“Throughout the entire period of foreign occupation, the Spanish resisted Napoleon with unwavering resolve. Day and night, behind every wall, every hill, and every tree, a Spaniard stood ready to sacrifice his own life or kill an invader. We witnessed this same indomitable spirit again during the Second World War when Hitler's armies invaded the Soviet Union. Faced with the prospect of foreign domination, its nation systematically destroyed or evacuated everything of value before the advancing enemy, including all their factories. This extreme measure was driven by a profound conviction: factories can be rebuilt; homes can be rebuilt; but national independence, once lost, is gone forever.”

- From an address by His Imperial Majesty Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shahanshah Aryamehr, delivered at the historic session of the Grand National Congress commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the White Revolution, 24 January 1973.

 

 

In June 2025, I issued two warnings predicting that the United States, Israel, and European powers were pursuing a political strategy I termed 'deception as diplomacy'.[1] I coined this phrase to describe a pattern where diplomatic overtures concealed a calculated ruse, an effort to mislead the Islamic Regime. The objective was to mask military preparations behind a negotiating smokescreen, enabling an assault on Iran while the regime, lulled by false dialogue, remained unprepared to defend itself.

 

The first warning on 12 June cautioned that war with Iran was imminent. I exposed Donald Trump’s sham diplomacy, a facade of deception enabling Israel’s devastating surprise attack, which killed key Revolutionary Guards commanders and crippled Iran’s air defences.

 

On 20 June, I predicted Washington would redeploy this strategy, now with European backing. The result: strikes on nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. While these attacks scarred Iran’s landscape, they failed to inflict any actual harm on the regime’s nuclear programme, as enriched uranium had already been relocated to hidden sites. Trump, ever the pathological narcissist craving spectacle, nevertheless claimed victory, defying reality.

 

However, current evidence suggests this strategy is now being redeployed but at catastrophic scale, a campaign poised to achieve not just the Islamic Regime’s overthrow, but Iran’s fragmentation into client statelets under foreign hegemony.

 

Today (7th July), Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington confirms the reactivation of this tactical ploy. On this occasion, framed as a 'peace mission' for Gaza, the spectacle is merely theatrical posturing; albeit token ceasefire discussions may partially placate Arab nations of the Persian Gulf and wider Middle East region whose governments stand condemned for their cooperation with, in fact subservience to, Israel. The underlying reality, however, is starkly revealed by the slogan 'Total Victory' emblazoned upon his cap, a phrase deliberately imported to America, inherently antithetical to compromise. Its very display demonstrates that Netanyahu seeks neither peace with Palestinians nor cessation of hostilities in Gaza, for were this his objective, he would not have chosen such insignia. Consequently, this diplomatic engagement must be understood in connection with Iran, pursued under the guise of negotiations concerning Gaza.

 

The rationale for this interpretation merits examination.

 

 

1. THE TOTAL VICTORY

“Total Victory” is neither a strategy (militarily nor politically), nor does it prescribe a defined operational plan. Rather, it is a political term, a statement of strategic intent, signifying the unconditional defeat of the adversary and the comprehensive destruction of their capacity to resist or recover. It describes a final, absolute outcome that explicitly rejects any form of compromise or negotiation.

 

The expression first entered political and military discourse between 1916 and 1918, during the latter stages of the First World War, when it was promoted in France by Raymond Poincaré and Georges Clemenceau (notoriously known as “The Tiger”), who demanded Germany’s erasure from history.

 

It later fuelled the Allied crusade in WWII, not to defeat the Axis, but to grind their institutions, economies, and souls to dust. The term became embedded in the strategic vocabulary of the Allied crusade in WWII, when the Allied powers sought not merely to defeat the Axis Powers (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan) militarily, but to ensure their complete and irreversible destruction.

 

Historically, wherever this term has been employed, it has implied an ambition that far exceeds conventional military or political victory. It denotes the wholesale dismantling of a nation: the eradication not only of its government or armed forces, but of its institutional structures, ideological foundations, economic potential, national morale, and, often, its cultural identity.

 

 

2. NETANYAHU AND THE WARMONGERING SLOGAN

Netanyahu’s flaunting of this phrase at a “peace” summit is sadistic irony. If Gaza were the objective, ‘Total Victory’ would be obscene. No leader peddles peace while advertising genocide.

 

Thus: the cap’s message is the mission. This visit finalises Iran’s planned obliteration across air, land, and sea, a genocidal blueprint signed in the Oval Office.

