MOR explains Trump’s ‘Epic Fury’ war on Iran—the Hezbollah front (Part 5)

Janet Levy:  Professor Gil-White, a brilliant scholar who I’ve met, makes compelling arguments based on observable facts. This is Part 5 of his Management of Reality” analysis.

In 2004, Gil-White was fired from UPenn for supporting Israel. A non-Jew, he supports Jews and Israel out of self-interest (not out of sympathy for the Jews) and asserts that antisemitism is bad for EVERYONE it will result in the demise of Western civilization and the enslavement of humanity.

The Geopolitical Theorem – An MOR series

Francisco Gil-White | MOR | Jun 07, 2026

If you haven’t read Part 4 yet, you may do so here:

https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/mor-explains-trump-war-on-iran

UPDATE 8 June 2026 ? Right after publishing this piece on 7 June, Hezbollah attacked Israel again, and then Iran did the same. The piece now reflects that.

My purpose in this series—The Geopolitical Theorem—is to gain a better understanding of US geopolitics in the Middle East over the past half century. I keep a strong focus on Donald Trump’s ‘Epic Fury’ war against Iran because everybody is thinking about this now, and because it makes an attractive case study by which to evaluate two very different models of the US bosses—and of Trump specifically.

Applied to ‘Epic Fury,’ these models say the following:

• Mainstream model. The US bosses—and Trump especially—are strong allies of Israel, working, as a top foreign-policy priority, to protect Israel from jihadi Iran. Hence, Trump attacked Iran in ‘Epic Fury’ in order to combat jihadism and protect Israel. He will reap enormous benefits for Israel from this war, and he will defeat Iran. In this manner, he will defend and protect the West.
• MOR model. The US bosses—Trump included—are covert totalitarian antisemites working to produce, by proxy, a jihadi genocide of the Jewish people in the State of Israel. ‘Epic Fury’ happened only because Trump’s own public narrative trapped him into that course of action. But he will find a way to make this end badly for Israel. The larger goal—as with prior antisemitic genocides—is to destroy democracy and enslave the peoples of the West.

The mainstream model’s view of the relationship between Trump and Israel is ubiquitous in mainstream media and academia. Many Trump boosters fervently believe it. Trump detractors believe it too! The mainstream therefore has many more adherents than MOR. But scientific investigation does not proceed by popularity polls. We need tests.

In Part 2, on the basis of historical documentation that nobody disputes, I have developed a geopolitical theorem that, I claim, has decisively refuted already the mainstream model. In Part 3 I give you a sweep of a half century of US foreign policy in the Middle East by which to demonstrate that the theorem holds across time. In Parts 4-6 I am examining Donald Trump’s ‘Epic Fury’ to show that Trump is no different: he fits right into the historical pattern. The buildup to ‘Epic Fury’ was the subject of Part 4. Here below, in Part 5, we begin looking at the outcome.

Whose predictions match?

There are two main theaters to consider: Lebanon and Iran proper. I will leave the Iranian theater for the following piece, and I’ll focus, here below, on outcomes relevant to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

My inquiry means to answer the following question:

• From the outcome of the war in Lebanon, what may be logically inferred about Trump’s intentions regarding Hezbollah? Are his behaviors more consistently pro-Israel or pro-Hezbollah?

With its recent headline—‘Iran Gets Trump to Rescue Hezbollah’—the Wall Street Journal has given us a clue.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/iran-hezbollah-lebanon-israel-cease-fire-donald-trump-1edf1c6a

I will here provide a full context to help us understand this result, so hostile to the mainstream model.

Before Trump: the historical background on Hezbollah

In June, the media will tell you about the month of June—and perhaps the month of May, if they are feeling very generous. They never give you historical context. Last year, gone. The previous decade—vanished. The previous century is unimaginable. From consuming news content, you’d think the Universe begat itself a month ago.

One cannot reason about causal processes by such content. I’ll begin, therefore, with some relevant pre-Trump historical background. By its mere statement, as your own inspection will attest, this material will demonstrate that it was needed.

