Even Gallup Poll has shown that only 38% of Americans were satisfied with the US position in global geopolitics and 61% dissatisfied with the United States’ position in the world BEFORE the military action in Iran. Tulsi Gabbard has refused to confirm any intelligence assassment that presented Iran as an immediate threat. President Trump has publicly and explicitly dismissed intelligence assessments made by his own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. He stated that her conclusions were wrong and even said he did not care what she had to say .
The most direct public contradiction occurred in June 2025 regarding Iran’s nuclear program. She said Iran “is not building a nuclear weapon” and has not restarted its weapons program. Trump seems to be listening to Netanyahu who has always insisted that Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb. Trump stated publicly “they were very close to having one.” Trump has even bluntly and explicitly rejected her assessment, stating, “I don’t care what she said.”
This clash highlights a fundamental tension in how the two assessments. Gabbard’s job is to present the findings of the U.S. Intelligence Community. In her March 2025 testimony, she relayed the official assessment that Iran’s leaders had not authorized a nuclear weapons program. President Trump, who has a long history of distrusting his own intelligence agencies, showed no hesitation in dismissing the official analysis when it conflicted with his own views. The real question is is this a personal conviction or is this Neocon and Netanyahu insistance?
The disagreement is particularly notable because Gabbard was selected by Trump specifically for her skepticism of the “deep state” and the intelligence establishment, which some analysts believed would make her a loyalist. However, their different views on U.S. intervention in the Middle East led to this public rift.
Since 2002, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly argued that Iran and others are seeking nuclear weapons and made it always sound as an immediate threat for at least 30 years. Recently, he has claimed invasion was justified even after the 2025 bombing and has used a “months” timeline for Iran’s nuclear program as a key justification for launching the current war, and this pattern of issuing such warnings dates back decades.
On March 2nd, 2026, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a series of interviews, primarily to Fox News, where he laid out his rationale for the military strikes against Iran that began on February 28. He stated that the attacks were a pre-emptive measure because Iran had begun constructing new, heavily fortified underground bunkers for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
His central warning was that these new facilities would become “immune within months,” making a future military strike impossible. “If no action was taken now, no action could be taken in the future,” Netanyahu said, framing the attack as a necessary action to close a closing window of opportunity.
This recent use of a ticking clock is NOT new. According to a historical analysis, Netanyahu has been sounding similar alarms for over 30 years.
Early in his political career back in 1992, Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament that “Iran is close to producing a nuclear weapon within three to five years.”
In a famous 2012 speech at the United Nations, Netanyahu held up a diagram of a bomb and drew a red line, warning that Iran was “a few months, possibly a few weeks” away from having enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.
The 2026 military campaign is the culmination of this long-held position. After years of advocating for a strike, Netanyahu successfully enlisted the support of President Donald Trump to take action. His March 2 interviews explicitly linked the imminent threat of Iran’s “immune” facilities to the necessity of the war he and the U.S. were waging.
However, by late March 2026, Netanyahu’s tone had shifted significantly. After weeks of conflict, he held a press conference declaring victory, stating that “Iran today has no ability to enrich uranium, and no ability to produce ballistic missiles.” He hinted that the war could end “a lot faster than people think,” suggesting that the original justification for the invasion had been achieved.
In 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.” It was reported on March 3rd, during a visit to a site struck by an Iranian missile, Netanyahu stated: “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act.”
In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”
I have said, I grew up in the Philadelphia area and I know that Netanyahu went to school in Philadelphia and hung out with Irving Kristol, the godfather of the whole Neocon movement. It was Irving’s son, Bill Kristol, who even spoke at one of our WEC events during the ’90s who wrote the book to justify the Iraq War. If I remember correctly, he said taking out Iraq was to secure the future of Israel.
Kristol co-authored the 2003 book The War Over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission with Lawrence F. Kaplan . In this and other writings, he argued for war based on these grounds:
- Saddam Hussein as a Direct Threat: He argued that Saddam Hussein posed a “grave threat to the United States and its allies,” possessing or seeking weapons of mass destruction that could be used against America.
- American Global Leadership: He believed the war was necessary to establish a “new American foreign policy” after 9/11 and to shape a new world order.
- Spreading Democracy: He viewed the removal of Saddam as a step toward spreading democracy in the Middle East, which he argued was in the U.S. national interest.
Many have argued that the real, unstated motivation was to eliminate a strategic threat to Israel and reshape the Middle East to its advantage. They often point to his leadership in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the group’s 1996 “Clean Break” memo, which advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on remaking the regional balance of power. Key figures involved in the PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other prominent defense and foreign policy hawks who would later become central figures in the George W. Bush administration.
Netanyahu has argued this Clean Break memo by his rhetoric and actions. Kristol’s rebuttal and his allies have explicitly rejected this accusation, calling it a “canard.” They have stated that a stable, democratic Iraq was vital “first and foremost, to American interests” and that the idea they were driven by “dual loyalties” to Israel is false. I do not recall any disregard for Israel and I believe that was the main point.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly and repeatedly expressed support for a vision of a “Greater Israel.” While he has used the term “New Middle East” less frequently, the geopolitical outcome of his actions, particularly the war on Iran, aligns with that concept as a strategic reality shaped by Israel’s military dominance.
The “Greater Israel” Vision
This concept refers to an expansionist ideology that seeks Israeli control over territory beyond its current borders, often invoking biblical claims to the “Land of Israel.” Netanyahu has openly declared his commitment to this vision. In an August 2025 interview with Israel’s i24NEWS, Netanyahu was directly asked if he subscribes to the “Greater Israel” vision. He responded, “Absolutely… very much.” He described his connection to this vision as a “historic and spiritual mission,” and in a separate interview stated, “I am emotionally connected to the vision of Greater Israel.”
The “Greater Israel” concept, rooted in Revisionist Zionism, claims territory from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates River in Iraq. This would encompass not only all of Israel and the Palestinian territories but also large parts of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. His constant attack on Iran has many questioning if this is another weapons of mass destruction lie used for the Iraq War where Americans are sent to die for the dreams of Neocons.
I believe that Trump has been sucked into this game that these Neocons have refused to relinguish and stupidly think that they can conquer the entire Middle East simply because the United States has the largest military force. I have spoken with people who try to help veterans, and they have always said that the vets from Vietnam are angry knowing that their country lied to them compared to the vets from World War II.
I have family members who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I lost most of my high school friend to Vietnam. I believe these disgusting Neocons who are consumed with power and hatred used Netanyahu to manipulate Trump knowing what I know between the Philadelphia connections when I was just a kid. Benjamin Netanyahu lived in the Cheltenham, located in the suburbs of Philadelphia during two distinct periods. He lived in Cheltenham for elementary school while his father taught at a local college 1956–1958. He then attended Cheltenham High School from 1963 to 1967. Netanyahu was groomed as a Neocon and just because he sought a political career in Israel did not alter his Neocon upbringing.