Why Now BiBi?

Are Israeli missile attacks on Iran just another reckless maneuver driven by an ultra-zionist ideology? Watch the widely banned documentary "The Bibi Files" for more answers.

Last week Israel launched a series of attacks on Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, as well as military installations and top military figures. The attacks focused on Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and related infrastructure. Subsequent strikes targeted Iran's energy industry and government buildings.

Israel has long considered Iran as an existential threat to their existence. But why attack a country of 92 million people with formidable resources and military capacity some six hundred days into a shock-and-awe campaign in Gaza which has also spilled over into the southern regions of Lebanon?

Why now?

As recently as March of this year, Director of National Intelligence, Democratic party defector turned Trump loyalist, Tulsi Gabbard stressed in Congressional testimony that the Intelligence Community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

What changed?

As far as I can tell nothing has changed, except for President Trump’s mind about what his own Intelligence agencies are reporting. When pressed earlier this week Trump responded,

“I don’t care what she [Gabbard] said.”

In his view, per reporting from PBS, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb. Trump went further than offering PM Netanyahu a nod of support, posting that same day:

We have control over Iranian skies? Who is we? The U.S. or Israel? Is there really any difference? And then:

Our country is demanding an unconditional surrender from the Iranian government now? What would that look like? Presumably our President is demanding that Iran completely surrender their nuclear weapons development programs, or else.

Our country has been in possession of nuclear weapons for eighty years. We have thought it sensible that only we can have them but no one else can. By “we” we mean us, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

Is this really a sensible strategy in the long run? For how long will the rest of the world continue to accede to this asymmetric balance of power? What would be their incentive? There isn’t one so we, the only country that has ever deployed atomic weapons upon human beings (mainly civilians) fabricate one: comply or be economically or militarily annihilated.

That isn’t an incentive. It is an ultimatum. Ultimatums may result in compliance for a while, but they will stoke animosity. Unless there comes a time when countries in possession of nuclear arms unilaterally disarm, this technology, older than that of transistor radios, will eventually end up in the hands of countries who will undoubtedly regard us as enemies. Ultimately that’s what happens when you issue ultimatums.

But compliance isn’t a choice either. Iran doesn’t have to look back too far into the past to see how “we” treated the last regime that complied with our demands.

In 2003 amidst economic pressure and the threat of military action then Libyan leader, Mohammar Gaddafi, agreed to dismantle his nuclear weapons program. Eight years later NATO intervened in a civil war in that country citing possible crimes against humanity, setting up a (guess what) ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya and eventually ended up launching over 7000 bombing sorties against Gaddafi’s forces.

I will refrain from posting any images depicting how Libya’s leader was eventually “deposed”. Some of you may remember that it didn’t go so well for him. That’s what can happen when you drop your weapon. Why then would Iran drop theirs?

If NATO “intervened” in Libya on the suspicion of crimes against humanity where have they been for the last 600 some days in Gaza?

The Bibi Files

Is Israel acting out of self-preservation or is it picking a fight knowing the United States of America, its protector, will step in if things get rough?

There are large incentives to make war, all of them for a trillion dollar industry and none for the people of this planet. War also typically catapults leaders into instantaneous favorability status among their citizens.

The Bibi Files (←link to film in entirety) is a 2024 film by Alex Bloom which ultimately argues that PM Netanyahu has adopted increasingly right-wing ideology and strategy during his present tenure primarily because he is trying to avoid jail time for corruption charges (bribery, fraud and breach of trust) leveled against him in 2019 following police investigations beginning in 2016.

In order to stay out of jail he must stay in power. The allegations against him destroyed his support from his more moderate base forcing him to ally with radical right figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Yoel Smotrich.

Ben-Gvir publicly called for the assassination of former Israeli PM and ambassador to the U.S., Yitzhak Rabin three weeks before he was shot dead in 1995. Rabin was elected in 1992 on a platform which embraced the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Ben-Gvir is presently serving as Bibi’s Defense Minister.

Smotrich is widely considered a Jewish terrorist in Israel for suspected activities going back to 2005. He has publicly called for brutal responses to Palestinian protests and expansion of West Bank settlements.

Netanyahu appointed Smotrich as his Finance Minister.

Is Netanyahu’s brutal decimation of Gaza and now unprovoked attack on Iran an effort to protect the state of Israel? Or is he actually using the IDF to keep the region in a perpetual state of instability so that he can retain the support of the radical right, stay in power and out of jail?

Wealthy and powerful people often resort to lying, bribing, countersuing and blackmailing to stay out of the slammer.

But could a person go so far as to jeopardize the security of his own country and peace in the region to avoid paying the price for past transgressions?

You’ll have to watch the film to decide for yourself. Filmmaker Alex Bloom includes many segments of leaked police interrogation videos where key figures in the investigation give candid accounts of how the Prime Minister and his wife, Sara conducted themselves at home and in public.

You will hear from an Israeli media magnate, a campaign manager, investigative journalists, Netanyahu household attendants and Bibi childhood chums. You will also hear what Israeli billionaire businessman, Hollywood film producer and former spy, Arnon Milchan has to say about his cozy relationship with the Israeli first family.

