Is Trump Laying the Groundwork for U.S. Invasion of Iran? | The Jackal


26 Jun 2025

Is Trump Laying the Groundwork for U.S. Invasion of Iran?

The effectiveness of the United States’ recent military actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities have been cast into doubt by a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment, revealing that Iran may have relocated much of its enriched uranium stockpile, including approximately 400 kilograms of near-weapons-grade uranium, to undisclosed locations before U.S. bunker-busting bombs struck.

President Donald Trump’s assertions that these strikes completely "obliterated" Iran’s nuclear programme now appear very overstated, again exposing a troubling gap between his often childish rhetoric and reality.

This development may appear to undermine the Trump administration's credibility but it also gives the orange buffoon a reason to undertake another ground offensive in the Middle East. US propaganda about Iran not being allowed to develop a nuclear weapon evoked unsettling parallels with the prelude to the 2003 Iraq invasion and claims of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found, raising concerns that the United States is once again undertaking another war for control of the world's resources.

The similarities won't be lost on many US voters, who will hopefully realise that Donald Trump's propaganda is airily similar to that used by George W. Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq war, when the U.S. government justified invasion based on false claims of WMD's. Today, the narrative of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat, either through Trump propaganda or leaked intelligence reports, mirrors previous disinformation campaigns by the dishonest United States government.


Yesterday, 1 News reported:

 
US regime change record isn't great, would Trump do any better with Iran?

As President Donald Trump floats the idea of “regime change” in Tehran, previous US attempts to remake the Middle East by force over the decades offer stark warnings about the possibility of a deepening involvement in the Iran-Israeli conflict.

“If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” Trump posted on his social media site over the weekend. The came after the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites but before that country retaliated by firing its own missiles at a US base in Qatar.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt yesterday insisted that Trump, who spent years railing against “forever wars” and pushing an “America first” world view, had not committed a political about-face.

“The president’s posture and our military posture has not changed,” she said, suggesting that a more aggressive approach might be necessary if Iran ”refuses to give up their nuclear program or engage in talks".

Leavitt also suggested that a new government in Iran could come about after its people stage a revolt — not necessarily requiring direct US intervention.

The Trump administration has repeatedly heralded the strikes on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan facilities as a decisive blow to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. However, the DIA assessment, as reported by sources familiar with the matter, indicates that the strikes failed to destroy core components of Iran’s nuclear programme, such as centrifuges and highly enriched uranium stocks, with damage largely confined to underground entranceways and above ground structures. The impact is estimated to set Iran’s programme back by mere months, not years.

Along with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General Rafael Grossi stating that there was no evidence Iran was actively pursuing weaponisation, and U.S. intelligence assessments concluding Tehran halted such efforts in 2003, the Trump administration’s rhetoric continues to frame Iran as a terrorist nation who is aggressively pushing towards developing an A bomb.

The Trump administration’s dismissal of the DIA leaks as “fake news” propagated by mainstream media outlets appears increasingly disingenuous, a calculated effort to deflect scrutiny from intelligence that contradicts its hawkish narrative, including a report from Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, stating Iran was not enriching uranium beyond 60% before the U.S. strikes. This saber-rattling clashes with Trump’s public anti-war posturing, designed to placate his MAGA base. Polls currently show 68% of Americans oppose further military engagement in the Middle East. Such contradictions expose Trump’s efforts to balance domestic support with aggressive foreign policy, risking escalation despite widespread public aversion to another Middle Eastern war.

Notwithstanding a United States ground invasion of Iran being a logistical nightmare and a geopolitical disaster, it remains a plausible scenario if public opinion can be sufficiently swayed by the administration’s unsubstantiated fear-mongering about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The administration’s marginalisation of experts and dissenters within its own ranks, reminiscent of the Bush administration’s pre-Iraq purges, suggests a dangerous willingness to ignore inconvenient truths in pursuit of political ends.

However, these leaks may even be strategically timed by US neoconservatives, designed to justify further escalation by highlighting the potential “failure” of surgical strikes. What we all need to keep in mind is that Iran’s preemptive relocation of uranium stockpiles indicates a safeguarding to avoid potential fallout as well as a defensive posture, not an aggressive push toward a bomb, yet this nuance is conspicuously absent from many world leaders' war propaganda rhetoric about Iran not being allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

 

Ground forces are key — but don't guarantee success

Airstrikes have never been enough on their own.

Take, for example, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him.

There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or US forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq.

A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war.

There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond.


The problem for Trump is that his administration’s high-profile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have only strengthened the Iranian people's resolve against the United States. They've also (conveniently for Israel and the United States) shifted global attention away from two pressing crises: the ongoing genocide in Gaza and their domestic unrest sparked by illegal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) abductions.

As Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza continues, killing over 55,700 Palestinians, mostly women and children, drawing international condemnation, the U.S.-led Iran operation has dominated headlines, effectively sidelining scrutiny of Washington’s complicity in the Gaza atrocities.

Trump’s push for allied nations to ramp up defence spending, framed as a necessity for global security, takes on a sinister hue in light of the Gaza devastation and his Iran gambit. With Gaza reduced to rubble and over 56,000 Palestinians killed directly by violence, alongside estimates of up to 186,000 total deaths including indirect losses from disease, malnutrition, and healthcare collapse. 800 more Palestinians have been murdered in recent days while trying to access food aid.

The U.S. appears to be laying the groundwork for further conflicts, potentially in Iran and beyond, to fatten the coffers of their military-industrial complex. By pressuring allies to bolster their arsenals, Trump ensures a steady flow of contracts for American defence giants, conveniently aligning with his administration’s hawkish posturing and the distraction from domestic failures.

Trump was facing a mounting backlash over ICE’s aggressive deportation raids, which have detained over 9,000 individuals in 2025 alone, triggering widespread protests and uprisings in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago, with communities decrying the humanitarian toll of family separations and detentions. The timing of the Iran strikes raises questions about whether this foreign policy spectacle is a deliberate distraction from both the moral stain of Gaza and the domestic turmoil threatening Trump’s political standing.

The administration’s criticism of the media further erodes its credibility. By branding critical reporting as the work of “low-level losers,” it seeks to undermine legitimate scrutiny, a tactic that feels rehearsed and hollow. This posturing distracts from the real issue: the risk of entangling the U.S. in another Middle East quagmire. For New Zealand the implications are significant. Our government’s alignment with Washington could draw us into supporting a conflict with very dubious justification.

The right-wing New zealand government must not be allowed to provide support for the United States' unending wars in the Middle East. This is especially noteworthy being that Trump’s recent admission that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu will have operatives “involved in the whole situation” regarding Iran’s nuclear sites lends credence to Tehran’s claims that the IAEA has been co-opted as an intelligence-gathering apparatus for Israel and the United States.

Iran’s decision to suspend IAEA inspections and withdraw from the NPT, widely condemned by Western powers, appears increasingly justified in light of this revelation. Such interference undermines the IAEA’s neutrality, fuelling Iran’s distrust and providing a pretext for its defensive posture, while exposing the U.S. and Israel’s coordinated efforts to provoke escalation under the guise of non-proliferation.

In conclusion, the DIA leaks expose the fragility of Trump’s claims about neutralising Iran’s nuclear programme, while the administration’s rhetoric and media attacks echo the dangerous prelude to invading Iraq. The U.S. appears poised to escalate a conflict that could destabilise the region and beyond. The pursuit of a ground invasion, predicated on unverified threats, demands rigorous scrutiny to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Published by the Jackal