 

Meanwhile, the noose tightens:

• The US aircraft carriers Carl Vinson, Nimitz, and Gerald R. Ford are present in the region to bolster American naval firepower in the Middle East in recent weeks;

• Australian special forces are reportedly embedded with Azerbaijani units near Iran’s vulnerable East and West Azerbaijan provinces;

• The United Kingdom has deployed RAF fast jets and aerial refuelling assets to the region, primarily for defending Israel and contingency operations;

• European Union naval forces, under Operation Aspides, remain active in the Red Sea, tasked with protecting Israeli ships;

• Turkish armour masses in the Nakhchivan corridor, poised to strike towards Tabriz and Urmia;

• Saudi Arabia locks its air defences onto Iranian nuclear and military coordinates;

• Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE have activated civil-defence protocols. Measures include emergency shelters, limited public movement orders, and precautionary restrictions on domestic air travel;

• Bahrain has directed most government employees to work remotely and increased national security measures;

• Kuwait's Defence Council has entered permanent session;

• NATO’s dagger presses closer: French Rafale fighters, though incompetent yet superior to Iran’s aged Air Force, perch in Oman aboard the Charles de Gaulle; British-Dutch warships flood the Persian Gulf; American B-52s, those ageing heralds of annihilation, nest in Qatar;

• German Typhoons join Turkish air patrols surveilling Iran’s Kurdish borderlands;

• Mossad and CIA-nurtured separatists, branded ‘freedom fighters’ by Western media, activate sleeper cells in Iranian provinces of East and West Azerbaijan, Sistan and Baluchestan, Kurdistan, and oil-rich Khuzestan;

• The rebranded ISIS regime in Syria, now openly operating as a Western-Israeli proxy, is preparing to deploy jihadist cadres through Iraq’s Anbar Province and the Turkish border, replicating the carnage previously inflicted on Iraq and Syria.[2]

 

 

3. THE ACT BEHIND THE CURTAIN

The term ‘Total Victory’ transcends warfare. It is not diplomacy. It is not regime change, as some Iranians desperately, if naively, hope. It is encirclement. It is a national death warrant: unconditional defeat, the systematic eradication of a nation’s capacity to exist. It demands abject surrender and spurns dialogue.

 

The slogan ‘Total Victory’ is a covenant with historical darkness, signalling Iran’s planned extinction, the culmination of a strategy purportedly authored by Bernard Lewis in 1973, which catalysed the fall of Iran’s Imperial government and installed this totalitarian theocratic regime in 1979.

 

The Bernard Lewis Plan and Its Stages:

a) The rise of Islamic governments throughout the Middle East;

b) Creating ethnic lines and initiating and fuelling sectarian and ethnic divisions being exacerbated (e.g., Sunni vs. Shia, Arab vs. Iranians, Turk vs. Kurd, etc);

c) Destabilisation of their puppet governments (through war, insurgency, or political unrest);

d) Redrawing of national boundaries into smaller, weaker states (e.g., a divided Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan).

 

This blueprint directly paved the way for Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ‘Arch of Crisis’ doctrine (1978-1979), which weaponised Islamic fundamentalism to fracture Soviet influence. It later evolved into the core strategy of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC, 1997-2006), advocating regime change and military hegemony across the Middle East.

 

Now, we witness the final stage: the Balkanisation of Iran. Disturbingly, Netanyahu himself has signalled that Pakistan is next in line, naturally followed by Saudi Arabia. Therefore, neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia should feel secure; history records how both West and East have consumed their own Middle Eastern allies.

 

 

​

 

 

4. WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Since 1979, with the establishment of a theocratic authoritarian regime in Iran, successive Western governments have deliberately refrained from adopting measures that might lead to its complete collapse. This restraint was not borne of ideological alignment but stemmed from a cold and strategic calculus: the regime functioned as a regional scarecrow, a useful instrument for suppressing nationalist uprisings, deterring the expansion of Soviet or Chinese influence, and maintaining a manageable balance of hostilities.

 

Similarly, neither Moscow nor Beijing has ever viewed the Islamic regime as a genuine ally or a sovereign actor in its own right. From their perspective, it has always been a geopolitical aberration, an artefact of Western engineering later abandoned to serve as a mechanism of controlled disorder. Their engagement with Tehran has consistently been transactional: Iran has not been considered a trustworthy partner but rather a geographic corridor, a pressure valve, and a buffer state. Like the West, their objective has been containment, not solidarity. For over four decades, the regime has endured not as an independent actor, but as a pawn in a larger contest, a tool to all, yet owned by none.

 

These dynamics reflect a long-standing geopolitical calculation: to preserve Iran in a state of constrained functionality, not fully aligned, nor entirely dismantled, as a permanent and pliable buffer zone.

