Blood Libel #29 | “Israel has dragged the U.S. into 5 wars and has cried wolf about Iran for 30 years.”
Anti-Zionist:
Israel has gotten us into five wars and has been saying Iran is five years away from a nuke for three decades. They lie to push us into war.
Pro-Zionist:
Let’s unpack that. Can you name the five wars you believe Israel dragged the U.S. into?
(They’ll likely mention Iraq, Syria, maybe Afghanistan, and vaguely allude to American involvement in the region.)
Pro-Zionist:
Here’s the reality:
The U.S. went to war in Iraq in 1991 and 2003 based on American intelligence and interests — oil, regional stability, and WMDs. Israel warned against removing Saddam in 2003, fearing it would empower Iran.
The war in Afghanistan followed 9/11 — it had nothing to do with Israel.
As for Syria and Libya, those were civil wars. The U.S. was hardly dragged in, and Israel didn’t even participate.
So where’s the evidence that Israel “dragged” America into anything?
Now let’s address Iran.
Anti-Zionist:
They’ve said Iran is five years away from a bomb for 30 years!
Pro-Zionist:
And Iran has been five years away from a bomb for 30 years — because international pressure and sabotage have delayed it. That doesn’t mean the threat wasn’t real.
Iran was caught secretly enriching uranium multiple times.
The IAEA has confirmed noncompliance and undeclared sites.
Israeli intelligence helped expose Project Amad, Iran’s nuclear weapons development plan.
Iran’s leadership openly says “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”, and funds terror groups from Lebanon to Gaza.
When someone tells you their plan is to destroy you — and builds the tools to do it — believing them isn’t hysteria. It’s survival.
Israel didn’t cry wolf. It sounded the alarm, and that’s why Iran doesn’t have a bomb yet.
Did you know Israel is one of the only countries that’s actually done something to delay Iran’s nuclear program?
In 2010, Israel (with likely U.S. support) reportedly deployed the Stuxnet computer virus, which sabotaged thousands of Iranian centrifuges by making them self-destruct — without firing a single shot.
Israeli intelligence has publicly exposed stolen Iranian documents detailing secret nuclear weapons work (Project Amad).
Multiple mysterious explosions and assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and facilities have been attributed to Israeli covert operations — all aimed at slowing Iran’s progress.
If Israel had stood by while Iran enriched uranium and plotted genocide, it would be condemned for inaction. But when it takes covert, targeted steps to delay a nuclear-armed theocracy, it’s accused of warmongering? The inconsistency reveals the bias.
Sounds like the problem isn’t what Israel does — it’s that Israel exists.
Anti-Zionist:
The last time we listened to Netanyahu, we got into a trillion-dollar war in Iraq based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. And now he’s doing it again with Iran. How many more American lives and dollars are we supposed to spend for Israel?
Pro-Zionist:
Let’s unpack that.
Did Israel “drag” the U.S. into the Iraq War? No.
Did Netanyahu invent the WMD intelligence? No.
Did Israel even benefit from the war? Not at all. In fact, many Israeli officials warned that toppling Saddam Hussein would empower Iran. And they were right.
BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS
This libel isn’t really about counting wars. It’s about smuggling in a deeper accusation: that Jewish self-defense is inherently dangerous, manipulative, or disloyal. It casts Israeli warnings as scheming, Israeli strength as provocative, and Israeli restraint as suspicious. It’s not a policy critique. It’s a recycled slander wrapped in modern language.
Few libels are as dangerous as this one. It implies that Jewish warnings are manipulation, that Jewish defense is aggression, and that Jewish survival is a threat to peace. This blood libel repackages medieval slander in modern geopolitical terms—and it does so by inverting cause and effect.
The truth? Iran has been the aggressor for over 40 years. Israel has been the one sounding the alarm—and restraining itself from all-out war far longer than any other nation would in the face of open existential threats.
They’ve Been Saying That for 30 Years — Because It’s Been True
The idea that “Iran has been five years away from a bomb since 1995” is a clever-sounding talking point — but it collapses under the weight of actual history.
It’s not that the threat wasn’t real. It’s that the threat was repeatedly delayed — by warnings, sabotage, diplomacy, and deterrence. Israel didn’t lie about the danger. It helped expose, disrupt, and slow Iran’s progress every step of the way.
