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

In the dynamics of escalation between Israel and Iran, many observers continue to read events according to a classic binary scheme in the usual antagonistic key (where there is a good guy and a bad guy). In this context, nuclear deterrence, alliances, regional interests are distinguished. But in reality, beneath this agitated surface, a more ambitious plan is moving: a coordinated operation to divert, sabotage or demolish the only real alternative to the globalist establishment in the United States — the MAGA movement and the return of Trump.

Far from being a simple military reaction, the conflict in the Middle East is taking on the appearance of a multi-level geopolitical trap , destined to radically transform the American internal context and consolidate a new transatlantic paradigm led no longer by Washington, but by London.

Iran as a pretext, Trump as the real target

While the media describe the crisis as a “necessary response” to Iranian aggression, some analysts close to intelligence circles (see Simplicius The Thinker , but also the Russian think tank Tsargrad) speak openly of a “reverse false flag” operation planned to attribute to Tehran destabilizing actions actually carried out by proxy intelligence structures.

What emerges is a familiar script: create a casus belli , provoke public outrage, and force Trump — who has so far avoided new wars — to choose between the image of a “weak president” or that of a “traitor to the alliance with Israel.”

According to rumors from former Pentagon officials (spread in alternative circles close to Darren Beattie of Revolver.news ), the real risk is that of an attack on US bases in Iraq or Jordan with “Iranian” traceability, but carried out by out-of-control militias or even Anglo-American false flag forces .

London Orchestra, Washington Performs

Britain's centrality in the current geopolitical design has been largely underestimated. At first glance, the United Kingdom appears to be a subordinate ally of the United States, but behind the scenes it exerts long-term strategic influence, especially in American decision-making and intelligence centers.

One of the most notable examples is Fiona Hill , a British-American political scientist and former official of the US National Security Council (NSC), specializing in Russian affairs. Hill served under three presidents (Bush, Obama, and Trump) and was a key architect of the anti-Russian narratives that have dominated US foreign policy over the past decade. During Trump's presidency, she became known for her testimony in the impeachment trial, in which she took critical positions against the president, accusing him of weakening Ukraine and favoring Putin.

But Hill is not just an apparatus figure: he is a symbol of the continuity of the Atlanticist vision even beyond the changes of administration. He represents that British “deep expertise” which, apparently technical and neutral, actually plays an ideological and operational role in maintaining the transatlantic axis in an anti-sovereign and anti-multipolar function .

Added to this are the links between GCHQ (British electronic intelligence) and the American NSA , which in recent years have conducted joint global surveillance operations, as revealed in Edward Snowden's leaks. Similarly, MI6, the British foreign secret service, provides "strategic advice" and analytical resources to numerous US think tanks , such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) or the Atlantic Council — centers influential in the formulation of American foreign policy and known for their interventionist and pro-NATO orientation.

In essence, London no longer acts as a supporting actor, but as a silent director . And characters like Fiona Hill embody this strategy: they do not impose decisions openly, but deeply orient the bureaucratic and narrative apparatus of the United States , making American political independence — especially in the sovereignist version embodied by the MAGA movement — increasingly difficult to exercise.

Power today is exercised through narrative chains and delegation : no longer through official declarations, but through chains of events. In this logic, the British services play a role similar to the one they had at the time of Operation Mockingbird: orienting public opinion and infiltrating American decision-making centers with “friendly” agents.

War of meanings, not of territories

The target is not only Iran. The real target is decision-making autonomy. The era in which a US president could reject the NATO-centric model and talk about peace with Putin or Xi is now seen as a “dangerous deviation”. The entire operation aims to destroy the very principle of political subjectivity — that is, the possibility that another paradigm exists, national, non-interventionist, cooperative.

Trump is this: an anomaly. And as such, he must be reframed or eliminated. Not physically, but symbolically, politically, electorally. The operations in the Middle East do not serve to change regional governments: they serve to prevent the establishment of a new multipolar paradigm .

The trap for Trump

It is now clear that the real risk for Trump is his own silence or his ambiguity. His recent statements, in which he condemns Iran without proposing concrete solutions, have been seen by some as a sign of growing pressure from the American security apparatus, which has never digested his diplomatic and anti-interventionist line.

If Trump chooses to react harshly, he will lose the support of those who saw him as the man of détente and dialogue with Putin. If he remains silent or downplays his actions, he will be accused of weakness or even pro-Iranian complicity , especially by neocons infiltrated in the GOP (like Nikki Haley or Lindsey Graham).

According to Glenn Greenwald , the media machine is already laying the groundwork for this framing, in collaboration with groups like AIPAC and the Atlantic Council.

Three goals, one plan

The operation is structured on three fundamental axes:

1. Military – weaken Tehran, isolate it from Russia and China, and promote an “inevitable” intervention that upsets the balance.

2. Political – dragging Trump into a conflict or ambiguous position, disrupting his electoral base and narrative coherence.

3. Geoeconomic – redrawing the energy map of the Middle East, blocking Iranian strategic corridors and cutting Russia off from the Indo-Caspian theater , as explained in a recent report by OilPrice.com .

The Imperialism of Meanings

We are not facing a return to the “old military imperialism”, but a new form of domination : that of narrative and semantic control . What matters is not who wins on the field, but who imposes the reading of the facts . In this scenario, the real issue at stake is not military supremacy, but the destruction of every sovereign alternative.

In other words, an attack on Iran is now also an attack on Trump. And above all on what he represents: a vision of the United States free from imperial constraints, capable of dealing as equals with autonomous powers.

Trump Must Break With Ambiguity

The trap is already set. Trump can still avoid it — but only if he breaks the ambiguity , publicly denounces the dirty game underway, and openly returns to embracing the original spirit of MAGA: peace, sovereignty, power to the people.

Otherwise, it risks becoming — just as its adversaries wish — the involuntary guarantor of a global order that was never its own.