What if the Iran strikes weren’t escalation—but interruption?

President Trump once shared a video of economist Jeffrey Sachs, where Sachs clearly stated that Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the main forces behind dragging the U.S. into the wars in Iraq and Syria, and that he was relentlessly trying to push the U.S. into a war with Iran.

This wasn’t an accident.
Trump shared that clip himself. He wanted people to know.

Sachs didn’t mince words—he said the endless pressure to attack Iran didn’t come from U.S. interests, but from Netanyahu, who has spent decades repeating the same alarmist line: “Iran is weeks away from a nuclear weapon.”

That narrative has been Israel’s standing excuse for pre-emptive strikes, assassinations, regional escalation, and demands for U.S. military support.

But now, with Trump’s recent airstrike, (whatever you think of it? Did it exist or didn't it?), that excuse may be gone.

If Iran really did have functioning nuclear sites, they’ve now been targeted.
If they didn’t, the threat has been publicly “neutralized.”
Either way, the justification for war disappears.

That might have been the point all along.

A strike that looks aggressive, but strategically halts escalation by cutting the legs out from under Netanyahu’s favorite talking point.

And this is why Trump posting back in January that old Sachs video matters now more than ever. It shows Trump knew. He knows exactly who has been pushing these wars. And he knows how that pressure campaign has shaped U.S. policy for over 20 years.

So while people panic, scream betrayal, or demand more clarity—remember:

Sometimes, removing your opponent’s last excuse is the most powerful move of all.

Trump has shown that he sees who’s behind the curtain. He may have just flipped the table again.

If you’re paying attention, the signal is still there.

He knew. He knows. And he may have just changed the game without saying a word.