According to Reuters:
Iran carried out secret nuclear activities with material not declared to the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
impeded verification efforts by sanitizing sites, offering inaccurate explanations, and failing to disclose locations at Lavisan‑Shian, Turquzabad and others
Iran’s entire nuclear history has been marked by deception: undeclared enrichment sites, sanitized facilities, and stonewalling international inspectors.
In 2009–2010, a joint U.S.-Israeli cyber‑weapon called Stuxnet covertly wrecked about 1,000 centrifuges at Natanz—about 20% of Iran’s total—by making them destroy themselves. According to Wired Magazine:
Surveillance footage … and analysis of the worm’s code suggest Iranian workers were replacing damaged equipment consistent with a Stuxnet attack
This wasn’t warmongering. It was strategic restraint. The U.S. and Israel took out key infrastructure through a keyboard, not a missile. It set Iran back months — if not years — without firing a shot.
In 2018, Mossad exposed what the world long suspected: Iran had a detailed, hidden plan for building nuclear weapons. This wasn’t theoretical — it was a documented, structured weapons program. Mossad agents infiltrated a covert archive in Tehran and seized over 100,000 documents detailing Iran’s pre-JCPOA Project AMAD—proof of planning for nuclear weapons.
Israel has systematically targeted Iranian nuclear scientists. For example, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, central to the weapons program, was assassinated in November 2020.
From 2010 to 2020, five nuclear scientists were killed in foreign-linked operations
Assassinations like Fakhrizadeh’s were not random acts — they were surgical strikes against weaponization. These operations didn’t end the program, but they slowed it.
By mid-2025, Iran’s breakout time — the time needed to produce weapons-grade uranium — had dropped to just days. According to Reuters, Iran had amassed about 9.2 tonnes of enriched uranium, including enough 60%‑enriched uranium for 9–10 nuclear bombs.
But despite crossing every technical threshold, they haven’t assembled a bomb. Why? Because action was taken early enough to matter.
This isn’t the story of hysteria. It’s the story of vigilance that worked.
When people say, “They’ve been warning about this for 30 years,” the correct response is:
Yes — and that’s why it didn’t happen.
Israel wasn’t crying wolf.
It was holding the wolf at bay.
Unprovoked? The Timeline Proves Otherwise
In “Israel acted for all of us” Gallstone Institute
Often lost in the media frenzy is the fact that Iran, unprovoked, initiated hostilities against Israel. The seeming dispute was not about territory, policy or any disagreement that states normally have. It was about ideology. Since its establishment nearly five decades ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies have waged a war against Israel and the United States, calling for their destruction. From their point of view, neither country, as "unbelievers," has a right to exist. Full stop.
Let’s be clear: Israel’s strike on Iran in June 2025 was not unprovoked. It was a response to years of Iranian proxy warfare—and a direct Iranian act of war. This is a War 40 Years in the Making. Iran’s war against Israel didn’t begin in 2025.
It began with the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979. Since then, Iran has:
Funded, armed, and trained terrorist groups whose explicit goal is the destruction of Israel—including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis.
Launched proxy wars across the Middle East, destabilizing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
Hezbollah. Since its formation in the early 1980s, Hezbollah has engaged in a long-standing conflict with Israel, dedicated to the goal of driving Israel out of Lebanon. Hezbollah and Israel engaged in periodic attacks throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
South Lebanon Conflict (1985-2000): Hezbollah was the primary force resisting the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, engaging in numerous confrontations.
2006 Lebanon War: This significant conflict erupted after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border operation. During this war, Hezbollah fired approximately 4,000 rockets at Israel.
Shebaa Farms Conflict (2000-2006): Even after Israel's withdrawal from most of Lebanon, Hezbollah continued occasional attacks, claiming that Israel occupied the Shebaa Farms region, which it considered Lebanese territory. These attacks included rocket fire and other actions.
Earlier Attacks: Throughout its history, Hezbollah has employed a range of methods, including rocket attacks, capturing soldiers, and, in some cases, terrorist attacks.launches daily rocket attacks into northern Israel. Since the escalation following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, Hezbollah has fired over 10,000 rockets at Israel.
