featured
The WhiteHouse Backs Israel on New War with Iran // Ron Paul
Ron Paul | Trusted Newsmaker
Trump Agrees to Back Israel in New War With Iran, Risking Another Regional Catastrophe
The United States is once again drifting toward war in the Middle East, this time at the explicit request of Israel and with the backing of President Donald Trump. According to reporting discussed on the Ron Paul Liberty Report and attributed to the Wall Street Journal, Trump has agreed to support Israeli military action against Iran if Tehran attempts to rebuild its ballistic missile defenses. The decision marks a major escalation and signals that Washington may soon be dragged into yet another conflict not of its own making.
Netanyahu Moves the Goalposts
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly made five trips to Washington in under a year, with this latest visit carrying a clear objective: shift the standard justification from “stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons” to “stop Iran from rebuilding ballistic missiles.” In practice, that means preventing Iran from restoring the ability to defend itself after Israeli strikes, while preserving Israel’s ability to strike again without meaningful retaliation.
During public remarks, Trump indicated that if Iran “continues with the missiles,” the U.S. would support attacking again. That framing sidesteps a key point raised: Iran’s missile activity followed a surprise Israeli attack that destroyed Iranian facilities. Iran’s response is described as defensive, yet the new U.S. posture treats defensive reconstitution as a trigger for more war.
A Policy of Disarming Everyone Except Israel
The logic being advanced is stark: nobody else in the region should be armed in any meaningful way except Israel. Israeli policy aims to deny adversaries air defenses and missile capabilities so Israel can bomb at will, while insisting any attempt to rebuild those systems becomes justification for another strike. The troubling part is not just the ambition of that policy, but that the United States appears willing to enforce it.
That also reframes what “support” actually means. It is not just diplomatic cover. It is money, weapons, intelligence, and political shielding, deployed to sustain a regional military imbalance. These commitments are made with public funds and increasing domestic skepticism, in a country already strained by debt and economic pressure.
Domestic Blowback and the “America First” Split
There is a political cost to this posture, especially for a president who built his brand on skepticism toward “endless wars.” There is a fracture within Trump’s base: one faction that wants fewer foreign interventions, and another faction aligned with traditional neoconservative policy, eager for confrontation. Netanyahu’s repeated high-profile visits intensify that split, because each one forces the question: is U.S. policy being shaped by U.S. interests, or by a foreign leader’s priorities.
The optics did not improve when Netanyahu publicly praised Trump as Israel’s greatest friend in the White House and announced Trump would receive an Israeli prize. This is a deliberate strategy: Netanyahu understands Trump’s weaknesses and “butters him up” to secure commitments that may be unpopular at home, making Trump appear dependent and undignified in the eyes of critics.
Why Israel Is Pushing Now
One reason for the renewed push is that Israel now recognizes the damage it inflicted on Iran’s ballistic missile program was less severe than originally claimed. In other words, Israel believed its own narrative that Iran was a “paper tiger,” then discovered Iran retained significant capability and had not even used its most advanced systems. That realization appears to be driving urgency: strike again before Iran fully restores defenses.
This is how escalation becomes self-sustaining. A first strike produces retaliation. Retaliation triggers fear. Fear becomes justification for another strike. And because the U.S. is tied to Israel, Washington becomes the backstop for every “next step,” regardless of whether the American public wants it.
The Historical Pattern the U.S. Keeps Repeating
This moment is in a longer history of intervention and unintended consequences. It points to the 1953 U.S.-backed coup in Iran as a foundational wound, arguing that nothing good followed from the manipulation of Iranian politics and that blowback has accumulated for decades. It also cites examples like Libya and Syria, where intervention helped destabilize states and produced outcomes far worse than advertised.
It also challenges common propaganda claims about Iran. Iran has religious minorities, including Jewish and Christian communities, and argues that the American public is routinely fed a simplified villain narrative to justify confrontation. Whether one agrees with every characterization or not, the core point is that war messaging relies on exaggeration, selective facts, and emotional priming.
A Wider Drift Toward More Wars
What makes this even more alarming is that it is not happening in isolation. The same discussion highlights reports that the CIA has carried out drone strikes inside Venezuela. Whether or not each claim is ultimately confirmed in full, the pattern described is consistent: promises of “no new wars” colliding with escalating actions, covert operations, and expanding theaters of conflict.
The financial implications are unavoidable. War spending accelerates debt, weakens domestic stability, and stretches the U.S. across multiple obligations. Empires rarely collapse overnight. They erode through overextension, endless commitments, and public exhaustion.
What This Means Going Forward
The central issue is simple: preventing Iran from rebuilding defensive missiles is not “defense.” It is a policy that guarantees future conflict by ensuring one side can strike and the other side cannot deter. If this escalatory ladder continues, the U.S. risks being pulled into a wider war that benefits no one except the people who profit from instability and permanent emergency politics.
Backing another Israeli war on Iran is not just a foreign policy choice. It is a commitment to repeating the same mistakes with higher stakes, fewer resources, and less public patience. If it happens again, history will not be kind, and neither will the bill.
