March 26, 2025 (EIRNS)—There is a growing drumbeat around Washington urging the Trump administration to use the recent U.S. air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen as a prelude and practice run for delivering a knock-out punch to Iran next. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz threatened on March 23 that Iran had to change its foreign policy and “walk away completely” from its nuclear program, or “there will be consequences.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly been bending the Trump administration’s ear that Iran can be “decapitated” without a full-scale war, the way the IDF did with Hezbollah and the way the Assad government in Syria was toppled.
This is insanity—nuclear-tinged insanity.
The U.S. aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson is on its way to the Southwest Asia theater. Two other U.S. aircraft carriers—the USS Nimitz and the USS Gerald R. Ford—are preparing to deploy, although their destination has not been disclosed. At the same time, there are credible media accounts that the U.S. just deployed anywhere from five to seven B-2 stealth bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, to the island of Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean, with their accompanying air refueling tankers. Military experts have noted that this a very large and highly unusual deployment, which appears to be linked to an impending military operation.
Yet President Trump himself has been clear: “We believe that the job of the United States military is not to wage endless regime change wars around the globe, senseless wars,” he stated in a May 2024 speech.
He was right then; and he should listen to himself now.
Launching an attack on Iran, besides blowing up the entire Middle East, would destroy the crucial talks underway between the United States and Russia, which have the potential for bringing peace not only to Ukraine, but which also open the door to a much-needed new security and development architecture—in that region, and even globally.
Who in the world would want to sink the promising Trump-Putin negotiations? The British, that’s who. The very same British who are doing everything in their power to prevent peace in Ukraine, and maintain their financial and political empire globally.
Recall the fateful report issued on Dec. 18, 2018 by the British House of Lords Select Committee on International Relations, titled “U.K. Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order.” The Lords there pronounced that President Donald Trump was their number-one problem in the world, and openly stated that his removal was critical to their interests. Above all, they said, a second Trump Presidency had to be avoided at all costs, in order to preserve the U.S.-U.K. “Special Relationship” through which they intended to keep running the world.
“The U.S. [Trump] Administration has taken a number of high-profile unilateral foreign policy decisions that are contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom.... How damaging this will be to what has hitherto been the U.K.’s most important international relationship will depend on whether the current approach is an enduring trend. Should President Trump win a second term, or a similar administration succeed him, the damage to U.K./U.S. relations will be longer lasting.”
What does the “Signalgate” scandal that exploded on the political scene this week seemingly out of nowhere, have to do with this?
That’s exactly the question that should be asked, investigated, and answered. Already, some elementary facts are known.
1) The primary political target of the scandal is clearly President Trump’s chosen intelligence team: DNI Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI head Kash Patel, among others.
2) The British-led “Liars’ Bureau” did everything they could to prevent the Senate confirmation of those same intelligence leaders—and failed.
3) If you are planning to set a strategic trap for President Trump, to get him to self-destruct his own policy—such as by foolishly launching a “decapitation strike” against Iran—the first thing you need to do is blind him, so that he doesn’t receive accurate strategic intelligence.
In much the same way that Gen. Michael Flynn was knocked out as National Security Adviser to the first Trump administration after being in office only 22 days—an operation which gave us John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and others—so today are the same networks, led by the British, trying the same play for a second time.
The British Establishment made it clear what they think the outcome of “Signalgate” should be, in an article on the March 26 in London’s The Economist magazine, which quotes two unnamed U.S. defense officials: “They put people at risk. Had any of us done the same, our careers would be over at best and we would face jail time at worst.”
Americans should not fall for this British trap, and they should make sure that their President does not either. The viable alternative policy, so viscerally despised by the British, is to press forward with the organization of a new international security and development architecture, involving the U.S., Russia, China, and the nations of the Global South in general.