Houthis target Israeli and U.S. ships in the Red Sea. Since October 2023: The Houthis have fired well over 400 ballistic missiles and drones at Israel. By January 2025 (when a ceasefire was reached): They had fired over 40 ballistic missiles and dozens of attack drones and cruise missiles at Israel. Since March 18, 2025 (when the IDF resumed offensive against Hamas): The Houthis have launched 37 ballistic missiles and at least 10 drones at Israel.
Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria. Iran-backed militias, particularly those operating under the umbrella of the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), have a long history of attacking U.S. forces and interests in Iraq and Syria, pre-dating the events of 2025. Iranian agents plot the assassination of Trump and senior Israeli officials. Iran transfers precision-guided munitions to its proxies and increases uranium enrichment. 2003-2011 Iraq War: Iran-backed militias were responsible for the deaths of at least 600 American soldiers in Iraq during this period. These groups have been active for decades and have experience fighting against the U.S. military. Post-2014: Iran's intervention in Iraq since 2014 includes providing weapons and support to these militias. Escalation after October 7, 2023: Following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the IRI significantly escalated its attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan.
Frequency: Between October 2023 and February 2024, there were approximately 190 attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria.
Tactics: The IRI used a combination of medium-range missiles, drones, and suicide drones in their attacks.
Targets: These attacks targeted airbases, oil fields, and other key locations where U.S. forces were present.
Repeatedly declared its intent to “wipe Israel off the map” and “destroy the Zionist entity.”
Plotted assassinations of Israeli diplomats, U.S. officials, and even President Donald Trump.
Used its embassies, religious institutions, and diplomatic immunity to export terror on every continent.
These are not theories. They are facts—documented by U.S. intelligence, UN reports, IAEA findings, and even Iran’s own public statements.
If you are asking yourself why the Iranian Regime is so intent on destroying Israel. Daniel Gordis wrote:
The answer is far from obvious. After all, we do not have a border dispute. We’re not fighting over resources. Why then, this obsessive hatred? Eran Lerman explains that though we don’t often think in these terms, the reasons are more theological than anything else. Yet if one didn’t think that theology matters all that much anymore, remember Sinwar and October 7—in this region, theology matters a great deal.
In 2024, Iran shifted from a war by proxy and began direct truly unprovoked attacks against Israel! Iran launched direct attacks on Israel on two occasions:
April 13th: Iran launched a genocidal attack against Israel by firing a wave of drones and missiles towards Israel in response an Israeli airstrike in Syria. They fired over 300 drones and ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, at civilian populations and not military targets. The intent was clear.
October 1st: Iran launched a second direct attack on Israel, firing hundreds of ballistic missiles, in retaliation for the assassinations of key Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, which Iran blamed on Israel. If there was any doubt that Iran, the worlds largest sponsor of terror, supports its proxies Hamas & Hezbollah, this was irrefutable evidence.
Israel didn’t start this war, Iran did. By forcefully responding to Iran’s aggression, Israel is defending itself and its survival. And by seeking to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Israel is preventing the worlds largest sponsor of terrorism from gaining leverage over the entire world.
Iran Broke Its Nuclear Promises—The World Admitted It
Iran has been playing a nuclear shell game for decades—lying, hiding, enriching, and stalling. But in June 2024, the international community finally admitted what Israel had long warned. And history has demonstrated one thing clearly: Iran will never (voluntarily) give up it’s Nuclear Weapons.
For the first time in nearly two decades, the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s 35-nation Board of Governors issued a formal resolution declaring:
“Iran is in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).”
(IAEA Resolution GOV/2024/34, June 2024)
This wasn’t Israeli propaganda. It was the UN—an institution typically hostile to Israel—formally stating that Iran was hiding nuclear material, obstructing inspections, and enriching uranium at levels consistent with weapons development.
By mid-2025, even hostile news sources reported that Iran possessed enough fissile material for 10–15 nuclear bombs.That isn’t crying wolf. That’s standing at the edge of the cliff yelling “Stop!”