In 1979, when the Islamic Revolution swept him into power, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini launched World Jihad from Iran. This was US policy. The charge that Jimmy Carter engineered the fall of the Shah and also Khomeini’s takeover—a charge leveled against Carter at the time—has now entered the mainstream because the documentation is overwhelming.

https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/iran-contra-still-a-mystery-part-7-did-jimmy-carter-install-khomeini

But this was not simply Carter’s policy, obviously, because the next president, Ronald Reagan, and his vice-president, George Bush Sr., who would be president after Reagan, were famously caught sending billions of dollars in weapons to the same Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

I remember this vividly—it was a stunning revelation. Not merely because it exposed the US president to formal charges of treason, but because Reagan’s presidential campaign had been the promise to confront Iran. Yet the minute Reagan became president, in 1981, the secret weapons for Khomeini began flowing. When this betrayal was discovered in 1986, it became the Iran-Contra Scandal—or ‘Affair.’

https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/iran-contra-still-a-mystery-part-one

Who was the better actor, Reagan or Khomeini? I don’t know. Reagan was a real talent. But Khomeini, swaggering on the world stage as the ‘worst enemy’ of the US bosses, was most convincing. And the wardrobe and makeup people over there were doing wonders:

Ruhollah Khomeini in airplane. Photo by Unknown author – Imam Khomeini Website, Public Domain, Wikipedia

In language pulled straight out of the comic books, or Tolkien, Khomeini vowed to destroy ‘Little Satan’—Israel—in genocide. Then, he said, he was coming for ‘Great Satan’: the United States. Then for the rest of the West. Every ‘infidel’ would burn.

While all of that happened on stage, backstage, out of the public’s view, Khomeini was getting all those secret Iran-Contra weapons from ‘Great Satan,’ and that’s how the ayatollahs (just barely) survived the Iran-Iraq War. But though the Iran-Contra revelations exposed the sneaky true relationship between US bosses and Iranian ayatollahs, none of that produced political enlightenment. Reagan made excuses (he claimed he was ransoming hostages), media and academia all pretended he’d given a reasonable explanation, and then everybody stopped talking about this affair (they do that a lot).

Already in 2014, Iran-Contra researcher Malcolm Byrne complained that “the biggest U.S. political scandal of the Reagan era”—one of the biggest scandals ever—“has now largely been forgotten.”1 Largely forgotten! I have personally confirmed that even students in political science and international relations studies don’t know anything about Iran-Contra. What did stick in people’s minds was the ayatollah nickname for the United States: ‘Great Satan.’ See how that works? (They have a science of this.)

And that is how your reality is managed.

Now, to achieve his first and dearest goal—the murder of all Jewish infidels living in Israel—Khomeini had his Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps create in Lebanon, on the northern border of the Jewish State, the jihadi terrorist army Hezbollah (Hizb’ Allah or ‘Party of God’).

This was all part of a Grand Plan that had PLO/Fatah—now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’—at the center. In fact, PLO/Fatah brought Hezbollah into Lebanon as its own replacement. And that’s something else that nobody remembers.

Hezbollah soldier/terrorists do the Nazi salute. Image credit: Times of Israel.

https://static-cdn.toi-media.com/blogs/uploads/2025/09/IMG_2691.jpeg

Here’s how it happened…

In the late 1960s, an ‘Arab Palestinian’ terror group led by Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, and publicly pledged to destroy Israel, Al Fatah, swallowed another such group, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and kept its name.2

In the 1970s, this merged PLO/Fatah created a State-within-a-State in Lebanon, and from there launched attacks against Jewish civilians in the north of Israel. During its sojourn in Lebanon, PLO/Fatah’s relationship to US intelligence was of such near-erotic intimacy that PLO/Fatah

“had been the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut [Lebanon’s capital] … There was liaison with the PLO, and the Americans were depending on them for their security.”3

That remark slipped carelessly from the lips of Vincent Cannistraro, a high-level CIA bureaucrat, during a PBS interview. The Washington Post later confirmed the claim.4

While the PLO/Fatah terrorists doubled as bodyguards for US diplomats in Lebanon, they were also—get this—arming and training Ayatollah Khomeini’s guerrillas. Yes, also in Lebanon. They were preparing Khomeini’s guerrillas for the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979. You read correctly.

And this is how your reality is managed:

• Though PLO/Fatah’s—the Palestinian Authority’s—executive role in the Iranian Islamic Revolution was explained on the front page of the New York Times when the Islamic Revolution happened, media and academia subsequently stopped talking about this, and it was completely forgotten by everybody.

