Trump doesn’t hate Iran. But he might as well

Israel is his boss, so...

Remember: Trump does not hate Iran. Israel does and they’re his boss.

He would stop the war tomorrow – not just pretend to stop it – if it weren’t for Israel. They’re the real enemy, the real fly in the ointment.

But there’s still this thing called “Christian” Zionism, and that’s why he looks two-faced. He must please them as well as the sane people, both at the same time. It’s quite a juggling act.

Remember what they allegedly did to JFK if you’re having trouble figuring out Trump’s behavior.

He knows the fate that awaits him if he shows less than complete alacrity – feigned or real - in his anti-Iran act. (It’s not the Epstein files. It’s the Americans that control that).

He has to pretend to hate Iran for Israel’s sake. That’s his performance for Israel.

He has to pretend to be moral. That’s his performance for the American public.

When he said I will kill an entire civilization, that was a desperate cry for help. He was telling Israel “look what you’re making me do,” (you dumb bastards!).

But also remember he loves money. And he will act for money.

We have watched a long line of actor presidents strutting their stuff, for many years. It’s hard to say which one was first, but certainly Dubbya was one of the outstanding ones, stepping out of that plane on the aircraft carrier, in his role as “war hero” even though he had never once seen action.

It worked for one performance but not well enough to give him a second term.

Carter was one of the first. He was quite good at convincing the public that he was a “peace” president but he was with Israel on a key point.

The main point that no one dares to mention is that the territory occupied by “Israel” was, until 1947-1948, occupied by Palestinians, who were displaced brutally by Jews who thought they were superior.

They should have given the territory back to the Palestinians, without question, but were never held to account and not one president addressed this all-important issue.

It was “Christian” Zionists who held them back.

Trump directly represents the “Christian” Zionists in this anachronistic view, a view that is never seriously challenged.

Thus in the 21^st Century we are fighting a religious war that never should have happened.

The superiority of the Jews is never questioned because it is not considered “nice” to talk about.

But it is not biblical. There is no justification for it in either the New or Old Testaments, and it is a minority viewpoint in both Judaism and Christianity.

Yet here we are.

And the Palestinians have no one to defend them.

And you know why Trump could comfortably say he would exterminate an entire people and civilization.

Because he had already helped Israel exterminate one people and no one stepped in to defend it. Where’s Russia? Where’s China?

Why not wipe out another, and another, and another…?

As long as no one steps in and says “you can’t do that” he has nothing to worry about.

Did anyone think the Democrats were any better? They can’t wait for their turn to defend Israel.

**

https://alkhanadeq.com/post/10566/مأزق-الحسم-الإسرائيلي-الاستنزاف-يبتلع-المناورة-البرية

Tuesday, April 7, 2026, 7:09 AM

Israel’s Dilemma: Attrition Engulfs Ground Maneuver

Islamic Resistance Operations

The field situation on the Lebanese front on Monday, April 6, 2026, reflects a significant escalation in the pace of military operations, with the intensity of clashes reaching a high level in terms of both frequency and sophistication. The Islamic Resistance carried out dozens of diverse military operations characterized by precision and high coordination, reflecting advanced organizational capabilities and effective management of combat resources. In contrast, the Israeli occupation army is exhibiting operational disarray, having failed to achieve a decisive breakthrough on the ground despite relying on heavy aerial bombardment. It has resorted to targeting civilian infrastructure and border villages in an attempt to compensate for its inability to advance on the ground and secure buffer zones through direct military force.

On an operational level, it is clear that the Resistance has succeeded in managing a complex defensive battle, based on absorbing the Israeli offensive momentum and transforming it into a protracted war of attrition. This strategy relied on a carefully planned distribution of battlefronts, allowing the resistance to lure enemy forces into pre-prepared “kill zones” where advancing troops were concentratedly targeted. The resistance’s approach is characterized by a principle combining centralized planning with decentralized execution. Strategic decisions are made at the highest command level, while field units are granted high-level tactical flexibility for implementation. This approach enhanced the resistance’s ability to adapt to battle conditions despite heavy bombardment and electronic jamming.

Regarding fire control, the operations demonstrated a high level of coordination between reconnaissance and surveillance units and fire support units. Fire was not indiscriminate but rather precisely directed at enemy concentrations and movements in real time. This combat style rendered Israeli advances exposed targets, depriving them of the ability to establish forward positions or secure defensive lines.

As for the axes of engagement, the enemy attempted to advance along several main directions, exploiting the terrain of each axis. On the eastern axis, the enemy attempted to exploit open spaces for a rapid flanking maneuver. However, the resistance countered this with a tactic of denial and obstruction, transforming the forced corridors into areas of intense fire that prevented the establishment of any stable foothold. On the central axis, which represents the strategic center of gravity, the resistance relied on ambushes and flexible tactics, utilizing the terrain to trap Israeli forces in exposed areas. Armored vehicles were directly targeted, paralyzing their movement and weakening their maneuverability.

On the western axis, the enemy sought to advance along the coast to isolate the area from its hinterland. However, the resistance imposed tight fire control on supply routes, preventing any effective breakthrough and thus keeping Israeli forces under constant pressure. This field deployment reflects a state of “decision-making crisis” within the Israeli command, which deployed several divisions to different axes without achieving decisive results. Meanwhile, the resistance managed these axes in a strategically cohesive manner, despite their tactical independence.

In terms of combat tactics, the resistance abandoned the traditional static defensive posture and adopted an active defense strategy based on movement, surprise attacks, and drawing the enemy into ambushes. The use of complex ambushes and direct assault operations targeting armored vehicles became prominent, along with high-level coordination between rocket fire, artillery, and drones, particularly FPV drones, which proved effective in accurately hitting targets despite electronic jamming attempts.

In response, the resistance conducted a large-scale fire maneuver targeting the enemy’s heartland and supply lines by launching rockets and drones in two phases: the first aimed to tactically isolate the battlefield, and the second focused on achieving a deterrent balance by striking strategic targets deep within enemy territory. The occupation forces, for their part, relied on intensive aerial and artillery bombardment targeting wide areas of southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and the southern suburbs of Beirut, focusing on destroying infrastructure and isolating combat zones, in addition to carrying out targeted assassinations.

On the air defense front, the battle revealed a clear failure of Israeli systems to counter the drones, forcing the enemy to resort to desperate tactical measures, such as moving its defense systems closer to the front lines. This reflects a state of inadequacy in protecting ground forces.

The impact of the operations is not limited to the military aspect but extends to the psychological dimension. The resistance succeeded in shocking Israeli soldiers, particularly through the use of low-cost, high-impact drones, which undermined confidence in technological superiority. Furthermore, the operations and media documentation contributed to a state of confusion within Israeli society, reviving past experiences that burdened the collective consciousness with human losses.

Ultimately, the field data reveals that the occupation army faces a clear strategic dilemma: its inability to achieve its objectives despite its firepower, contrasted with the resistance’s ability to impose an effective war of attrition. This prevents the army from establishing stable field control and confirms the resistance’s control of the initiative in managing the battle.

Author: Editorial Room