War in West Asia: Iran, Israel, the United States and the Rothschilds

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 7 Jul 2025

Robert J. Burrowes, Ph.D. – TRANSCEND Media Service

6 Jul 2025 – On about 20 September 2001, just ten days after the destruction of the World Trade Centre buildings on 9/11, recently retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark was visiting the Pentagon for meetings with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz when he was assailed by another General whom he had formerly commanded. This General advised General Clark that the US was going to attack seven countries in five years.

A few weeks later, a similar meeting between the same officers led General Clark to be confidentially shown a memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office earlier that day. Handing Clark the memo, the officer reported ‘This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’ Watch ‘US Plans for the Middle East’.

As history now documents, with the notable exception of the last country on this list – Iran – each of these countries (together with Afghanistan and Palestine) has been destroyed, to a greater or lesser extent, by military violence inflicted by the United States, often together with its NATO and/or other allies, and/or Israel. Needless to say, there has been zero accountability for these gross violations of international law.

Why did the United States want to ‘take out 7 countries’? Why does the United States (and Israel) still want to ‘take out’ Iran?

Understanding Conflict

When tackling conflict at this level, it is imperative to understand the ‘conflict configuration’ as a preliminary step in addressing key elements of the conflict. This understanding will require research, listening to those involved parties who are accessible and keeping an open mind to third-party sources.

After all, if one does not understand the conflict – the primary and secondary parties to it (which might include ‘invisible’ parties driving conflicts from the background), the key and subsidiary issues at stake, the importance (intellectually, behaviorally, materially) of each of these issues to the various parties to the conflict, as well as why these issues are important – it is not really possible for a genuine resolution of the conflict (one in which each party to the conflict feels satisfied with the outcome so that it will stand over time) to be achieved.

But there is a deeper dimension to conflict that is routinely overlooked: The ‘emotional profile’ of the key parties. At its most extreme, this includes the sanity, or otherwise, of the conflicting parties, including those parties operating from the background. For one explanation that highlights the critical importance of emotions to conflict, see ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

I emphasize the emotional component of conflict not only because it is central but because it makes it easier to perceive that if one or more parties to the conflict is emotionally damaged in one way or another (or even insane), then resolution of the conflict might require more than the processes ordinarily employed.

Conflict in West Asia

So I want to start ‘unpacking’ the conflict that has recently flared when Israel attacked Iran on 13 June 2025 – see ‘Israel Attacks Iran’ – followed by the US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities on 22 June – see ‘Trump: We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, and now, “peace”’ – and the immediately subsequent ceasefire agreement. See ‘Iran confirms ceasefire with Israel’.

Before proceeding, I want to emphasize that there are far more elements to this conflict than can be ‘unpacked’ in this one article.

And to simply note that both the Israeli attack on Iran and the US attack on Iran were illegal under international law.

But, as with the previous military assaults on countries in West Asia and North Africa in the 21^st century, when international law has been violated, there have been no meaningful legal repercussions for these transgressions. Nor will there be.

There is no mystery about why this is the case even if many analysts considering these conflicts, significant numbers of ‘ordinary’ people and even some national leaders believe it should happen. To understand why, it is only necessary to understand how the world works. Without that understanding, any number of delusions will spread easily, and be accelerated by government and corporate media, throughout concerned communities. And vast amounts of effort will be wasted on initiatives in relation to the conflict that can go nowhere.

So How Does the World Work?

As I have explained many times previously, all major political and economic structures and processes were created by the Global Elite over past centuries using their extensive network of partners, fronts, agents and employees, including those deeply embedded in what many refer to as the ‘Deep State’: the key intelligence, bureaucratic, military, technocratic and lobbyist personnel who persist in countries independently of the (elected or otherwise) government of the day and the electoral cycle. Notably, a great deal of control is exercised through the banking system that functions internationally and within each country. You can read one account of this in Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’

The central figures in this Global Elite are the members of the Rothschild family who have operated at the centre of this Elite since the late 18^th century and exercise staggering control over many key aspects of the global economy, starting with banking, energy, weapons, mining, infrastructure (including railways), media and biotechnology. Their estimated wealth exceeds $US100 trillion, dwarfing those ‘fortunes’ held by those ‘wealthy individuals’ – such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk – misleadingly promoted as the ‘wealthiest’ by corporate media. See Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf pp. 487-8.