We document that here:

https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/us-forced-israel-to-cede-strategic-land-to-iran

Also forgotten (and also documented in the piece above) is that, in the years 1979-1981, PLO/Fatah helped Ayatollah Khomeini create the institution that would export Iranian terror to the world, and which would oppress the long-suffering Iranian population: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Right away, the IRGC got busy creating the terrorist Hezbollah in Lebanon as a weapon against Israel. It is generally agreed that Hezbollah was active in Lebanon already by 1982, when the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded. But in that year Hezbollah was still small; the IDF had come for the Big Fish in Lebanon: PLO/Fatah.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!pdc4!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2850e828-9af4-4ff7-bf41-883f92e0118c_2154x1134.png

The IDF almost finished that job in 1982—but not quite. They couldn’t finish because US President Ronald Reagan, though quite busy sending billions in secret Iran-Contra weapons to Ayatollah Khomeini, was also mindful of Khomeini’s ally, PLO/Fatah boss Yasser Arafat. Reagan jumped to Arafat’s defense and forbade Israel to harm him.5 And then, with France and Italy, Reagan provided a military escort for the PLO/Fatah remnant to escape to its new home in Tunis.6 They would live, thanks to Reagan, to sow anti-Jewish terror another day.

But at least PLO/Fatah were gone from Lebanon? Yet there was scant relief in that! For Hezbollah, a creation of the IRGC, itself a creation of PLO/Fatah, now became the replacement. Like PLO/Fatah before it, Hezbollah did much to fuel the Lebanese Civil War. And, again like PLO/Fatah, Hezbollah directed terror at civilians in the north of Israel.

The US bosses—who’d just saved PLO/Fatah in Lebanon, and who’d soon install PLO/Fatah inside the Jewish State as the ‘Palestinian Authority’—now also began protecting Hezbollah.

And how.

After the US intervention in Lebanon to save PLO/Fatah, the US stationed troops in Beirut, ostensibly to protect the Lebanese government. In 1983, the Hezbollah network in Lebanon killed 258 US citizens: 241 US Marines and 17 US diplomats. It was, at the time, the biggest terrorist attack ever suffered by the United States.

Before the attack, thanks to NSA intercepts, the US bosses knew it was coming. “It is not clear,” wrote Jim McGee in the Miami Herald, “why the NSA intercepts were not used to warn American personnel [in Beirut].”7 Indeed, the mainstream model cannot explain this.

Or this: Reagan did not retaliate for that terrorist attack. To the contrary. With jihadis everywhere watching, Reagan packed up and left Lebanon to Hezbollah.

Or this: After the Hezbollah attack, Reagan-Bush just… kept on sending secret Iran-Contra weapons to Hezbollah’s lord and patron: the Iranian ayatollahs!

Let us be frank: this is much worse than ‘the mainstream model cannot explain this.’ As argued in Part 2: The Geopolitical Theorem, the mainstream model—according to which the US bosses are enemies of jihadism and best allies of Israel—requires all this to be impossible.

https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/the-geopolitical-theorem-the-us-bosses-are-pro-jihad-and-anti-israel

Anyway, after Reagan’s withdrawal, Hezbollah flourished in Lebanon.

The international narrative around Hezbollah in Lebanon grudgingly recognizes Hezbollah to be ‘bad guys’ but somehow holds that the Israelis, their intended victims, can never be the ones to take them out. Hezbollah will be disarmed, we are told, but not by the Israelis. This story will make you feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, waking up every morning to the same sequence.

Your alarm clock goes off and you hear the morning news anchor say: “…UN officials announce that Hezbollah will be disarmed…” Yes, because they are bad guys, okay, created by the genocidal Iranian ayatollahs, okay, and they shouldn’t have weapons. By the end of your day, however, it turns out that, yes, Hezbollah are bad guys, but… they will not be disarmed. You go to bed. Alarm clock: “…UN officials announce that Hezbollah will be disarmed…”

One thing does change, though—just one: every time your eternal day resets, Hezbollah has gotten stronger.

We’ll disarm Hezbollah—don’t worry

I believe the following is the complete list of pre-Trump Hezbollah-disarmament proposals and promises:

