in 2002 by Cees Wiebes—tasked with putting together an addendum to the official Dutch report on these events, for which he received unlimited access to the Dutch intelligence archives—is of some moment. Why Dutch? Because the UN blue helmets responsible for protecting Srebrenica had been Dutch soldiers.
Wiebes, C. (2003). Intelligence and the war in Bosnia 1992-1995: The role of the intelligence and security. Amsterdam: Netherlands Institute for War Documentation.
https://annas-archive.gl/md5/ae383670221e1cb89f758aa14603af1f
Cees Wiebes’s intelligence study—an appendix to the Dutch government’s massive 2002 NIOD report on Srebrenica—revealed that during the Bosnian war the United States quietly tolerated and in some cases facilitated a covert arms pipeline from Iran and other Islamist states to the Bosnian Muslim government, despite a UN arms embargo. Iranian weapons were flown into Croatia (often via Iran Air) and then routed to Bosnia through a “Croatian pipeline,” with participation from Iran, Turkey, and various Islamist networks; U.S. intelligence was aware of these flights and allowed them to proceed by diverting NATO AWACS surveillance aircraft or ignoring suspicious activity. Wiebes also reported that American officials suppressed or downplayed UN intelligence reports documenting these Iranian shipments. The implication of his findings was that Washington effectively permitted the ayatollahs’ regime to arm the Bosnian Muslims in order to strengthen them against the Serbs, while publicly maintaining the fiction that the UN embargo was being enforced.
The Muslim ranks of Alija Izetbegovic in Bosnia overflowed with jihadi terrorists from other parts of the world, imported to Bosnia by agency of this joint operation put together by the Pentagon and the Iranian ayatollahs.
These revelations caused such a stir in Holland that the Dutch government—implicated in these events, for they had been on the ground—resigned.
There is much food for further comment in all this (see here), but putting that aside, we must observe that these events are once again consistent with the hypothesis of a close alliance between the US bosses and the Iranian ayatollahs.
To learn more about Izetbegovic, read:
Morgan, H. (2025, February 27). Hezbollah’s defeat and Hamas’s dogged resistance: Israel’s two‑front war and the perils of prewar assumptions. Modern War Institute at the United States Military Academy.
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/hezbollahs-defeat-and-hamass-dogged-resistance-israels-two-front-war-and-the-perils-of-prewar-assumptions/
Al Jazeera Media Network. (2025, 18 de agosto). Israel’s turn to ‘comply’: US envoy after Lebanon moves to disarm Hezbollah.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/18/need-israel-to-comply-us-envoy-says-as-lebanon-moves-to-disarm-hezbollah
United Nations Security Council. (2004, September 2). Resolution 1559 (2004) [S/RES/1559(2004)]. United Nations.
https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/1559(2004)
Security Council Report. (2006, January). Lebanon/Israel (UNIFIL), January 2006 monthly forecast.
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2006-01/lookup_c_glkwlemtisg_b_1313235.php
U.S. Department of State. (2025, January 20). U.S. security cooperation with Lebanon.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-lebanon (state.gov)
Badran, T. (2021, September 16). Lebanon’s new Hezbollah government [Opinion]. Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/lebanons-new-hezbollah-government-opinion-1629346
Reuters. (2025, June 13). Trump tells Reuters it’s unclear if Iran still has nuclear program.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-tells-reuters-its-unclear-if-iran-still-has-nuclear-program-2025-06-13/
Trump, D. J. (2025, September 29). Assuring the security of the State of Qatar. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/assuring-the-security-of-the-state-of-qatar
Chu, B. (2025, October 10). Pentagon agrees to host Qatari F-15 fighter jets and pilots at Idaho air base. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/10/10/world-news/pentagon-agrees-to-host-qatari-f-15-fighter-jets-and-pilots-in-idaho (nypost.com)
I'm following this thread closely, because the proposed end-goal of this agenda is pretty personal... to wipe out my tiny country.
Acknowledging what you call the dramatic facts (a good term) is not new to me. My first exposure to them was The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (Loftus & Aarons, 1994), which I read cover to cover despite its length.
Some of the history documented here is the same, other parts are new, but I long ago gave up the idea that the US admin is playing straight with us (unlike the many American citizens who are true friends of Israel). I'm even ready to embrace the idea that Trump is about to turn our success in Iran to our disadvantage. Or as you pithily put it, Trump "will screw Israel" in the near future.
But IMO the MOR model, which is good at explaining many dramatic facts, is not yet accounting for all of them:
"The US bosses have consistently weakened Israeli security and strengthened jihadism because the US bosses are totalitarian antisemitic psychopaths who use jihadism in their efforts to produce an anti-Jewish genocide in Israel."
Fact One: The US intel cabal have been weakening Israeli security and supporting jihadi attempts to carry out a Jewish genocide for all the years of Israel's existence, now 78 years. It's more like 100 years if we factor in the Nazi connection. But not only did they fail in 1947, when Israel had no weapons, no economy, and a mere 630,000 Jews (counting women and children). The genocide support project has failed countless times, despite giving the jihadis lots of advantages while trying to sabotage the Jews.
How does the MOR model explain this outcome? The bosses planned a century of failures for the sake of theater? For some other purpose? Or is there something not under their control that keeps causing them to fail, despite all that investment? One of the two theories needs to go into the model.
Fact Two: "The US bosses have had a pro-jihad and anti-Israel policy." Why should they invest in Shi'ite jihadis when there are ME Marxists who are also anti-Israel? Are the US bosses secret Muslims? (I've actually wondered that.)
The MOR model says that they "have been deliberately promoting jihadism in their efforts to destroy modern Western democracy." The goal makes sense if you are aiming for a totalitarian global regime. But to destroy Western Democracy "beginning with a genocide in the State of Israel"? Why Israel? As democracies go, we are not really Western in our thinking (the majority of Israelis are from the ME or the FSU), our 'democracy' has always been chaotic, and no one is inspired to emulate our ridiculous governing style.
Nor is our Jewish population of 7 million in any position to challenge someone else's global takeover -- unless you believe in the ZOG conspiracy theories that WE are the ones taking over, and that the US bosses are OUR tools... and so are the jihadis... yada yada.
In short, a model that names Israel as the top priority on a totalitarian hit list needs to find a better reason for that obsession, because the dramatic facts of Israel itself do not spell "political threat".
I have to wonder about this quaint system of declassifying documents that reveal telling information. It surely goes against the grain of much that you teach. I can understand having the process helping feed the narrative of transparent governence but why would important documents, especially damning, in the modern context be released? Why not destroy incriminating evidence? A lot of your material likely comes from them. So to amunition for the false flag stories and covert missions that become common knowledge.