Since the beginning of their reign, the Rothschilds have acquired a vast global network of income-producing assets by investing, wisely and often illegally, in a phenomenal variety and number of ventures, usually leaving another name prominently on display of any newly acquired asset, including those acquired or partly acquired as a result of saving a corporation from bankruptcy. In this way, their ownership and control is concealed so that, for example, other prominent families who are known to be excessively wealthy, such as the Morgans and Rockefellers, are fronts for the Rothschilds but not widely recognized as such. See Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War p.222. and The Single Global Mafia: The Rockefeller Foundation’s multiple links to Zionism and military-industrial-financial neo-imperialism. p.5.

As noted above, two industries that the Rothschilds dominate are banking and the weapons industry. And it is well-documented that the Rothschilds have helped finance both sides of most wars since the Napoleonic wars in the early 19^th century. In these circumstances, the Rothschilds profit from weapons sales to most or all parties to all wars as well as the loans to buy the weapons and the loans to pay for reconstruction post-war. Again, you can read an account of this in Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’

Thus, as Niall Ferguson, an official biographer of the Rothschilds, has noted: by the late 19^th century, direct Rothschild investment in major ‘armaments companies’ (now better known as weapons corporations) and related industries was substantial. He candidly noted ‘If late-nineteenth-century imperialism had its “military-industrial complex” the Rothschilds were unquestionably part of it.’ See The House of Rothschild – Volume 2 – The World’s Banker, 1849-1998, p. 579.

Beyond this, of course, effective Rothschild control of key global institutions – including the City of London, the Bank for International Settlements, the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve – and many critical industries, not to mention most national governments, was already giving it enormous power to reshape world order to suit its purposes before the advent of World War II. Consider the United States.

In his exceptionally detailed investigation into three major historical events of the C20^th – the Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the rise of Hitler – Professor Antony Sutton identified the seat of political power in the United States not as the US Constitution authorized but ‘the financial establishment in New York: the private international bankers, more specifically the financial houses of J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank, and in earlier days (before amalgamation of their Manhattan Bank with the former Chase Bank), the Warburgs.’

‘For most of the twentieth century the Federal Reserve System, particularly the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (which is outside the control of Congress, unaudited and uncontrolled, with the power to print money and create credit at will), has exercised a virtual monopoly over the direction of the American economy. In foreign affairs the Council on Foreign Relations, superficially an innocent forum for academics, businessmen, and politicians, contains within its shell, perhaps unknown to many of its members, a power center that unilaterally determines U.S. foreign policy. The major objective of this submerged – and obviously subversive – foreign policy is the acquisition of markets and economic power (profits, if you will), for a small group of giant multi-nationals under the virtual control of a few banking investment houses and controlling families.’ See Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, pp.125-126.

Of course, control of national governments and key national institutions by powerful if obscured actors has long been the case and extends far beyond the United States as explained by preeminent historian Professor Carroll Quigley in his classic work published in 1966. See Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. pp.5-6.

‘[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations…

‘It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called ‘international’ or ‘merchant’ bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks.’

The Present

If we jump to the present, analyst Paul Craig Roberts makes an observation and poses a fundamental question: ‘Think about America’s waste of resources and prestige during the first quarter of the 21st century. Trillions of dollars spent destroying Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Somalia with zero gain. No one except military/security war profits got anything from these wars. There was no terrorist threat. Washington brought no one democracy, only destruction.

‘Think about the destruction Washington brought to entire countries for no purpose than Israel’s absurd idea of a Greater Israel. The millions of dead, permanently maimed, and dislocated people, many of whom have located in Europe and the US burdening those taxpayers with their upkeep. WHO BENEFITTED??’ See ‘President Trump’s Plan for the Middle East’.

‘Who benefitted?’ is indeed the question. As Roberts notes, it wasn’t the USA or its people. And it wasn’t the people of other countries, including those in Israel or NATO countries, either. And it certainly wasn’t the people in the countries destroyed.

So clearly it is time to shift the focus from those apparently driving this conflict – such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, who have much to gain by appearing to drive it – to those parties who are actually driving it. This can done simply by asking: ‘Have Netanyahu and Trump benefitted, personally, from the joint Israeli-US attack on Iran?’

In the case of Netanyahu, and despite his well-documented corruption, he has been a faithful servant of the Zionist elite for decades routinely acting to implement their program throughout West Asia. And faithful servants, chosen for their role, are defended, whatever their ills.

As one article in the Jerusalem Post acknowledged, Miriam Adelson ‘and her late husband Sheldon were viewed as kingmakers, puppeteers, or just another set of billionaires trying to shape Israeli politics in their image. Their immense wealth, their influence over both Israel and the US, and – perhaps most of all – their endless support for Benjamin Netanyahu made them divisive figures’. They ‘pour[ed] hundreds of millions into Netanyahu’s political survival…. It turns out that when you have Miriam Adelson’s resources and access, you don’t just influence policy – you rewrite it.’ See ‘Dr. Miriam Adelson, the modern-day Rothschild Israelis have finally recognized’.