• 1986 ? The Tripartite Agreement. This was sold as an effort to disarm all non-government militias and put an end to the Lebanese Civil War (which PLO/Fatah had contributed so much to cause). Hezbollah replied that, before disarming, “you have to liberate Jerusalem first.” That was jihadi code for the genocidal destruction of Israel, and it put the lie to the claim that Hezbollah’s mission was to ‘defend Lebanon.’ Hezbollah was not disarmed.8
• 1989 ? Taif Agreement. This would supposedly end the Lebanese Civil War. The Lebanese government would ‘monopolize arms,’ and all non-government militias would disarm. Hezbollah refused: “senior Hezbollah official Sheikh Mohammad Yazbek denounced the accord, saying it ‘aims at confiscating arms used to fight Israel,’ ” once again making clear what Hezbollah—a creation of the genocidal antisemites who govern jihadi Iran—considers its mission: the murder of all Jews in Israel.9 Hezbollah was not disarmed.
• 1991 ? Disarmament Program. The Lebanese government implemented the Taif disarmament provisions, and most militias were disarmed. But not Hezbollah. The entire operation functioned as a pro-Hezbollah policy: the Lebanese Armed Forces disarmed Hezbollah’s rivals while Hezbollah retained its weapons under the special justification of ‘resistance’ against Israel.10 Hezbollah was not disarmed.
• 2004 ? UN Security Council Resolution 1559. It explicitly called for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.” This basically meant disarming Hezbollah, because the Christian and other Muslim militias had already been disarmed. Hezbollah was not disarmed.11
• 2006 ? UN Security Council Resolution 1701. After Hezbollah crossed the border, killed several Israeli soldiers, and captured two others, Israel responded with a large-scale air and ground campaign: the Second Lebanon War. Just 14 days after Israel invaded Lebanon, George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice were already scrambling for a ceasefire. And they got one. In exchange for leaving Lebanon, the Israelis were promised a UN force—UNIFIL—as a buffer between them and Hezbollah, plus eventual Hezbollah disarmament. But UNIFIL behaved like a Hezbollah ally. Hezbollah was not disarmed.12
• 2006 ? The National Dialogue Process. After the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, there was a ‘National Dialogue’ with Hezbollah’s weapons as a central item. Endless meetings; no Hezbollah disarmament. “Once again, it was all in vain.”13 Hezbollah was not disarmed. Meanwhile, Hezbollah launched terrorist attacks against Israel.14
• 2024 ? The ‘Shield of the Homeland’ Plan (Dir al?Watan). Following the 7 October 2023 Hamas massacres and hostage-taking of Israeli civilians, Hezbollah opened a second front in the north, and Israel pushed into Lebanon. But the US Biden administration rushed to stop the Israelis, brokering (ordering) a ceasefire on Nov. 27, 2024. In exchange for Israeli lowered guns, the Lebanese army put together an official “five?phase roadmap to disarm all non?state militias in Lebanon, with a focus on Hezbollah.” They claimed the first phase of Hezbollah disarmament had been achieved. Hezbollah was not disarmed.15

They promise Hezbollah will be disarmed. Hezbollah is not disarmed. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. Rinse…

And Hezbollah gets stronger and stronger.

Hezbollah—the UN’s darling

I’ll get to Donald Trump below—please be patient. But I need you to see first that it ain’t just Trump.

Despite Hezbollah’s growing strength, as we see above, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have gone on the offensive against these genocidal terrorists. But each time, whether Republican (Bush Jr.) or Democrat (Biden), the United States President—Israel’s alleged ‘best friend’—comes charging in to impose a ceasefire. Someone is heard to say that Israel has a right to defend itself. And then always the same offer: Israel must leave Lebanon, and Hezbollah will be disarmed.

Then Hezbollah is not disarmed.

This is all done via the United Nations to preserve the impression—thin as it may be—that a non-existent abstraction invoked by magical incantation, the ‘international community,’ is protecting another non-existent abstraction: ‘Lebanon.’ This diplomatic grammar can operate because the United Nations is quite happy to lend itself to this Hezbollah-protective role.

Since Hamas’s 7 October 2023 massacre and hostage-taking, the UN’s Hezbollah-protective role has been in ample evidence.

After Hamas struck in the south, Hezbollah attacked Israel too, and a northern front also developed. Then something happened that will go in all the military history books: in September of 2024, as the world reeled in astonishment, the media reported the damage done by Israel’s justly famous pager and walkie-talkie attacks against Hezbollah.

The United Nations General Assembly burst out in deafening applause to cheer the Israelis and their military success against Hezbollah—I’m kidding. But they should have. For how can an army be more careful to protect the lives of civilians? I struggle to imagine it. What Israel made explode—with almost unbelievable spy-movie acumen—were the communication devices already on the persons of the Hezbollah terrorists. Never before had an enemy force operating and hiding among civilians been so surgically attacked.

Yet despite all that, United Nations “human rights experts” called this a “terrifying violation of international law.” And why? Because, they said,

“these attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time.”16

Imminent lethal threat… at the time…

According to these UN “human rights experts,” the “human right to life” of Hezbollah is the paramount value. Never mind that Hezbollah’s public goal is the greatest violation of international law possible: genocide. If Hezbollah are not “at that time,” that very minute, an “imminent lethal threat”—by, for example, already lobbing missiles at their intended victims—then any defensive move by the latter—even one exquisitely targeted on the terrorists—will be a “terrifying violation of international law.”

