Mike Whitney – The Unz Review April 18, 2025

The ‘remake’ of Donald Trump into a strong, independent leader—who is not controlled by the wealthy Zionists who got him elected—is the prevailing subtext of the New York Times blockbuster article: Trump Waved Off Israeli Strike After Divisions Emerged in His Administration. The content of the article is not nearly as important as the subtle but flattering way the authors portray Trump. The Times, you may recall, relentlessly demonized the president for nearly a decade leaving readers to wonder why they would suddenly look so favorably on him now. But that, of course, cuts to the heart of the matter, which is why the article was framed in the way it was. The authors clearly want their readers to believe that Trump makes his own foreign policy decisions and is not merely following a script that was written in Tel Aviv by the advisors of Bibi Netanyahu. And that appears to be the main thrust of the article. Here’s an excerpt:

Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Trump made his decision after months of internal debate over whether to pursue diplomacy or support Israel in seeking to set back Iran’s ability to build a bomb, at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically.

The debate highlighted fault lines between historically hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides more skeptical that a military assault on Iran could destroy the country’s nuclear ambitions and avoid a larger war. It resulted in a rough consensus, for now, against military action, with Iran signaling a willingness to negotiate.

Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.

Almost all of the plans would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.

For now, Mr. Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action. In his first term, he tore up the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration. But in his second term, eager to avoid being sucked into another war in the Middle East, he has opened negotiations with Tehran, giving it a deadline of just a few months to negotiate a deal over its nuclear program. Trump Waved Off Israeli Strike After Divisions Emerged in His Administration, New York Times

The objective of this excerpt is not to inform readers about an Israeli attack that never took place, but to drive home the point that Trump—acting as the supreme “decision-maker”—stood up to Netanyahu, blocked the Israeli plan to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, and opted instead for diplomatic negotiations with Iran.

Can you see how this fits with the overall intention of the four journalists to present Trump as a strong but restrained leader who acts exclusively in America’s interests and makes every effort to avoid the pointless foreign wars he disparaged during his presidential campaign? Can you also see how it might benefit Israel not to portray Trump as another Zionist ‘yes-man’ who clicks his heels and does whatever he is told but, instead, remains true to his “America First” ideology and his commitment to peace?

In order to grasp what’s going on here, let’s read the opening line again:

Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites as soon as next month but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials and others briefed on the discussions. NYT

So—we are told with breathless urgency—that Israel was planning to attack Iran, but as the authors clearly state a few paragraphs later, Israel never seriously considered attacking Iran by itself. Never! So, (we must assume) The “breathless urgency” was completely fabricated in order to emphasize the point they were actually trying to make, that Trump is not an Israeli sock-puppet implementing the Zionist agenda, but a resolute and ferociously independent patriot who puts America’s interest before anything else. Isn’t that what they’re saying?

Indeed, it is. But how does that square with the facts as we know them?

Not very well.

Hasn’t Trump boasted repeatedly how he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and gave Israel the Golan Heights to Israel? Didn’t he give Bibi the greenlight for expelling the Palestinians from Gaza and turning the Strip into the “new Riviera”? Hasn’t he dubbed himself, “The best friend Israel has ever had”, and launched attacks on pro-Palestinian protestors on campuses across the country?

And what about Yemen? Is Trump bombing Yemen for Israel or for his Red State tub-thumpers who think he ‘walks on water’? And then there’s Syria—which is presently ruled by al-Qaida. Is that the outcome Trump wanted, or was it part of Bibi’s grand vision for a New Middle East? Here’s more:

Earlier this month, Mr. Trump informed Israel of his decision that the United States would not support an attack. He discussed it with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when Mr. Netanyahu visited Washington last week, using an Oval Office meeting to announce that the United States was beginning talks with Iran. NYT

So, Trump stood up to Bibi and ‘put him in his place’. Does anyone really believe that?

And notice how the authors never say that Trump officially nixed the plan, just that he temporarily postponed it until a more opportune time. And when might that ‘more opportune time’ arrive?

Why after the Iranians are forced to ditch the ‘nuclear talks’ due to Trump’s preposterous demands, of course. That is how this whole political slapstick has been scripted from the very beginning: Lure the naïve Iranians into talks (they never requested), make ridiculous demands that are certain to be rejected, and then threaten a full-blown war when Iran abandons the talks in frustration. That’s the whole dismal plotline in a nutshell.

For Trump and Bibi, failed negotiations do not represent “failure” but success. Failure means they have their justification for launching a war which was the goal from the very onset. The benefit of ‘going through the motions’—by convening talks that were designed to fail—is that it helps burnish Trump’s bone fides as a peacemaker which is an illusion his supporters still cling to unflinchingly. (even while bombs rain down on innocent Yemeni women and children!) Trump can opine that he exhausted all the opportunities for peace and is only pursuing the ‘military option’ because “I have no other choice.” Surprisingly, the NY Times piece even alludes to this in a short clip about Vice President JD Vance. Here’s the excerpt:

Mr. Vance, with support from others, argued that Mr. Trump had a unique opportunity to make a deal.

If the talks failed, Mr. Trump could then support an Israeli attack, Mr. Vance said, according to administration officials….NYT

There it is in black and white: All Trump needs to do is to impose conditions on Iran that they will reject, and—viola—there’s your pretext for war. And Trump has already made demands that far exceed anything that was agreed upon in 2015 when the JCPOA was approved. Trump has insisted that Iran give up its ballistic missiles (that are legal under international law and needed for self-defense), terminate its relations with its regional allies (Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis) and dismantle its entire nuclear enrichment program(which is Iran’s “inalienable right” under the terms of the NPT.) In short, Trump has not simply ‘moved the goalposts’, he has extracted them from the playing-field and shipped them to Tel Aviv.

As you can see, this is all an extravagant hoax aimed at laying the groundwork for war. Obviously, the editors of the Times understand this, just as they understand that the success of any protracted conflict with Iran will require the backing of the American people, which means that Americans must have confidence in their leaders. That is why Trump is being lionized as a strong and independent leader, because those are the qualities that will help him persuade the people that a war with Iran is in America’s interests. When, in fact, the only one who benefits is Israel.

Mossad chief, Dermer meet US envoy Witkoff in Paris ahead of US-Iran nuclear talks (secret ‘under the radar’ meetings in Paris one day before Iran-US ‘talks’ )

Source