 

However, the twelve-day confrontation between two murderous regimes, Zionist and Islamist, signals a shift in the West’s strategic posture. While the Islamic regime’s usefulness may not yet be regarded as entirely obsolete by the West or Israel, and may still retain some residual strategic utility, it is increasingly acknowledged as a construct that has mutated into an unpredictable, audacious, and largely ungovernable force. Notably, certain factions within the regime, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have begun to act in ways that appear to undermine the interests of their original architects. As such, the West no longer perceives the regime as a whole to be a strategic asset, but rather as a liability. Its removal is therefore not viewed as a rupture with prior policy, but as the logical culmination thereof. In this context, a figurative “kill switch” appears to have been activated.

 

Although this development aligns with long-standing strategic considerations, as outlined in the Bernard Lewis Plan, such a termination was perhaps not intended to occur at this particular historical juncture, its projected expiry may have been envisioned to occur four to five years later, at a time when Israel would have completed the displacement or elimination of the entire Palestinian population, whether through forced migration to neighbouring countries or, more drastically, through acts of genocide, thereby consolidating a fully Judaicised state.

 

However, it appears that the acceleration of the regime’s decline has been driven not only by the defiance of certain internal elements against the West, but also by the ascent of China as a global superpower, one with the potential capacity to absorb the remnants of the Islamic regime into its own strategic sphere of influence. As a result, Western anxiety is likely rooted in the possibility that, rather than collapsing outright, the regime may re-emerge in a new form, whether ideological or structural, within Beijing’s geopolitical orbit. In such a scenario, Iran would no longer function as a pliable buffer within Western containment frameworks, but could instead evolve into a regional actor akin to North Korea in the Middle East, advancing China's strategic interests. This would constitute a fundamental threat to the existing balance of power, both regionally and globally.

 

Meanwhile, the Iranian nation has, over forty-six years of authoritarian rule, endured persistently, at times acquiescing to the continued existence of this Western-engineered scarecrow. While systemic violence persisted, much of the population remained silent, not out of moral indifference, but as a consequence of relentless psychological warfare: systematic fear, ideological indoctrination, and the deliberate erosion of civic awareness. This inculcated passivity, not wilful complicity, enabled the regime’s survival and brought the country to the brink of ruin. Yet the silence that once ensured survival now heralds destruction. This time, silence will not preserve lives, it will extinguish them, along with the nation itself.

 

Thus, in order to prevent further bloodshed and the annihilation of Iran, only two courses of action remain.

 

4a. The Inescapable Dilemma: When Revolution Is Necessary but Nearly Impossible

Throughout history, totalitarian regimes have survived existential crises by exploiting war to tighten their grip, framing dissent as treason and cloaking repression in patriotism. Iran is no different. In the face of looming war and encirclement, the regime will intensify its hold on the population. Individuals, confronted by food insecurity, bombardment, and surveillance, will prioritise survival over sacrifice. In such conditions, revolution appears not only unlikely, but structurally paralysed.

 

Compounding this is the regime’s long-cultivated psychological war: decades of indoctrination have taught Iranians to distrust any opposition, especially when framed, deliberately, by state propaganda as agents of foreign aggression. The people are trapped in a psychological siege, unable to distinguish enemy from liberator, and trained to equate protest with national betrayal.

 

And yet: inaction is now a fatal choice. Silence, once a survival strategy, will this time bring ruin. As Western powers activate their 'kill switch', Iran stands to lose not only its regime, but its territorial integrity, its cultural identity, and its future as a unified nation. The regime will fall, either by external design or domestic upheaval, but only the latter offers the chance of national survival.

 

Hence the paradox: revolution is nearly impossible, but still essential. The nation must rise not because it is ready, but because no alternative remains. In the absence of a domestic rupture, foreign-engineered disintegration will proceed unchecked. What once seemed inconceivable must now become inevitable. To reclaim Iran, the impossible must be made real.

 

 

4b. The Controversial Imperative

As the West activates its “kill switch,” the regime itself becomes disposable. No longer a scarecrow, it is now a target, an expendable mechanism in a wider plan for national collapse. But the annihilation of the Islamic regime will not distinguish between state and nation. The planned obliteration is total: infrastructure, territory, population cohesion, cultural continuity.

 

In this context, even the regime’s continued existence becomes perversely entangled with national survival. Iran’s nuclear capability, long suppressed, long feared, may now represent the final shield between the nation and its total erasure. The bomb, once an emblem of regime survival, is transformed into a national deterrent.