This kind of pseudo-legal, hyperventilated ‘reasoning’ suggests that UN “human rights experts” might be antisemitic jihadis.

That suspicion is strengthened when you observe that the UN has not once issued a country-specific resolution for human rights violations against the jihadi State of Qatar, whose Sharia law oppresses some 2 million literal slaves, and who, as patron of Hamas, is the intellectual author of the 7 October 2023 massacre and hostage-taking against Israeli civilians.

https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/paradox-the-anti-qatar-protests-on

And one almost wants to call the suspicion of antisemitic jihadism confirmed after gazing at another statistic: the United Nations issues more official condemnations—for alleged human rights abuses—against the democratic Jewish State than it does against all other countries combined.17

Indeed, the model of the UN as an antisemitic jihadi club seems to predict the UN’s every relevant behavior.

When the Israeli Air Force, days after the beeper and walkie-talkie operations, and again with extreme surgical care, bombed the Beirut bunker—just the bunker—in which Hezbollah’s supreme terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and his top echelons were hiding,

“[United Nations Secretary General Antonio] Guterres said, ‘I’m gravely concerned by the dramatic escalation of events in Beirut in the last 24 hours. This cycle of violence must stop now. All sides must step back from the brink.’ ”18

Consider the contrast. When Hezbollah targets and kills innocent Jewish civilians in Israel, the most you will hear (on occasion) is a mild UN burp. You’ll never see this level of emotion. And very often the United Nations will say nothing at all.

No, United Nations emergency outrage and concern are reserved for when Israel, in clear self-defense, takes out the leadership of Hezbollah. It is this—a surgical decapitation of genocidal Hezbollah terrorists—that, to the UN Secretary General, is “a dramatic escalation of events” and a danger so grave that, urgently, “all sides must step back from the brink.”

Donald Trump—how is he different?

Notwithstanding all that UN wailing, Israel pressed its advantage and advanced swiftly on the ground against Hezbollah. By February 2025, with Donald Trump freshly inaugurated, the US military experts at the Modern War Institute of West Point were marveling that “Hezbollah suffered [such] a rapid military defeat.”19

Would Hezbollah be destroyed?

Never!, cried Donald Trump. In an orange fury, he imposed a ceasefire on the Israelis and sent his envoy Tom Barrack to Lebanon.

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!VsrZ!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5ff7901c-2a63-4b6b-8955-2c6c39f5c5fd_1316x715.png

• 2025 ? The Trump/Barrack Plan. The Lebanese government promised to disarm Hezbollah. In exchange for that promise (not the result), Tom Barrack demanded that Israel evacuate Lebanon.20

Hezbollah—need I still say this?—was not disarmed.

2026 ? Donald Trump’s ‘Epic Fury’

The events of the last three years have made the US bosses—including Trump—look less and less like allies of Israel. They never were, according to the MOR model, but the contradiction between the official narrative and actual behavior has become harder to smooth over, and hence too obvious to deny for lots of people.

This has driven MOR’s detractors—almost every human who’s ever had a single thought about geopolitics—into an uncomfortable corner. But then, when Donald Trump attacked Iran in Operation ‘Epic Fury,’ our detractors hoped against all experience that at least Trump would make them come out right. Trump alone, they insisted, really was anti-jihad and pro-Israel.

Those detractors who are also personal friends of mine told me to ignore history. It didn’t matter, they said. Trump was different: ‘Epic Fury’ was a true anomaly. This time it’s for real. Trump would deal with Iran and Hezbollah this time.

Disagree—I said.

MOR claims that Donald Trump didn’t want to attack Iran; that he did everything he could to get out of it. But the ayatollahs didn’t cooperate with his moves and he got trapped into ‘Epic Fury’ by the very grammar of his own narrative.

What I mean is this. Trump’s narrative—like any narrative—sets up strong, rule-like expectations in the minds of his audience, and a politician defies such expectations at great risk. Trump’s narrative was very macho, very John Wayne, because, before the whole world, he’d pulled his guns out and threatened the ayatollahs not to kill any Iranian civilian protestors or he would start shooting.

On 13 January, he posted:

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP”21

(MIGA—of course—means ‘Make Iran Great Again.’)

But when the ayatollahs called his bluff and killed many Iranian protesters (32,000 by the US president’s own count), Trump chickened out, assuring the astonished reporters that his own violence was no longer necessary because the ayatollahs were promising to suspend the executions! To which the ayatollah regime immediately replied that “Trump says a lot of nonsense and gibberish.” Just to show him, they’d speed up the executions (see Part 4).

