news

The idea that there can't possibly be a rift or disagreement or power struggle between US and Israeli leaders is a huge error. Obviously the US can exert power over Israel, but doing so does not come without a cost or opposition.

It can still be US calling the shots, without Trump being in the loop. Trump/America First on the one hand, and American empire/deep natsec structure on the other.

Grayzone had the article about how Radcliffe and Paudilla were presenting dubious Israel intel directly to Trump without mentioning where it came from, and it’s a well known fact that there has been deep planning and salivation over destroying Iran in the US natsec/defense world for decades. Trump doesn’t do strategy—he’s image based. He’s fine with perceived wins and perception shaping for personal aggrandizement.

It’s plausible then to think that there is a larger tension at the top of gov—America first reality tv vs neocon bloodthirst /great game bullshit perhaps that could result in Trump genuinely thinking he’d brokered a ceasefire here, while other elements simply proceed with their original plan to get into a hot war with Iran.

Because Trump only cares about image, if this proceeds he will probably come up with some bullshit to own it like he did last time.

So you have elements in US directing Israel, but not necessarily originating from the president, or Israel being the puppet master that has some hold over America so strong that the entire govt bends over backwards for it as options. The first option feels more likely overall based on simplicity, but I really don’t know.

Third option is that they’re going really deep on the kayfabe to limit liability to just Israel, but that would require a sustained and cogent effort on Trumps part to keep the charade up, and he just doesn’t seem consistent enough for that to be the case… again though who knows.

Israel does have some agency, though. Not totally, but just enough to keep the Western powers from being confident that they could make Israel a sacrificial lamb like Ukraine.

Perhaps some of that agency is just American statescraftsmen working to enact the will of grand strategists of the pentagon; regardless of whoever is running the state.

Trump could legitimately be anti-war but by pushing Israel to initiate strikes on Iran, they Trump more likely to accept a ""compromise"" that they predicted would be a favourable trade in the long term.

Perhaps Israel's surprise attack was an effort to exercise their agency within acceptable limits for the Americans, knowing that their imperial protectors would support their escalations whilst Israeli jets did the dirty work of pummelling Iran's capital.

Much like how Israel may have nuclearised against America's consent, but only knowing that American military interests would require nukes on Israeli soil that wouldn't lead to a Cuban missile crisis-style fallout with the USSR.

Equally, it could have been the US orchestrating the acquisition process entirely for the same reason.

All that depends on how you see Israel's actions that do not necessarily aid the US empire's strategy in the region. Also, whether you believe Israel's irrendentist fascism is capable of being controlled by the American state entirely, or only guided towards favourable ends.