PART 3: IS TRUMP FOR REAL? Does Trump want an Iranian nuclear bomb dropped on Israel?

Francisco Gil-White | An MOR series |May 06, 2025

Is Trump for real?

In other words, is Donald Trump, as his supporters claim, a politically honest revolutionary who fights the entrenched Establishment and—most importantly—the Deep State?

In this series, we are considering two hypotheses:

• Innocence Hypothesis: Yes, Trump is for real.
• Machiavellian Hypothesis: No, Trump is a phony—a character created by the Deep State to control and appease the opposition by deceiving it into thinking that the system is being reformed, thus keeping the Deep State in power.

Against the Machiavellian Hypothesis, supporters of the Innocence—or ‘Trump is for real’—Hypothesis will point out that the president has hit the ground running with policies that his fans can like and celebrate, and which—I’ll concede—do make him look real. On reducing illegal immigration, combating DEI, rejecting trans ideology, improving food safety, auditing wasteful and ideological spending, cutting NPR and PBS loose, banning gain-of-function research, and some other issues, Trump appears to be doing what his voters wanted.

But a practiced conman always looks good.

Looking good, in a con, is the entire point—otherwise you won’t con a soul. And the Deep State even has a term for the sort of con that, under the Machiavellian Hypothesis, Trump would be performing here: a ‘limited hangout.’ As Wikipedia explains, this is “a frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals.” In other words, this is a ruse “used by the CIA and other intelligence organizations” and now also a “tactic [that] has become popularized in the corporate and political spheres.”

But if this is a “frequently used gimmick”—and it is—then we have to take this question seriously:

• Is Trump conducting a profound government reform that upends the system, or is he starring in a limited-hangout con to protect that system?

In Part 1, I considered Donald Trump’s background in pro-wrestling and Reality TV, both of them entertainment forms that thrive on the kayfabe tradition.

Trump’s well-honed chops in the kayfabe domain, I have argued, make him ideal to star in the massive con envisioned in the Machiavellian Hypothesis.

But Trump’s background in kayfabe cannot—all by itself—prove that Trump the politician is a phony character in the employ of a Deep State he only pretends to oppose. To conclude any such thing definitively we’ll need a dramatic fact. That’s a technical term of mine:

If you’ve got a dramatic fact, you know your hypothesis is false.

In our case, the Innocence Hypothesis holds that Trump, being real, was the innocent victim of two genuine assassination attempts. This scenario requires President Trump to appoint to the position of Secret Service Director anyone but Sean Curran. Put another way, the appointment of Sean Curran—under the Innocence Hypothesis—is impossible.

Why that? Because Curran was the head of Trump’s personal-security detail, and he was therefore responsible for the astonishing security failures that—under the Innocence Hypothesis—almost got Trump killed.

Not once—but twice!

And yet, and yet… on January 22, 2025—just two days after his swearing-in—Trump made Curran—Curran!—Director of the Secret Service, placing his life and security as president in Curran’s hands.

Nope. If Trump is real, and so were the assassination attempts, that simply cannot happen. And yet it did. So…

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the following. Curran’s appointment is not merely impossible under the Innocence Hypothesis, it also makes perfect sense under the Machiavellian Hypothesis. That’s because, assuming that Trump is a phony and the assassination attempts were staged, as the Machiavellian Hypothesis claims, the Deep State naturally needs Curran heading the Secret Service so that he can cover up what was done. I’ve explained all this in Part 2:

I understand that lots of folks will twist themselves into pretzels to escape the logic above. They’ll say that Curran was rewarded for his ‘loyalty’ (the mainstream claim), as if that made any sense. So they’ll need more. Not a problem—I’ve got dramatic facts galore.

There will be more later (assuming we are all still here). But in this piece I’ll limit myself to one additional dramatic fact: Trump’s policy toward Iran. As I will show below, this policy, too, is impossible under the Innocence Hypothesis.

For greater clarity, here are the Middle-East policy versions of our two hypotheses:

• Innocence Hypothesis: Trump is what he claims to be: a staunch defender of Israel.
• Machiavellian Hypothesis: Trump is a Deep State phony: he is trying to destroy Israel.

To demonstrate that Trump’s policy toward Iran is another dramatic fact, I must do two things a) describe Donald Trump’s policy in strategic terms; and b) consider whether Trump’s policy, so described, fits better with the Innocence Hypothesis or the Machiavellian Hypothesis.

I make my case below.

Negotiations rather than war

As is famous, Iran is run by jihadi-terrorist bosses who seek nuclear weapons and publicly announce their intention to destroy Israel in genocide. The definitive move to protect Israel, under these circumstances, is to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—so that Iranian bosses cannot drop a nuclear bomb on Israel. For good measure, one might destroy also their oil infrastructure, to cripple their non-nuclear terrorist operations as well. This double move would almost certainly produce regime change in Iran—a long-term solution for Israel’s security.

This operation does not require the United States—except perhaps in a symbolic, supportive role—because Israel has already demonstrated its ability to take out Iran. In October 2024, Israel retaliated and took out Iran’s air defenses without losing a single jet fighter. Removing the ayatollahs would thus cost Trump and the U.S. almost nothing. All he would need to do is give Israeli bosses the green light.

That go-ahead is necessary under current conditions because Israeli bosses have amply demonstrated that they serve U.S. presidents rather than lead the Israeli people. And Trump has forbidden his Israeli servants to act.

