Aletho News

The Seventh Nation

By Přemysl Janýr | April 8, 2025

Vienna – On the 16th of March, President Donald Trump ordered strikes on the Houthi rebels in Yemen. On Tuesday, he gave Israel the ‘green light’ to proceed with its genocide in Gaza, which had previously experienced a period of relative tranquility for approximately six weeks. This decision precipitated a fresh round of brutal attacks in the region. On Thursday, the President issued an ultimatum to Iran and is preparing the U.S. military for war.

The sudden shift in the peacemaker Trump’s stance towards peace-oriented policies, particularly in light of his earlier campaign promises and multiple nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, has left both his supporters and political analysts perplexed.

In my considered opinion, the impending conflict with Iran exhibits noteworthy parallels and connections to the origins of the 2003 war with Iraq.

The roots of both can be traced back to Oded Yinon’s 1982 article A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s in the Hebrew publication Kivunim, which outlined an Israeli plan to fragment the neighboring Arab states. This vision was later complemented by the 1996 Clean Break strategy paper, developed under the aegis of Richard Perle, and the 2006 New Middle East initiative introduced by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Both the Iraq War and the impending conflict with Iran have been the subject of extensive strategic planning. The removal of Saddam Hussein was envisioned in the 1988 Yinon Plan, as well as the subsequent Clean Break strategy and the neoconservative manifesto, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), published in 1997. The persistent efforts of Benjamin Netanyahu to persuade the U.S. to engage in military action against Iran since 1992 underscore the long-standing intentions behind these strategies.

In both scenarios, the prevalent challenge is the convergence of public and presidential reluctance. The PNAC’s declaration elucidates the issue succinctly: further the process of transformation … is likely to be a long one-absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.

As of January 2001, ten of the original twenty-five signatories of the PNAC doctrine are situated in pivotal roles within the nascent George W. Bush administration. In September of that year, the awaited catalytic event materializes. The responsible parties are attributed to Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, thereby eliminating any potential obstacles to the swift military intervention in Afghanistan, where they are presumed to be harbored.

Following the general panic that ensued after the collapse of the three World Trade Center structures, it was imperative to present the necessity of invading Iraq to the populace in a manner that was both coherent and well-substantiated. Consequently, a media campaign was initiated, focusing on the purported development of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein, his alleged support for international terrorist organizations, particularly Al-Qaeda, and his ostensible efforts to acquire atomic weaponry. This particular instance of disinformation is noteworthy in that it was later acknowledged as such by Western media outlets, yet without any subsequent analysis regarding the instigators, their underlying intentions, or their broader actions and the ensuing culpability.

Persuading the citizenry is one challenge; persuading a head of state is quite another. George W. Bush, while not renowned for his intellectual acuity or strategic foresight, was known to be an emotionally driven individual, but he was certainly not a hawk. Despite being surrounded by influential figures such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Blair, who were staunch advocates of interventionist policies, a distinct personal motivation was still required to propel both the media campaign and the war on terrorism.

In April of 1993, authorities in Kuwait apprehended a contingent of individuals engaged in the illicit trafficking of alcohol, who were purportedly acting under the auspices of Hussein and formulating a plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush. Although the credibility of the case may be subject to scrutiny, its presentation served as a potent impetus, further compounded by the alleged (and denied) unfulfilled ambition to finish what father had begun and the asserted divine mandate: Saddam tried to kill my dad.

Nevertheless, Iraq constituted merely the initial component of a series of seven countries – adversaries of Israel – earmarked for annihilation over the subsequent five-year period (seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them – Deuteronomy 7, 1-2). Following suit were Syria (2011 and 2025), Lebanon (1982 ongoing), Libya (2011), Somalia (2006 and 2012), Sudan (2011) and finally Iran.

With respect to Iran, a catalyzing event has not as yet transpired. Drawing parallels from the precedent established by the Iraq War, such an occurrence is likely to manifest in the foreseeable future. A plausible scenario for this could be an event similar to the hypothetical assassination of Donald Trump, for which Iran might be held accountable.