Oops.

Then Trump seemed to recover his macho and ordered his ships to the Persian Gulf. He renewed his threats against the Iranian ayatollahs over the question of shooting protesters.22 But before his ships could even get to the Gulf, he abruptly did another U-turn: the defense of ordinary Iranians was dropped and the rationale for the troop deployment now became: ‘I want a nuclear deal.’23

Trump could count on the media to misdirect us away from the geopolitical meaning: Iran would not be great again: after promising to save ordinary Iranians from the ayatollahs, Trump was now trying to save the ayatollahs instead! Though nobody dared say too much about this, the pivot was logically obvious because, if the ayatollahs signed an agreement to abandon their nuclear program, then Trump would let them stay in power (and they could go on murdering Iranians).

With an ayatollah signature on the nuclear deal, Trump could claim some kind of a win, at least, and try to fake the ‘tough guy.’ But if the ayatollahs couldn’t sign? Then Trump—says MOR—was in a real pickle. Because without a signature he couldn’t just pack up his ships and leave. That would be just too… ridiculous. Lots of people would suddenly ask themselves: Wait—is Trump pro-jihad, then?

So Trump was in a pickle. Because the ayatollahs were trapped in their own jihadi narrative—their own political grammar—and couldn’t help him.

In the jihadi narrative, the ayatollahs are piously pledged to ‘martyr’ themselves—if they have to—in their quest to destroy ‘Little Satan’ in genocide. Done with that, they’ll destroy ‘Great Satan.’ Hence, to genuflect under military threat to infidel ‘Great Satan’ would deny their fundamental identity and their own very macho stance. Don’t forget that their entire structure is full of fanatical true believers. So the grammatical return move, for the ayatollahs, was: No signature; instead, we’ll gain Paradise—and 72 virgins—by dying martyrs.

This repeats the structure of the 12-Day War, when Trump made the ayatollahs an identical offer under identical military threat. Now as before, the ayatollahs didn’t sign—they just couldn’t. And so, after doing so much to save the ayatollahs, Trump was forced to attack—again. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei got his wish and died a martyr for jihad. We explain this entire sequence in Part 4.

https://substack.com/profile/77630820-francisco-gil-white

Then there was another U-turn.

Though Trump’s ‘Epic Fury’ was careful to be neither too epic nor too furious, making sure nothing too critical for the ayatollahs was bombed, even so, it seemed at one point that ‘Epic Fury’ might bring the ayatollah regime down. That’s when Trump, rather than press his advantage, instead seemed suddenly eager to get out. In a repeat performance of the 12-Day War, he abruptly—and absurdly, for the mainstream model—halted the attack. And he imposed another ceasefire on Israel. Not just in Iran, but in Lebanon, where Hezbollah was still firing.

Benjamin Netanyahu obeyed the ceasefire order issued by the US president.

Trump also imposed ceasefire talks between Israel and ‘Lebanon.’ Once again, Israel was promised that Hezbollah would be disarmed. Hezbollah refused the talks and kept firing. Trump extended the ‘ceasefire’ anyway, placing additional pressure on the Israeli bosses—so agreeable to their US Master—to keep the ceasefire. Protected in this manner behind a US shield, Hezbollah—guns still blazing—rejected the diplomatic framework and insisted that Israeli withdrawal must come first before anybody talks about Hezbollah disarmament.

Someone was heard to say that Israel had a right to defend itself. Oh, it was Trump. “Israel is going to have to defend itself if they’re shot at, and they will,” he said. “I would never say that they can’t.” (He’d just done precisely that.)

And he did it again:

“… if something happens, [the Israelis] are going to have to defend themselves, as you know, but they’re going to do it carefully and they’re going to be surgical as opposed to beyond surgical.’ ”24

“…they’re going to be surgical as opposed to beyond surgical…”

That was a dog whistle—and the antisemites all heard it. It means this: the minute the IDF goes “beyond surgical,” y’all can accuse Israel of disproportionate response. Trump’s got your back.

And should Israel—horrors!—take ground from Hezbollah, which we can all agree would be the opposite of a surgically-minded operation, then Trump will himself jump out of his seat in an orange fury and crack his whip at Benjamin Netanyahu.

The flag of Israel flies on Beaufort Castle after its capture. Screengrab via Youtube

Case in point.