As Andrew Roberts wrote in Trump’s Churchillian Choice at Fordow
We should believe the threats of dictators. History is littered with times that the West assumes that dictators were exaggerating or merely playing to their domestic audiences, but were in fact being coldly truthful. When Hitler stated in January 1939 that a world war would destroy the Jewish race in Europe only eight months before he deliberately started it, or Stalin promised that the Comintern would strive to undermine western democracies, or Vladimir Putin claimed that there was an “historical unity of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples” while massing an army on Ukraine’s borders, the West ought to have listened, rather than assuming they were bloviating. We should similarly believe the Iranian mullahs’ considered and oft-repeated promises to use a nuclear bomb to annihilate Israel. These threats are not idle; they are meant in cold blood. The imams of Tehran want to turn Israel into a sea of molten, irradiated glass, and even the hitherto-pussycat International Atomic Energy Agency now admits that it is ramping up efforts to obtain the means to do so.
This War Has Nothing to Do with the United States (?)
It’s become a popular refrain in some corners of American politics—especially among “America First” conservatives and anti-interventionist progressives—that Israel’s war with Iran has nothing to do with U.S. interests. The argument is that America should stay out, focus on domestic problems, and let its allies fight their own battles.
There are deep divisions within the Republican Party and the president’s MAGA movement over Iran and its nuclear program. Some of this has played out in public, with isolationist figures such as Tucker Carlson blasting Fox News presenter Mark Levin as a “warmonger” for allegedly trying to drag the U.S. into another Middle Eastern conflict on Israel’s behalf. President Trump’s sons have also been vocal opponents of any military engagement with Iran. The president posted on Truth Social: “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!”
Over the past two months, the divisions between the hawks and the so-called restrainers have been playing out inside the Trump administration’s national security agencies.
Critics of U.S. involvement also warn that any direct military action could provoke Iran’s extensive proxy network—Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, the Houthis, and even sleeper cells in the West—to retaliate globally. These concerns are real and deserve attention.
But what this narrative often ignores is the deeper reality: Iran’s war against Israel is part of a broader, decades-long campaign against U.S. influence and interests in the Middle East. Iran has:
Attacked U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria over 100 times since 2023.
Attempted to assassinate U.S. officials (including a plot against former President Trump).
Targeted U.S. naval vessels in the Gulf through its proxies.
Funded and armed terror groups responsible for killing U.S. soldiers and citizens.
In a Free Press Debate: Should the U.S. Intervene in Iran? between two former Pentagon officials square off on America’s role in the war, Simone Ledeen, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for the Middle East. Ms. Ledeen was responsible for US Department of Defense Policy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, points out:
The Iranian regime’s threat to American personnel, and American power, is not dependent on how many troops we have in the region, or whether we support Israel. This regime is driven by a quest for regional dominance based on its religious ideology. Hating us and wanting (and in some cases, succeeding) to kill us is part of the package. History has shown us—retreat doesn’t work with them.
They just view it as a weakness, as does the rest of the region. Let’s look at some examples:
(1) 1983 Beirut: Iranian terror proxy Hezbollah killed 241 Marines, predating future major regional U.S. deployments.
(2) 2011 Cafe Milano D.C.: Despite our Obama-era drawdowns in Iraq, Iran tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington, D.C.
(3) 2022–2023 assassination plots: The Iranian regime tried to assassinate former Trump administration officials on U.S. soil.
(4) 2023 Iranian cyberattacks on U.S. hospitals.
(5) 2019 Iran drone attack against a Saudi Arabian oil facility in Abqaiq spiked U.S. gas prices.
(6) 2024–2025 Houthi attacks against global shipping further raised costs of goods for Americans.
Supporting Israel’s fight isn’t about being dragged into someone else’s war—it’s about confronting a regime that has already declared war on America’s allies, principles, and personnel.
And yes… it’s Legal. Here is Alan Dershowitz: “International law authorizes preemptive military action when reasonably necessary to prevent nuclear attacks on civilian populations.”
Yes, strategic restraint is warranted. No one is calling for U.S. troops to invade Tehran. But pretending this is just “Israel’s problem” is like saying 9/11 was just “New York’s problem.”
The Iran-Israel conflict is a flashpoint in a larger struggle between terror-sponsoring autocracies and Western democracies. The U.S. may choose how it gets involved—but pretending it has nothing at stake is both naïve and dangerous.
“The Last Time We Listened to Bibi…”
Let’s set the record straight.