 

This does not absolve the regime. It does not justify its crimes. But it recognises a grim convergence: The Islamic regime has never been a sovereign entity; it was a Western-constructed puppet, imposed upon Iran in 1979 to displace its constitutional state and restrain its strategic autonomy. The former imperial government posed a direct challenge to Western and Israeli interests in the region, and thus had to be removed. For over four decades, the theocracy was preserved not for its legitimacy, but for its function, as a regional scarecrow, a justification for sanctions, and a pretext for foreign intervention.

 

Now, like all puppets whose usefulness has expired, it is to be discarded. Its downfall is not a moral reckoning for its crimes, but a bureaucratic liquidation, like Saddam Hussein in 2003 or Pinochet in 1988. Each was nurtured, armed, and legitimised by foreign powers, despite their genocidal brutality. And yet, when they outlived their strategic value, their atrocities, long tolerated or even enabled, were suddenly repurposed as pretexts for intervention. One was hanged after a show trial; the other imprisoned, then quietly released before death. The West that built them now claimed to destroy them in the name of humanity.

 

The Islamic regime’s operatives now face the same fate: not for insubordination, but for obsolescence. They were installed to serve, not to survive. And having done the bidding of their patrons for nearly half a century, they are to be erased, under the same banner of false humanitarianism that once shielded them.

 

And herein lies the dangerous convergence: though illegitimate and despised, it is not the regime’s survival that matters, but that of its leadership and inner circle, now tethered, however perversely, to the survival of the Iranian nation itself. If the regime is overthrown under foreign bombardment, the outcome will not be liberty, but national disintegration: Balkanisation, civil war, and irreversible fragmentation.

 

In such conditions, a nuclear deterrent, however bitter its provenance, may now constitute Iran’s final shield. Not as a weapon of conquest or coercion, as wielded by the West or Russia, but as the sole barrier against external decapitation. The theocracy will fall; it must. But the nation must first survive the storm scripted for its destruction.

 

Yet there is another solution.

 

 

5. THE STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE: WHY A UNIFIED IRAN SERVES THE WEST

To Israel and the United States, this path of annihilation is not merely immoral, it is strategically catastrophic. Balkanising Iran ignores a profound geopolitical truth: a democratic, sovereign Iran is your natural ally. Consider the alternatives:

a) The Iranian Exception

Unlike neighbouring Arab states and Turkey, where anti-Western animus is culturally entrenched, Iranians harbour zero innate hostility toward Jewish or Western societies. Suppress the regime, not the nation. Their 7,000-year civilisation, the Middle East’s most intellectually advanced and pluralistic, is primed for democratic transformation.

 

b) The Bulwark Against Eurasia

A unified Iran anchors regional stability. It secures energy corridors, counters Russian expansionism in the Caucasus, and blocks Chinese hegemony over Central Asia. Fragmenting Iran surrenders this pivotal territory to chaos, a constellation of failed states exploited by Moscow and Beijing.

 

c) The Permanent Chaos Alternative

'Total Victory' guarantees perpetual conflict: ethnic militias, jihadist resurgence, refugee floods, and nuclear proliferation. Yet a democratic Iran, drawing from 7,000 years of statecraft, becomes your indispensable partner, containing threats you cannot reach.

 

This can be achieved only if Israelis and Western powers execute a U-turn, rejecting neoconservatives, ultra-Zionists, and the Bernard Lewis Plan’s destructive legacy, by empowering the Iranian nation to topple the regime itself. Not with bombs, terrorist proxies, or the false pretext of 'freedom' that razed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. But by unleashing Iran’s own civilisational force: removing barriers to national revolt (including the shadow of war) and enabling Iranians to reclaim their destiny.

 

This would not only save the West and Israel but offer redemption for crimes committed against the Iranian nation, chiefly, toppling its Imperial Government in 1979 and installing the current tyrannical regime.

 

CHOOSE WISELY. Annihilate Iran and inherit its fires. Or empower its people to forge the ultimate bulwark for your security.

 

​

 

Footnote:

1, I use the term “Deception as Diplomacy” to refer to a strategic approach in which states or diplomats deliberately deploy misinformation, misdirection, or concealment in order to achieve political objectives, particularly to obscure intentions related to confrontation or war. This practice involves presenting a carefully constructed image, intention, or policy to international actors that is intentionally misleading, thereby placing the adversary in a false sense of security and peace, unaware of what is imminently unfolding. In summary, “Deception as Diplomacy” describes a mode of diplomatic conduct not genuinely aimed at peace or compromise, but rather employed as a tactical means to mislead, delay, or obscure the state’s true strategic objectives in pursuit of national interest.