On 31 May 2026, Israel captured Beaufort Castle (Qalaat al-Shaqif), its deepest advance into Lebanon in 26 years. Netanyahu publicly celebrated the capture and called it a ‘dramatic shift’ in Israeli policy.25 On the same day, Netanyahu ordered Israeli forces to move further into Lebanon.26 Multiple reports described the Beaufort operation not as an isolated raid but as part of an expanding ground offensive. Israel Hayom reported that the operation’s purpose was to expand the forward defensive line, cross the Litani River, and potentially broaden operations further.27 The Guardian reported that, after the castle fell, Netanyahu “happily announced that Israel was deepening its invasion in Lebanon.”28

Not surgical. Was Hezbollah once again in fatal danger? The US president—thrown into a frenzy—seemed sure of it. “You’re fucking crazy,” he explained in a best-friend call to Netanyahu, yelling:

“You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”29

That was reported by Axios and later confirmed by Trump himself. And just like that, Israeli plans to strike Beirut were suspended.

Trump really did seem concerned to make Hezbollah safe in Beirut. He wrote:

“I had a very productive call with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel, and there will be no Troops going to Beirut, and any Troops that are on their way, have already been turned back.”30

And Trump also wrote:

“Likewise, through highly placed Representatives, I had a very good call with Hezbollah, and they agreed that all shooting will stop—That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.”31

But Hezbollah right away fired rockets and drones again at the IDF.32

Oops.

And here’s the kicker: as they fired, Hezbollah simultaneously announced they were ready for a full ceasefire!33

But Trump didn’t call Hezbollah to yell at them that they’re fucking crazy—that kind of verbal lashing is reserved for Trump’s Jewish servants. Because the relationship there is master/slave, as Trump has made clear with humiliating public candor.

https://www.the-express.com/news/politics/185431/trump-netanyahu-Qatar-attack-apologize

I don’t mean the time when Trump dragged Netanyahu down by the ear to kneel and beg the jihadi Emir of Qatar—the butcher of innocent Jews on October 7th—for forgiveness. But I know you were thinking of that.

No, I mean that, just recently, Donald Trump explained that “Netanyahu … will do whatever I ask him to do.”34

Netanyahu will—it’s just true.

And how is this total power that Trump enjoys over Israeli foreign policy employed? To rescue Hezbollah!

I didn’t say it—the Wall Street Journal did.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/iran-hezbollah-lebanon-israel-cease-fire-donald-trump-1edf1c6a

Think about that headline: ‘Iran Gets Trump to Rescue Hezbollah.’35

Mind you, the Wall Street Journal is not defending the MOR model: they do not claim that Donald Trump is trying to produce a jihadi genocide of the Israeli Jews. Instead they argue that Iran—a country that, without anybody pushing it, was already collapsing—can somehow jerk around the greatest power in all of history. (I guess they have to make up something.)

But the WSJ headline does reveal something important: even the mainstream media cannot deny that Trump is aligned with Iran to save Hezbollah. That’s how obvious and extreme Trump’s behavior has become.

But that was not yet extreme enough.

Hezbollah attacked the IDF again, followed by Israeli retaliation against Hezbollah positions in Beirut. Then Iran replied with missiles against Israel.

And then, the Axios headline: ‘Trump tells Axios that he will ask Netanyahu not to strike back at Iran.’

https://www.axios.com/2026/06/07/trump-israel-iran-missile-attack

https://www.axios.com/2026/06/07/trump-israel-iran-missile-attack

Iran can attack Israel; but Israel cannot fire back. That’s Trump’s policy, whether Iran fires via Hezbollah or directly.

And then, the New York Post headline: ‘Trump insists Israel’s Netanyahu ‘won’t have any choice’ in accepting Iran peace deal after fresh strikes: ‘I call the shots.’

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!M0wE!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3c526fea-c58e-4bfe-bba9-885ae1eb90d5_1113x461.png

Can you remember what Trump said just the other day? He said this:

“Israel is going to have to defend itself if they’re shot at, and they will. I would never say that they can’t.”

Well, never mind.

Anyway, such is the outcome of ‘Epic Fury’ on the Lebanese front.

Please don’t be shocked if Trump, in the final agreement with the ayatollahs, pushes for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and promises in exchange …(you guessed it)… that Hezbollah will be disarmed.

The material absurdity of Hezbollah disarmament

The simple historical summary is devastating: we have now been promised Hezbollah disarmament in 1986, 1989, 1991, 2004, 2006, 2024, 2025, and 2026.

Hezbollah is never disarmed.

• Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting each time a different result is the definition of insanity.