Yes, in 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu testified before Congress as a private citizen. During his testimony, he mentioned “regime change” 6 times: Twice he references to Iran; once he references what he called “Arafatistan” and as to the remaining three times, while he was in fact discussing Iraq, he discussed the subject in a very strategic and nuanced way (as you’ll read below). So yes, he did say:
If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region
He was wrong. But that’s not on him. That’s on President Bush and on how the US prosecuted that war.
As to Netanyahu’s position, the excerpt that is being exploited online is taken out of context and distorted into antisemitic/anti-Israel propaganda His actual testimony was insightful and nuanced. You can read the entire transcript online. Here are a few passages from his comments on “regime change”:
This is now a question of not of values. Obviously, we would like to see a regime change, at least I would like to, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq. The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It is not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out. It is not a question of whether you would like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.
Iran has something that Iraq does not have. Iran has, for example, 250,000 satellite dishes. It has Internet use. I once said to the heads of the CIA when I was Prime Minister that if you want to advance regime change in Iran, you do not have to go through the CIA cloak-and-dagger stuff. What you want to do is take very large, very strong transponders and just beam Melrose Place and Beverly Hills 90210 into Teheran and Iran. That is subversive stuff. The young kids watch it, the young people. They want to have the same nice clothes and houses and swimming pools and so on. That is something that is available, and internal forces of dissention that are available in Iran-- which is paradoxically probably the most open society in that part of the world. It is a lot more open than Iraq, which is probably the most closed society, and therefore you have no ability to foment this kind of dynamic inside Iraq.
So the question now is choose. You can beam Melrose Place, but it may take a long time. On the other hand, if you take out Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people and many others will say the time of such regimes of such despots is gone. There is a new age.
He continues in answering a subsequent question during his testimony:
The first reason is that you have now--when you have--here is the situation where you have to go through and oust the regime, as opposed to deter it. One, you may have a regime that is not deterable. For example, if it has a penchant for suicide, you cannot rely on deterrence, because if the regime is willing to die a collective death for the glory of their twisted version of Islam, it is not going to work. Or if there are people within it who are moving in that direction, deterrence may not necessarily work.
The second is a regime that knows no limits to the use of force, that it simply completely is committed to that force. A good example of that is the Nazi regime. No matter what you did to it, as long as it lived, as long as Hitler breathed, as long as that clique was there, it simply would not stop. You had to oust it.
And the third situation where you must change the regime is that, if you don't, you cannot begin to effect a societal change. I think the removal of the dangers--I don't think you can rely on deterrence when it comes to most of the terror network. I think this is what distinguished it from, say, the Communists. You know, the Communists, you could deter them. It was very easy. They were very rational. I don't think they were pursuing any rational goal, but they pursued it rationally. Any time they had to choose between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival. They backed up--Berlin, whatever, Cuba. The ability of Islam is that you cannot rely on that they will make that decision, because they will go down with the ship. They have no compunction of killing people on this side of the aisle but also quite a few of their own. You never heard of a Communist suicide bomber, but militant Islam produces hordes of them. So when you have a regime system that is not susceptible to deterrence, you have no choice but to take it out.
But what does ``taking it out'' mean? It means--and this is, I think, my answer to you, Congressman Shays. It means that you cannot just have regime removal. You really have to have regime change in the fundamental meaning of that word. You really have to start changing the mentality, the poison, toxified mentality that these regimes have put into the minds of millions, hundreds of millions, and that is the real task, the great challenge. Now, if you don't, then it is a question of time where you will have suitcase devices of mass death. You can have biological devices, you can have nuclear devices. It is just a question of time. So the ultimate protection--and I come back to the example of Germany. The ultimate protection that you won't have it, that you won't have a new Hitlerism, is the ventilation of German society by democracy. The long-term protection--and it is not foolproof, but we have to try--is, once the regimes are ousted, it is to begin the process of democratization in these places which harbor this militancy today.
So yes, he did express support for regime change in Iraq.
But Netanyahu did not influence U.S. intelligence.
He did not brief the CIA.
He did not speak for the Israeli government.
The actual WMD case that led to war came from U.S. and British intelligence — not from Israel. And he was not responsible for Colin Powell’s presentation at the UN — the one that actually persuaded the American public and Congress.
As David Friedman (former U.S. Ambassador to Israel) correctly pointed out:
The intel on WMDs came from Colin Powell, Bush’s Secretary of State. Not Netanyahu.
