Netanjahu resumes "Mystification on Weapons of Mass demolition in Iraq" – renews it to advance the war with Iran
- Alastair Crooke 18 August 2026.
Alastair Crooke
Changing Trump's position, which considered that economical force would be the key to Iran's surrender, is not a credible strategy.
President Trump took for a good coin military speeches by Hegseth's Secretary of defence (the "U.S. Army's Fire Force Is Huge"), only to realize that the U.S. had exhausted the supplies of capture missiles in the war based on air defense. "The inventory allowance is equally sobering. 4 years to replenish stocks – not 4 months – due to the fact that the components contain uncommon earth elements, controlled by China".
Hegseth seems to be in disfavor, while Bessent's finance minister star grows.
Reports show that Bessent repeatedly assured Trump that the oil shortage caused by the closure of the Ormuz Strait is "temporary and manageable" (which is not true) and further argued that energy price-driven inflation would besides subside as shortly as global tensions subsided. He bet on it all. And Trump seemingly believes in manipulating oil contracts and future contracts.
Data on ships passing through the Oman corridor circulating in Washington is completely fabricated. Brett Erickson of Obsidian hazard Advisors writes:
"After talking to respective of my absolutely trustworthy colleagues, there is absolutely no evidence that 8 million barrels of oil are transported regular via the Oman Trail, nor any evidence that 9 million barrels are leaving the Strait of Ormuz all day. Zero. Not ‘maybe’, not ‘possible’. No evidence. And what is worse: there is evidence that clearly proves the opposite.”
When asked: “Do you plan to just vanish until everything falls apart? What then?’ Erickson replies:
“As far as I know, they truly believe that any of this information is true. They are stupid, not necessarily dishonest – which is even worse.”
Changing Trump's position on economical force as a key origin for Iran to surrender is not a credible strategy. Even if the intensified siege actually deepens the suffering of the Iranian people, it is improbable that its misery would lead to a beneficial consequence – specified as the regime's change to Delcy Rodríguez.
Iran is engaged in an existential war with the US and Israel, and if the Iranian authorities had always been forced to choose between surrender and escalation of confrontation, they would almost surely have chosen escalation. Indeed, the decision to escalate militarily—to exert force on Trump—is already made, as evidenced by fresh statements by Mohsen Resaee, the recently appointed secretary of the ultimate National safety Committee. Iran will take proactive military action, even if Trump refrains from military action.
However, Iran does not show any signs of economical collapse in the face of a renewed US blockade. At the beginning of the conflict, Iran had about 120–140 million barrels of oil stored in oil tankers at sea and exported another 80 million barrels during the limited period of the Agreement. Rial did indeed strengthen himself during its course. So the question is: what happens if Iran not only refuses to surrender, but even tightens its position towards Trump – what is it seemingly doing?
Danny Citrinovich, a leading Israeli military analyst, notes that maintaining the current stalemate in no way is costly for the United States. Ormuz remains under severe restrictions; the Red Sea is closed for exports from Saudi Arabia; and US forces are forced to keep costly military presence and blockade. Moreover, American ammunition stocks are under force and Tehran inactive has many means of harassing US forces and threatening regional shipping. However, the economical consequences of energy disruption surely do not fall solely on Iran.
As he noted this week "Wall Street Journal" :
"Energy producers in the Persian Gulf conclude that Iran's control of the Ormuz Strait will continue, which will forever disrupt oil and gas exports and global energy supply... [they have] virtually no good way to argue [more assertive Iran]’.
Oil is not the only component that has been disrupted by conflict. Many key elements of the supply chain have besides been disrupted.
If it were yet found that the United States had declared war without being careful about its military capabilities (mistakingly assuming that the war would end over the weekend, as David Barnea, Mossad's boss, claimed, during the briefing at the Situation Hall on 11 July 2026), and the Treasury Secretary lied about the real energy situation, any people would yet gotta answer serious questions.
Israeli strategical commentator Shemuel Meir raises the most crucial doubts to be answered:
Was the war on Iran truly a “preventive” war under false pretenses of direct danger?
Did Netanjahu lie about Iran's real atomic threat?
Or else, did Netanjahu imitate the fraud “Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction” to get Trump into war?
In an article written at the beginning of July this year, Israel's leading commentator Ben Caspit criticized Netanyahu:
‘Really, Bibi? Did the Iranians have atomic bombs? Are you serious? You know you're the prime minister. all message you make, all sentence, all word goes to the headlines. erstwhile you say something like that, it has consequences. Do you realize that? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you – but Iran had no atomic bombs. No, it's not. Even in jokes... You can't say Iran owned atomic bombs. due to the fact that that's not true... due to the fact that it is simply a complete fiction.”
(Conflicts Forum noted in early July – see here – that apart from Caspita, a number of erstwhile Israeli leading safety and intelligence officials and commentators claimed Netanjahu had lied about the Iranian atomic threat in the run-up to the war with Iran – and that he was inactive lying about Iran's atomic threat.)
Shemuel Meir notes that, according to Israel's doctrine, the preventive war aims to destruct the existential threat as shortly as possible erstwhile there is no uncertainty about the directness of this threat.
