The Attack on Iran as a Tool to Take Down Trump (and Sovereignty)

In the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, many observers continue to interpret events through a classic binary lens: nuclear deterrence, alliances, regional interests . But beneath this surface lies a more ambitious plan: a coordinated operation aimed at entertaining, sabotaging, or dismantling the only real alternative to the globalist establishment in the United States — the MAGA movement and Trump's return.

Far from being a mere military reaction, the Middle East conflict increasingly resembles a multilayered geopolitical trap , designed to radically reshape the American domestic landscape and to consolidate a new transatlantic paradigm no longer led by Washington, but by London .

Iran as Pretext, Trump as the Real Target

While mainstream media describes the crisis as a “necessary response” to Iranian aggression, some analysts close to intelligence circles (see Simplicius The Thinker or the Russian think tank Tsargrad ) speak openly of a “reverse false flag” operation , intended to pin destabilizing actions on Tehran that are in fact carried out by proxy intelligence networks.

This is a familiar script : manufacture a casus belli , stir up public outrage, and force Trump — who has so far avoided new wars — to choose between being seen as a “weak president” or a “traitor to the alliance with Israel.”

According to leaks from former Pentagon officials (reported in alternative outlets like Revolver.news ), there is a concrete risk of an attack on US bases in Iraq or Jordan , traceable to Iran but in reality carried out by rogue militias or even Anglo-American false flag operations.

London Orchestrates, Washington Executes

Britain's central role in today's geopolitical design has been widely underestimated. At first glance, the UK appears to be subordinated to the United States. But behind the scenes, it wields long-term strategic influence, especially in US decision-making and intelligence circles.

One of the clearest examples is Fiona Hill , a British-American political scientist and former National Security Council official specializing in Russia. Hill served under three presidents (Bush, Obama, and Trump) and was a key architect of the anti-Russian narratives that have shaped US foreign policy for over a decade. During Trump's first term, she gained prominence for her testimony during the impeachment inquiry, where she openly criticized him for allegedly weakening Ukraine and favoring Putin.

But Hill is not merely a bureaucratic figure. She symbolizes the continuity of the Atlanticist vision beyond changes in administration . What appears to be “deep expertise” is, in truth, a powerful ideological and operational force that supports the transatlantic anti-sovereignty, anti-multipolar framework.

Add to this the longstanding cooperation between GCHQ (Britain's signals intelligence agency) and the NSA , exposed in the Snowden leaks, and the ongoing “strategic consultancy” offered by MI6 to US think tanks like CSIS or the Atlantic Council — both highly influential in shaping US foreign policy with an overtly pro-NATO, interventionist agenda.

In short, London no longer plays a secondary role but acts as a silent director. Figures like Hill embody this approach: they don't make decisions directly, but steer the US narrative and bureaucratic machinery , making it increasingly difficult for America to assert political independence — especially in the sovereignist vision embodied by MAGA.

Today, power is exercised through chains of narrative and delegation, not official decrees but cascades of orchestrated events. In this logic, British services act similarly to the Cold War-era Operation Mockingbird: shaping public opinion and infiltrating decision-making centers with “friendly” agents.

War of Meanings, Not Territories

The true target is not just Iran. It's political autonomy. The idea that a US president could reject the NATO-centric model and pursue peace with Putin or Xi is now seen as a “dangerous deviation.” The entire operation aims to destroy the very principle of political subjectivity — the notion that a national, non-interventionist, cooperative paradigm can exist.

Trump is that deviation. And as such, he must be reabsorbed or eliminated — not physically, but symbolically, politically, electorally. Middle Eastern operations no longer aim to change regional regimes , but to prevent the emergence of a new multipolar paradigm .

The Trap Set for Trump

It is now clear that Trump's greatest risk is his own silence or ambiguity . His recent statements condemning Iran without offering concrete solutions are being interpreted by some as a sign of growing pressure from within the US security apparatus — an apparatus that never accepted his diplomatic, anti-interventionist stance.

If Trump chooses to strike hard, he risks losing the support of those who saw him as the man of détente and dialogue with Putin . If he stays silent or minimizes the conflict, he risks being painted as weak or even pro-Iranian , especially by neocon elements embedded in the GOP (like Nikki Haley or Lindsey Graham).

According to Glenn Greenwald , the media machine is already preparing this narrative — with the backing of groups like AIPAC and the Atlantic Council .

Three Objectives, One Unified Plan

This operation unfolds along three main axes:

• Military – to weaken Iran, isolate it from Russia and China, and promote an “inevitable” intervention that reshapes regional balances.

• Political – to enter Trump in war or ambiguous positioning, breaking his electoral base and undermining his narrative consistency.

• Geoeconomic – to redesign the Middle East's energy logistics, blocking Iranian strategic corridors and cutting Russia out of the Caspian-Indo-European theater , as outlined in a recent report by OilPrice.com .

The Imperialism of Meaning

This is not a return to old-school military imperialism , but a new form of domination: one of narratives and semantic control . What matters is not who wins on the battlefield, but who defines the meaning of the conflict . In this game, the real prize is not military supremacy but the destruction of any sovereign alternative.

In short, an attack on Iran is now also an attack on Trump — and more deeply, on what he represents: a vision of the United States free from imperial entanglements , able to engage with autonomous powers on equal footing.

Trump Must Break the Ambiguity

The trap has already been set. Trump can still escape it — but only if he breaks the ambiguity , publicly denounces the dirty game being played, and re-embraces the original MAGA spirit: peace, sovereignty, and power to the people .

Otherwise, he risks becoming — just as his opponents hope — the unwitting enforcer of a global order that was never his to begin with.