And the Israeli government? It had deep reservations about removing Saddam.
Iran is the center of world terror, and as soon as Iraq is dealt with, it will be necessary to turn our attention to Iran.”
— Ariel Sharon, Israeli Prime Minister, quoted in The Times (UK), August 2002
Sharon wasn’t urging the U.S. into war with Iraq. He was warning that if the U.S. focused on Iraq first, Iran would fill the vacuum — and he was right.
Israeli military officials in 2002–2003 privately told American counterparts:
“Removing Saddam will upset the regional balance and open the door for Iranian influence throughout Iraq.”
— Paraphrased in The New York Times, March 2013
In hindsight, it was a disaster for Israel:
Iraq, once a regional counterbalance to Iran, was shattered.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard infiltrated Iraq’s government and militias.
Iran gained a land bridge to Syria and Lebanon, arming Hezbollah more than ever before.
So let’s be clear:
The U.S. did not go to war because of Israel.
Israel was not a driver of the invasion.
And Netanyahu’s views in 2002 were not policy, nor were they persuasive enough to matter.
The idea that “we listened to Bibi and ended up in Iraq” is not just lazy—it’s factually false.
It’s a scapegoat narrative. It pins blame for America’s own foreign policy choices on the Jewish state. That’s not analysis. That’s antisemitic deflection.
The Real Motive Behind the Libel
If you want to see bias in real time, consider this biased article from the NYT. Yet another deeply biased antisemitic "hit piece" from The New York Times entitled “In Attacking Iran, Israel Further Alienates Would-Be Arab Allies” published June 18, 2025. In this propoganda, posing as news, the NYT offers a perfect illustration of how modern blood libels spread—not through overt lies, but through careful omission, inverted causality, and the rebranding of self-defense as aggression. The article opens not with the facts of Iran’s long and violent campaign against Israel which you’ve just read all about, but with the claim that Israel has become the “madman with a gun.” The result is a narrative that casts Israel’s June 2025 strike on Iranian nuclear sites as the starting gun of a regional war, while erasing the forty years of Iranian aggression that led to it.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has waged a relentless war on Israel—funding, arming, and directing terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Iran has plotted assassinations of Israeli diplomats, transferred precision-guided munitions to its partners, launched proxy wars in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and directly attacked Israel with hundreds of ballistic missiles in April and October 2024. This is not theoretical. It is a documented, multi-front campaign to destroy the world’s only Jewish state. Yet The Times article ignores this history entirely. There is no mention of Hezbollah’s 10,000 rockets since October 7, no reference to Iranian militias targeting U.S. and Israeli assets across the region, no acknowledgment of the IAEA’s June 2024 resolution confirming Iran’s nuclear violations. Instead, the piece frames Israeli deterrence as destabilization and Iranian escalation as unfortunate background noise.
This is the essence of Blood Libel #29, the idea that Israel is the agitator. But the record shows the opposite. Iran has made its genocidal intentions plain. It has built the terror infrastructure to act on them. And Israel, through diplomacy, sabotage, and precision operations, has delayed a catastrophe the world refuses to confront. To call that warmongering is not just dishonest—it’s dangerous. It transforms Jewish vigilance into a threat, Jewish restraint into provocation, and Jewish survival into a crime.
So why call this “unprovoked”? Why accuse Israel of dragging America into wars?
Because it’s easier to blame the Jewish state than to confront the uncomfortable truth: some enemies mean what they say, and their hatred isn’t caused by our actions—it’s caused by our existence.
Calling Israel’s actions “unprovoked” erases 40 years of Iranian escalation and gaslights the Jewish people into believing that defending themselves is aggression and self-defense is a war crime. It suggests that if Jews just stay quiet, they’ll be safe.
History teaches the opposite. History clearly demonstrates that Israel doesn’t start wars. It defends itself.
It spent decades trying to avoid it—through diplomacy, deterrence, and restraint.
Israel has never dragged the U.S. into war.
Iran does—by violating international law, threatening genocide, and striking first.
Israel doesn’t cry wolf.
It warns a distracted world that the wolf was real—and coming closer.
The tragedy isn’t that Israel acted too soon.
It’s that it had to act at all.