By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The escalating Middle East crisis presents a significant challenge to the prevailing approach of taking President Trump “seriously, but not literally.” Following Israel’s strike on the South Pars gas field and Iran’s retaliation, Trump initially claimed ignorance while US officials stated he was aware and approved the operation. His subsequent threat to destroy Iran’s entire South Pars Gas Field if further retaliation occurred has sent energy markets soaring and global stock markets plummeting, indicating the war is becoming increasingly real. The article suggests that Trump, potentially losing control of the conflict, may be seeking scapegoats, even turning on allies like Israel to deflect blame for a war his base opposes.
Read the original article here
The assertion that Donald Trump either lost control of Israel or is lying, a sentiment echoing across various discussions, invites a deep dive into the nature of his relationship with the Israeli government and his consistent pattern of communication. It’s not a question of one or the other, but rather the strong likelihood that both are true, intertwined and reinforcing each other. The idea that Trump ever held “control” over Israel in the first place seems to be the most significant misapprehension.
The overwhelming consensus suggests that Trump was never in a position of command regarding Israel. Instead, the dynamic was, and likely remains, the reverse. Many believe Israel, and specifically figures like Benjamin Netanyahu, held the reins, skillfully manipulating Trump through flattery and appeals to his ego. The notion of “rubbing Trump’s back and telling him what a big boy he is” captures this perceived method of influence, where stroking his self-importance yielded desired actions.
Furthermore, the recurring theme is that Trump’s statements about his influence are simply untrue. He is perceived as a pathological liar, with many believing every word he utters is a fabrication. This inherent dishonesty colors any claim of his authority or control. When he speaks of having a handle on Israel, the immediate reaction from many is that he is lying, as this has never been the reality.
The idea of Trump being “bought and paid for by Israel” or that “Israel controls him” resurfaces frequently. This isn’t necessarily about direct financial transactions, but more about a perceived subservience, where Israel’s agenda dictates his actions. The comparison to Netanyahu playing Trump “like a fiddle” or Trump being played by figures like Putin illustrates this belief in his susceptibility to external influence and manipulation.
The concept of “control of Israel” itself is framed as a “wild fantasy” or a “fool’s errand.” The resources and influence Israel wields, coupled with its long-standing diplomatic strategies, suggest it’s far more likely to be the manipulator than the manipulated. The idea that America’s resources, including its military and financial aid, are consistently directed towards supporting Israel, while domestic needs are neglected, fuels this perception of an unbalanced relationship.
The question of “when did Trump have control over Israel?” is posed rhetorically, highlighting the lack of any credible evidence to support such a claim. Instead, the narrative points to a history of Israel leveraging U.S. administrations for its objectives, with Trump being a particularly amenable and easily influenced figure. His willingness to align with Israel’s policies, even when they seem to contradict American interests, reinforces the idea that he was a willing participant in a pre-existing dynamic, not its architect.
The possibility of blackmail or leverage also emerges as a potential factor in explaining Trump’s perceived subservience. Mentions of his past actions, such as putting his hand near a minor, suggest that compromising information could exist and be used by intelligence agencies like Mossad to ensure his compliance. This adds another layer to the idea that he is not in control, but rather beholden.
Ultimately, the most cohesive interpretation is that both propositions are simultaneously true: Trump is lying about any purported control he had, and he never actually had control to begin with. His constant fabrications serve to mask this lack of influence, while Israel and its allies continue to pursue their agenda with a compliant, albeit manipulated, American president. The perceived “loss of control” is not a recent development but a continuation of a long-standing pattern where the tail has always wagged the dog, and Trump’s pronouncements are merely a reflection of his persistent dishonesty. The media’s tendency to treat these claims with a “kiddie glove” approach only further perpetuates the misperception of his actual standing.