They say Albert Einstein said that. Regardless of authorship, it’s a perfect definition. But then something follows: every time that the Western bosses propose—once again—to disarm Hezbollah, so confident that we won’t blink, they are implicitly declaring us insane. Or idiots.

Look, the proposal is always that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will supposedly disarm Hezbollah. Seriously: what? Hezbollah rules over the LAF! The terrorists have taken over the cabinet, the parliament, and even the Military Supreme Council. Lebanon has been described—even in the major international media—as “a Hezbollah-run State.”36

A Hezbollah-run State will disarm Hezbollah?

(They think we are idiots—are we gonna prove them right?)

The fundamental absurdity of Hezbollah disarmament

Quite aside from the material absurdity above, the proposal to disarm Hezbollah was always a logical, legal, and moral absurdity—and that’s even if someone else were going to disarm these fanatics. I’ll help you see this by putting everything in first-person terms, because that makes it impossible to miss.

Wherever it is that you live, think a moment on your own city, your neighborhood, and how it feels to be there, how it feels to walk down the streets at 2 am. Do you feel safe?

Now put a serial murderer into the picture, an unspeakable monster who kills men, women, and children, choosing his victims by some feature that bothers him to the point of enraged, cathartic homicide—something about their eyebrows, some think, but nobody is sure. People are walking around with sunglasses and hats. He has killed many. He keeps killing. A new victim every week. Nobody knows who’s next. It could be you.

How safe do you feel now?

You’re terrified. You and your fellow citizens naturally expect the mayor to do something. And so, before a huge gathering, with media cameras and smartphones clicking and rolling, reporters taking notes, and flanked by the police chief and other important-looking city officials, your mayor intones from the dais:

“Citizens and residents of [your city], thank you for coming today. We have been terrorized by a monstrous enemy. A criminal who kills without reason. Who tortures. Who murders men, women, and children. City Hall understands that you are terrified. But rest assured: this government is fully committed. We will find this deranged killer and confiscate any weapons. Fear no more: the terrorist will be disarmed.”

Any mayor giving a speech like that in your city—I am sure you’ll agree—would risk getting mobbed there and then by enraged citizens. Disarm the serial killer? What is he talking about? The killer remains at large? He has immunity? But he’ll get new weapons! Isn’t this obvious? He’ll kill again! Why won’t the mayor even arrest this monster? What madhouse is this?

You’d be right to react like this. That would be a madhouse.

And that’s the madhouse we live in. It is repeatedly proposed that genocidal terrorists pledged to kill every last living Jew in Israel—man, woman, and child—just because they are Jewish, and who’ve already maimed and killed many, should be… disarmed.

The only way anything this patently absurd can actually work as an official diplomatic proposal in the real world is if the great masses of Westerners can be counted on to reason like antisemites. So we must face the logical consequence: the Western bosses—who so boldly make these proposals—are counting on us to reason like antisemites.

(Will we?)

But wait—I have one better (I mean worse…)

Yes, worse. Because, notice that the ‘disarm Hezbollah’ gambit is at least technically proposing to handicap them—if only momentarily. It doesn’t say ‘let’s reward Hezbollah.’

Take yourself back to our metaphor. What if the crazy mayor who proposed to disarm the serial murderer were not an imbecile but evil? What if you discovered he was protecting that monster and—horrors!—supplying him with weapons? How would you feel then?

That’s the world you do live in.

You’ve seen Donald Trump in Lebanon. And this has been very stable. Recall that back in 1983 Hezbollah murdered 258 US citizens, after which Ronald (‘Greatest US President’) Reagan cut and run, leaving Lebanon to Hezbollah.

And the billions in secret, Reagan-Bush, Iran-Contra weapons that were already flowing to Hezbollah’s lord and patron when that 1983 terrorist attack happened? Well those just went right… on… flowing…

In the last twenty years, when Hezbollah has gained a stranglehold over Lebanon, turning it into a Hezbollah-run State, the US bosses—Democrat and Republican—have pretended to the public that ‘Lebanon’ still exists (that’s how they manage your reality!), sending billions of US tax dollars in weapons for the Lebanese Armed Forces—weapons that of course end up in Hezbollah’s hands.

And yes, Trump is doing this too: he’s been sending weapons to the LAF—to Hezbollah.

What’s that hiss you hear? Whispers… The US bosses, under their breath: My Precious…

 

 

Up next:

https://franciscogilwhite.substack.com/p/mor-explains-trumps-epic-fury-the-iranian-outcome-all-safe

---

Sources:

---