There is no controversy on my last claim—because this is what the controlled media itself has reported as the official story. In April 2025, President Trump reportedly blocked a planned Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear sites, choosing diplomacy instead. The Israeli plan aimed to delay Iran’s nuclear progress by at least a year, but Trump opted for talks. When national security advisor Mike Waltz—who apparently believed, naively, that Trump wanted to protect Israel—communicated with Prime Minister Netanyahu about possible military action, Trump became enraged and fired Waltz. That, at any rate, is the mainstream version.

To favor negotiations with Iran—instead of allowing Israel to remove the ayatollahs from the geopolitical chessboard—amounts to the following:

• Trump is effectively saving the Iranian ayatollahs from destruction.

Since, at no cost to himself or the United States, he could have these ayatollahs removed by Israel, it appears that Trump wants the ayatollahs to survive.

The question of Iran’s ‘breakout time’ to a nuclear bomb

According to the Arms Control Association,

“[T]he U.S. intelligence community has consistently noted since 2007 [that] Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons if it chooses to do so. The U.S. intelligence community has also assessed that if Iran were to make a decision to build nuclear weapons, it is more likely that it would seek to do so by means of undeclared, secret facilities, a scenario sometimes called a ‘sneak-out.’ ”

The term ‘breakout time,’ as used by U.S. intelligence and national-security analysts, answers the following question: Once Iran begins to build a nuclear bomb, how long until it has one? More precisely: how long would it take Iran, once it begins, to produce enough highly enriched uranium (HEU)—typically 25 kilograms enriched above 90% U-235—for a single nuclear weapon?

Notice what is not included in the breakout time calculation: designing the bomb, assembling a warhead, miniaturizing it for delivery, or fitting it onto a missile. These steps are easier once the fissile core exists—and can often be done in parallel, hidden from inspectors. Breakout time focuses on enrichment because, once a State has the HEU, it’s almost impossible to stop them in time.

So, what is Iran’s breakout time today?

According to a British House of Commons briefing from October 2024 (the very same month Israel dismantled Iran’s air defenses),

“In 2022 … several analysts considered Iran’s breakout time to have reached zero.”1

One example of that is the Institute for Science and International Security, whose report from 2022 is titled: ‘Iranian Breakout Timeline Now at Zero.’2

Whatever the precise truth, the mainstream consensus today is that Iran’s breakout time is either nothing or very close to that.

Israel cannot stop a nuclear attack, if launched

Israel has impressive missile-defense systems, but recent events have repeatedly shown that it cannot intercept every missile lobbed at her. The latest demonstration came just the other day, when a missile launched by the Yemeni Houthis—a fifth-rate actor—successfully struck Ben Gurion Airport.

If nuclear warheads are included in a massive, multi-missile assault, then—sooner or later—one will get through. And that will be the end of Israel.

Trump’s demand that the entire Iranian nuclear program be dismantled

Trump claims that his objective, in negotiating with Iran, is to force the complete dismantling of her nuclear program. That’s the message he sent to the ayatollahs: nothing short of total rollback will be acceptable. Two obvious questions come to mind.

First, if that’s really the goal, then why not simply allow Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? This option costs Trump and the United States virtually nothing—and it wouldn’t just eliminate the program, it would likely remove the ayatollahs themselves.

Second, since Iranian bosses are jihadi fanatics whose whole life purpose is the genocidal destruction of Israel, then, if they believe Trump’s statements, the prospect of losing their entire nuclear program creates a clear incentive for them to hurry up, build the bomb, and drop it on Israel before Trump forces them to dismantle.

This is obvious. It follows, therefore, that Iran is now rushing to build that bomb.

Or at any rate that is what US bosses should assume. Any other reading defies strategic sense for someone who, as Trump claims about himself, means to defend Israel. Why? Because nuclear war is at stake and Iran’s breakout time is at zero or close to zero.

And yet, rather than treating Iran’s delay tactics as grounds for Israeli military action, Trump is protecting the delay. Trump is helping Iran to stall.

Which hypothesis better fits the evidence?

We have two hypotheses:

• Innocence Hypothesis: Trump is what he claims to be: a staunch defender of Israel.
• Machiavellian Hypothesis: Trump is a Deep State phony: he is trying to destroy Israel.

Now, how to reconcile the evidence considered here with the Innocence Hypothesis? We’d have to say that Trump’s national security and intelligence bureaucrats—whose professional métier is supposed to be strategic thinking, and whose attention should be dramatically sharpened by the risk of nuclear war—cannot, even so, grasp the most basic elements of strategy to advance their boss’s presumed goal: to defend Israel. In other words, Trump and everybody advising him are all imbeciles.

But if your worldview requires the most powerful people in all of history to be imbeciles, you’ve got yourself a paradox: How did perfect fools rise to such heights of power?

Lest we become fools ourselves, we must reject the assumption that US bosses are this stupid and recognize that Trump’s policy toward Iran is impossible under the Innocence Hypothesis.

The same policy is—mind you—a perfect fit to the Machiavellian Hypothesis.

We have a dramatic fact.

Why am I not considering a third hypothesis?

Some readers have asked why I don’t consider a third possibility:

• Impotence Hypothesis: Trump genuinely wants to defend Israel, but he cannot control the antisemitic Deep State.

Here’s why I reject it. If the Deep State can obstruct a sitting president’s policies, surely it can also choose the candidates—and wouldn’t that be easier? It seems far more plausible that Trump is knowingly playing his kayfabe role, which fits better with the broader context I laid out in Part 1.

But more importantly, the Impotence Hypothesis makes the same predictions as the Machiavellian Hypothesis: in both cases, the Deep State is in charge. Whether Trump is a thwarted good guy or a collaborating phony the result is the same.

We shouldn’t waste time speculating about Trump’s ‘soul.’ That’s an irrelevant distraction. What matters is the structure of power, because only by understanding that can we predict what the system will do.