However, Meir notes:
"We [Israeli public opinion] mostly do not know what happened or how the decision was made to launch the preventive war ("Operation the Risen Lion") on 13 June 2025 and its continuation in the Second circular of the Preventive War on 28 February 2026 ("The roar of the Lion"). The way to decide to start this war remains, as Aluf Benn put it, the "black box" of Netanjah's decision-making.
Continues:
“So let us effort to examine the facts as thoroughly as possible. To find how justified the reason for the war, which changed the face of the mediate East and... although it was a conventional war, it was the first atomic war with prevention in history. And it is 1 that has been fought with the approval of the president of the United States."
"The question is: how come we have not seen any critical analysis or detailed investigation into the decisions underlying the June 2025 preventive war? This is peculiarly striking in the light of 2 investigative reports, which, rather surprisingly, have been published in Israel in the last 2 weeks...”
"Both further investigations... are based on reliable intelligence sources and good access to the General Staff of the Defence Forces of Israel. From both reports, we have learned something we have not heard of anywhere else: the facts and details of the Chief of General Staff's objections to the Second Preventive War of February 28, which aimed at solving the atomic problem by overthrowing the regime."
Meir adds:
"According to reports from the investigation, Head of Military Intelligence AMAN (national Israeli Intelligence Evaluator) and the head of the intelligence investigation department in the intelligence reports submitted to the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet assessed that the likelihood of success in the Second War with Iran was low. For anyone who knows the past of Israeli intelligence, it was a bold assessment."
In starting both rounds of the same preventive war, Netanjahu stated that the justification for the war was “new intelligence” informing of a direct existential atomic threat to Israel and its destruction. According to him, Israel could not stand by; there was an immediate request for war. In order to illustrate the directness of the threat, Netanjahu saturated the public debate – both in the run-up to the First War and in the year between the 2 “wars” – with existential metaphors specified as “the sword at the throat”, and compared Iran's atomic facilities to the extermination camps of European Jews.
"On the night of June 13, 2025, due to a direct existential threat from Iranian atomic weapons, Netanjahu stated that “we are at the last minute”. Iran has reached a point where there is no turning back. In fresh months Iran has “taken clear, never-ever-before-taken steps towards arms, i.e. the creation of atomic weapons alternatively than just gathering fissile materials”.’
Was there truly an existential threat on 13 June 2025? Shemuel Meir asks.
"Nethanejah's Arguments and Chiefs of the General Staff of the Israel Defence Force, seemingly supported by intelligence, regarding "new intelligence" regarding the acceleration of Iran's atomic weapons programme in the close future (gun was the key word in their argument), They contradicted credible, up-to-date intelligence assessments. These included US intelligence reports that contradicted the claims of direct atomic threat and were seemingly known to Israeli intelligence."
"According to investigator Ronen Bergman ( Yedioth Ahronoth , 26 June 2026), based on high-ranking Israeli intelligence sources, Israeli intelligence had no circumstantial information indicating the actual launch of the arms program. There was only “anxious information about thoughts and conversations”, but there was no conclusive evidence that arms laboratories had been launched.”
The question is: “Did all high-ranking Israeli Defence Forces and military intelligence officers agree and full support the Prime Minister’s argument that this was a essential preemptive attack to prevent direct atomic threat? Was it a war to destruct a direct existential threat, or a war based on “use of opportunity”?
(According to another reports, no of the elder officers present at the gathering indicated the anticipation that Iran would not collapse or that it would appear stronger.)
Meir asks if the high-ranking Israeli defence Force officers active in the decision-making were acting in accordance with the procedures, “or were they so consumed with the euphoric temper of Netanyahu that they did not admit the metaphysical mission that he undertook in the function of “the defender of Israel” — attacking Iran and destroying any anticipation of diplomatic atomic agreement?” (Meir analyzed in an earlier article “Requiem for atomic Agreement” that 1 3rd of the autobiography of Netanjahu “My Story” is devoted to this metaphysical mission – that the war on Iranian atomic objects was Netanjahu's dream since birth).
This is, of course, an existential question for the Israelis, due to the fact that war has in no way achieved its objectives.
But it is besides absolutely crucial for Americans. During a situation briefing at the White home Situation Hall on February 11, 2026, Netanyahu made an intense speech to president Trump suggesting that Iran is ready to change the government and expressing the belief that a joint US and Israeli mission could yet end the muslim Republic.
Were current U.S. officials who expressed doubts about Israeli claims aware that the head of the Israeli military intelligence agency AMAN (the national intelligence agency in the Israeli system) and the head of the Israeli intelligence department assessed and established in the intelligence reports provided to Netanyahu and cabinet members that the likelihood of implosion of the Republic of Iran was low? The boss of Mossad, on the another hand, insisted that the war with Iran would be fast and easy.
However, AMAN's assessment was full consistent with credible leaks from US intelligence officers and analysts revealed during the 12-day war in June 2025.
Newspapers "New York Times" , "Wall Street Journal" and ‘CBS’ stated that Whereas American intelligence sources have no fresh information indicating that Iran intends to build a atomic bomb; whereas there has been no change in the assessment of intelligence services; whereas Iran is not moving towards atomic weapons; and that no order has been issued to arm itself.
Nevertheless, Trump pushed the war forward – a war that continues to this day. Why?