The endeavor to provide rationale for the impending military action is currently underway with vigor. Iran is purported to be engaging in the development of a nuclear weapon, acts of international terrorism via a network of intermediaries under its command, and planning an assassination attempt targeting Donald Trump, with the specific modus operandi involving the use of a surface-to-air missile to take down Trump’s plane. It is noteworthy that despite the U.S. intelligence community’s refutation of Iran’s pursuit of atomic weaponry (akin to the earlier dismissals of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction), this contention serves merely as a pretext for the issuance of unattainable ultimatums.

Despite President Trump’s emotional disposition and lack of a reputation for profound insight or foresight, he does not embody the hawkish persona. Instead, he is often portrayed as a transactional figure with a quid pro quo philosophy, steeped in the real estate sector including its gangster-like methods. Despite not claiming Jewish ancestry himself, his immediate circle, including his family and professional network, is comprised of ardent Zionists. The relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem during his initial term in 2019 was a personal favor to his substantial political donor, Sheldon Adelson, and the cessation of hostilities in Gaza was instigated by the pressure of Mr. Adelson’s widow, Miriam.

As in the case concerning President George W. Bush, it is imperative to incorporate individual motives into the discourse surrounding the atomic bomb and terrorist networks. Among these factors is President Trump’s evident aspiration to belong to the community of chosen people. His coterie endorses his inclination, with some even hailing him as the first American Jewish president or even the Second Non-Jewish Messiah for Israel. It is essential to recognize that Iran stands as a preeminent adversary to Israel, and the reports of a planned assassination should be viewed through this particular lens. President Trump has explicitly stated that if it assassinates him, Iran will be ‘obliterated’.

Moving beyond the realm of established facts and delving into potential future developments, one conceivable scenario, informed by the precedents of the Iraqi episode, may unfold as follows:

The escalation of anti-Iranian rhetoric and tensions, driven by President Trump’s influence, will persist for a certain period. Eventually, the aircraft carrying the President, Air Force One, may indeed be targeted and brought down by a surface-to-air missile. This incident would then be akin to historical catalyzing events such as the sinking of the Lusitania, the Pearl Harbor bombing, the Gulf of Tonkin affair, as well as 9/11, serving as a pivotal moment in the annals of American history with anticipated repercussions. Despite the anticipated recrimination regarding the failure of intelligence agencies and aerial defense mechanisms, the consensus in the Western world will attribute responsibility to Iran (while to the Global South, it will be patently clear that the Mossad had done it).

This kills three birds with one stone. It is anticipated to alleviate the escalating reluctance to support Israel and mitigate the internal political strains that could potentially precipitate civil war and the fragmentation of the country. The demographic segment of the populace that would view President Trump’s death favorably will likely find unity with the remaining portion of his supporters through a shared hatred towards Iran and an imperative for just retribution.

Consequently, the previously prevalent opposition to engaging in novel international ventures is surmounted. This paves the way for the finishing of the strategic seven-countries plan. Moreover, it is not envisioned that Israel will be the initial aggressor in confronting its most significant adversary; rather, it is the United States that will lead the charge with its own military capabilities. Israel can exercise a degree of restraint from a position of relative distance.

I’m not trying to guess how countries like Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and the Arab League, along with big players Turkey, Russia, and China, will react. What I can say for sure is that if things go haywire, the whole Middle East is looking at a serious destabilization, possibly even the start of another world war. Now, if chaos does break out, it’s like a golden opportunity for Israel to move in and take over large chunks of Lebanon, Syria, maybe even of Iraq and Egypt, not speaking about Gaza and the West Bank, and they’re not likely to give any of it back. Benjamin Netanyahu could become a legend in Israel’s history books – that is, until all the internal bickering leads to Erez Israel falling apart at the seams.

Should the course of events follow the outlined scenario, the reader may consider themselves forewarned. In the event of divergence, one may attribute it to the writer’s inherent biases. However, a scenario that promises a positive trajectory and a favorable resolution currently remains elusive.

The Czech original: https://www.janyr.eu/120-sedma-zeme, April 3th, 2025

April 8, 2025 - Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Israel, Middle East, Palestine, United States