 

2, Claims that ISIS/ISIL originated as a Western-Israeli proxy force have circulated for years. While this article does not analyse the group's origins, declassified documents and official admissions reveal a pattern of enabling Salafi-jihadists to target adversarial regimes:

A. U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Report (2012):

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch. States Western/Gulf allies sought to establish a 'Salafist principality in eastern Syria' to isolate Assad.

(Link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf)

 

B. Joe Biden (2014):

Admitted U.S. allies 'poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, including Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda.'

(Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H6O2YQJ4w&t=6360s [Quote at 1:46:00])

 

C. Gen. Michael Flynn (2015):

Former DIA Director confirmed a 'willful decision' to arm Syrian rebels despite extremist ties.

(Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/7/8/us-generals-2012-warning-on-syria-rebels)

 

D. The New York Times (2013):

Documented CIA programme 'Timber Sycamore' arming Syrian rebels.

(Link: https://archive.ph/20130622001948/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html)

 

E. The Wall Street Journal (2017):

Reported Israel treated 1,000+ wounded Syrians near Golan border, including fighters.

(Link: https://archive.ph/9Vw0e [Archived version of WSJ article 'Israel Gives Secret Aid to Syrian Rebels'])

 

F. United Nations UNDOF Report (2014):

Noted 'contacts between IDF and armed members of the opposition' in Golan Heights (Para. 28).

(Link: https://undocs.org/S/2014/859)

 

G. Operation Cyclone:

CIA programme (1979–1989) arming Afghan mujahideen, including future al-Qaeda founders.

(Source: Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, Penguin, 2004, pp. 87–93.)

 

A. U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Report (2012):

Obtained via FOIA by Judicial Watch. States Western/Gulf allies sought to establish a 'Salafist principality in eastern Syria' to isolate Assad.

(Link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf)

 

B. Joe Biden (2014):

Admitted U.S. allies 'poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, including Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda.'

(Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H6O2YQJ4w&t=6360s [Quote at 1:46:00])

 

C. Gen. Michael Flynn (2015):

Former DIA Director confirmed a 'wilful decision' to arm Syrian rebels despite extremist ties.

(Link: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/7/8/us-generals-2012-warning-on-syria-rebels)

 

D. The New York Times (2013):

Documented CIA programme 'Timber Sycamore' arming Syrian rebels.

(Link: https://archive.ph/20130622001948/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html)

 

E. The Wall Street Journal (2017):

Reported Israel treated 1,000+ wounded Syrians near Golan border, including fighters.

(Link: https://archive.ph/9Vw0e [Archived version of WSJ article 'Israel Gives Secret Aid to Syrian Rebels'])

 

F. United Nations UNDOF Report (2014):

Noted 'contacts between IDF and armed members of the opposition' in Golan Heights (Para. 28).

(Link: https://undocs.org/S/2014/859)

 

G. Operation Cyclone:

CIA programme (1979–1989) arming Afghan mujahideen, including future al-Qaeda founders.

(Source: Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, Penguin, 2004, pp. 87–93.)'

 

H. Seymour Hersh, 'The Red Line and the Rat Line' (London Review of Books, 2014)

Investigates covert CIA operations in Syria (codenamed 'the rat line'), detailing collaboration between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to funnel weapons from Libya to Syrian rebels, including extremist factions.

(Link: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n08/seymour-m.-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)

 

I. Dominic Tierney, 'Did the U.S. Help Create ISIS?' (The Atlantic, 2015)

Analyses the role of U.S. policy (e.g., Iraq War destabilisation, support for Syrian rebels) in creating conditions for ISIL's emergence, while rejecting direct creation claims.

(Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/did-the-united-states-create-isis/384503/)

 

J. Joby Warrick, Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS (Doubleday, 2016)

Pulitzer-winning account tracing ISIL’s origins to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, documenting how U.S. occupation of Iraq and Syria’s civil war fuelled its rise. Based on intelligence sources.

 

K. Patrick Cockburn, The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution (Verso Books, 2015)

Contends Western interventions (Iraq invasion, Syria policy) and regional sectarianism directly enabled ISIL’s explosive growth.

 

L. Michael Weiss & Hassan Hassan, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror (Regan Arts, 2015)

Examines ISIL’s structure, ideology, and exploitation of Syrian chaos, noting Western/Gulf policy oversights in arming rebels.

 

M. RAND Corporation Reports on Syria (2014–2016)

U.S. strategic errors in Syria, including proxy warfare complexities and unintended empowerment of jihadist groups.

Notable Title: 'Unravelling the Syria Mess: Lessons from Past Conflicts'

(Link: https://www.rand.org)