Also featured are statements from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, the multi-billionaire casino mogul couple who have made staggering contributions to American politicians. Miriam Adelson notably donated 100 million dollars to Trump’s most recent Presidential campaign.

How to Contextualize the present situation

Are the allegations against the Israeli PM substantiated? Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit thought there was enough evidence to bring charges against the most powerful Prime Minister in his country’s history while he was in office in 2019.

High ranking political figures are seldom held to any accountability in this country for a number of reasons, including the rampant use of Presidential pardons. Party leaders protect their own, and few insiders ever suffer more than a slap on the wrist.

Israel’s judicial system, to their credit, has a history of holding powerful people accountable with jail time, including former PMs like Ehud Olmert. That’s what can happen when a democracy has a real balance of power between the branches of government.

Bibi regained power in 2022 without yet having to testify in his own defense. Several months later, presiding over his new right-wing coalition government, his administration passed the “reasonableness law” which removed the power of the Supreme Court (and lower courts) to cancel government decisions deemed "extremely unreasonable".

According to the BBC, Netanyahu further wished to:

• Weaken the power of the Supreme Court to review or throw out laws, enabling a simple majority of one in the Knesset (parliament) to overrule such decisions, although Mr Netanyahu has said he will not proceed with this particular reform

• Have a decisive say over who becomes a judge, including in the Supreme Court, by increasing its representation on the committee which appoints them

• Scrap the requirement for ministers to obey the advice of their legal advisers - guided by the attorney general - which they currently have to do by law

PM Netanyahu assured the public that none of these reforms had anything to do with the fact that he was facing indictment charges at the time.

Critics properly regarded the Reasonableness Law as a massive overreach of the executive office of the Israeli government. What else if not the Supreme Court could stand in the way of extreme decisions and actions taken by the state? Repercussions from the radical reform were very soon to be seen.

The law and suggested reforms were still being hotly protested when something terrible happened. On October 7, 2023 armed Hamas militias penetrated security checkpoints and highly defended walls at the periphery of the Gaza strip killing innocent Israelis and taking hostages. This of course led to the horrific response still in progress nearly two years later.

Human rights groups around the world and United Nations’ International Court of Justice continues to regard the Israeli response as illegal under international law.

Were the events of October 7 allowed to happen on purpose?

That was the conclusion I came to just days after the event. My suspicions were backed by an Israeli journalist and ex-IDF soldier who served at the border with Gaza in the past, Efrat Fenigson, who quickly summarized:

• It is absurd that an attack of this magnitude could have been planned and executed without IDF detection.

• Hamas breached the border with Israel in fifteen different places. Surely one of the incursions would have triggered an immediate and automatic response.

• Border patrols say that they attempted to report the attack up the chain of command but their calls were not answered.

• Israeli fighter pilots tweeted that they had engaged Hamas fighters yet people on the ground saw no evidence of this anywhere in the skies.

• For months a former Israeli general had been warning the government that defensive forces at the border were inadequate. His warnings went unheeded and he was shadow-banned by Israeli media.

• If their intention was to leverage the release of Hamas prisoners, it would make far more sense to capture Israeli citizens, not kill them too. What was the real intent of such acts if not to instigate a devastating response from Israel?

The event had eerie similarities to an unimaginable terrorist attack on the United States: the 9/11 Attacks. I outlined the commonalities in this article from October 12, 2023:

Now, 21 months later the event can be placed in a nearly identical context.

• A radical islamic terrorist organization (Al Qaeda/Hamas) with no sophisticated weaponry overcomes a highly protected area (NYC, Pentagon/Gaza border) and causes horrific damage and loss of life.

• There is little to no strategic value to the aggressors in this action because an exaggerated response would have been easily predicted.

• The action leads to an all out invasion of another territory (Gaza/Afghanistan) which possessed little to no defensive capabilities.

• The search for the perpetrators remained/remains fruitless for months and years.

• A recently elected administration with right leaning ideology brandishes power with the outbreak of conflict.

• Then the public is told that yet another country (Iraq/Iran) are in possession of WMDs requiring an immediate response before they can be deployed against us.

• Further destabilization of the Middle East ensues leading to prolonged conflict.

Public programming has been consistent following terrorist attacks using a false dichotomy:

BiBi in 1983 following the terrorist bombing of US Embassy in Beruit, Lebanon

“In the question of terrorism there is no neutrality. There is no position of magisterial objectivity between good and evil. You have to choose. You are either with the terrorists or you are against them”

President George W Bush in the days following the 9/11 attacks:

“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

The 9/11 misdirection will always be the most obvious example of the conspiracies conducted by authorities against the people they are charged to protect.

To those of you who are able to see that things didn’t add up during the early days of the pandemic, I assure you that seeing through the deception behind the 9/11 story is far more obvious. Here is a good place to start:

You now have a choice to make.

You are either with the narrative or you are with the evidence.

Please leave your comments.