And what of Trump? Is he just someone’s puppet too? In April 1990 ‘Trump made a bold bet on Atlantic City when he opened a third casino there – the colossal Taj Mahal…. Even riskier: He financed the project with $675 million in junk bonds at a 14% interest rate. Within months Trump was struggling to make the massive bond payments as Atlantic City floundered.’

Consistent with a business tactic they have employed for more than 200 years, through an agent (Wilbur Ross) the Rothschilds offered Trump ‘a prepackaged bankruptcy deal: Trump would give up 50% of his stake in the Taj but would receive better debt terms and would remain in control.’ As a result, ‘The Donald was back in business: He ultimately made similar deals for his other troubled properties.’ See ‘Getting Donald Out Of Debt: The 25-Year-Old Ties That Bind Trump and Wilbur Ross’.

As with all such deals with the Rothschilds, Trump continues to pay off his ‘forever debt’. These days, one way he does that is by deploying the power of his presidential position to serve their divergent ends as part of the payback. Thus, for example, while deceiving the Iranian leadership that he was negotiating with them, the subsequent evidence shows that Trump was finalising plans to attack Iran’s three nuclear sites – and precipitate events leading to regime change – through an intense bombing campaign. See ‘The Hidden Agenda behind Trump’s Attack on Iran’.

Moreover, as discussed by Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Drago Bosnic, certain evidence points to the notion that this strike was ‘political theatre’. This evidence includes the facts that it would have taken months, at least, to plan and organize the attack and, more importantly, the damage from radiation release, if the attack had been fully successful, would have been more catastrophic than what happened following the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Watch ‘“Political Theater”: Trump’s Attack against Iran’.

This suggests that the real motive was, indeed, regime change. So what would have been the advantage of precipitating regime change in Iran?

As noted above, any consideration of Rothschild history must lead to an awareness that they precipitate wars to reshape world order where necessary and to capture control of resources, in whatever form these take. And its legacy of gaining control of such resources – including mineral resources such as oil and gas, gold, diamonds, rubies…. depending on the context – is well documented. Thus, just as the war to expel the Palestinians from Gaza will, among other opportunities, open access for the Rothschilds to profit enormously by exploiting the gigantic Leviathan maritime natural gas resources in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza – see ‘The Geopolitics of Elite Insanity, Part 2: Creating Eretz Yisrael to Reshape World Order’ – regime change in Iran would open the possibility of the Rothschilds re-establishing their key role in the ownership and exploitation of oil and gas in Iran, which they lost following the Iranian revolution in 1979 when the assets of all foreign oil companies operating in Iran were seized. See ‘Iran’s Oil Nationalization: A Triumph Over Western Imperialism’.

It would also force open the possibility of Iran surrendering some or total control of the Central Bank of Iran which is not a member of the Rothschild-controlled Bank for International Settlements.

So who benefits from this war (given the long list of people who do not)? As has been the case for the past 200 years, the Rothschilds (and other Elite families) certainly do. And so do their agents beginning, in this case, with Netanyahu and Trump.

And that is the reason why this war is not over and it might go nuclear. Several commentators – including Mike Whitney and Scott Ritter – have noted this. See ‘Here’s Proof That Israel Lost the War (and signs that the conflict is about to resume)’ and ‘Will Bibi Ask Trump to Nuke Iran? Ritter Says “Yes”’.

Resisting War

For more than 100 years, millions of people have joined antiwar groups of various kinds. And for more than 100 years, some members of some of these groups have engaged in a range of activities to demonstrate their opposition to war, either as an institution or in a particular context.

However, the antiwar movement has been singularly ineffective in its impact in ending war as an institution. It has no comprehensive analysis of the institution of war (and no comprehensive analysis of violence, of which war is just one subset) nor, even within the confines of its various limited analyses (such as the feminist and socialist critiques), a comprehensive strategy to end war. For a fuller critique of the antiwar movement and an explanation of what is necessary to end war, see ‘Rage Against the War Machine: What Rage?’ If you want to understand the origin of violence which generates a vast range of outcomes, including war, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

Similarly, the antiwar movement has no shared critique of any particular war that is remotely adequate and no strategy to end any particular war including the ones in West Asia where a number – some ‘hot’, some ‘cold’ – are being fought at the moment.

Thus, devoid of an accurate understanding of the configuration of any war, including this war, it is not possible for the conflict underlying it to be resolved. And efforts to end it will be misdirected to actions that are strategically useless, such as protest demonstrations or public statements directed at Elite agents, in this case, governments or international organizations including the United Nations. See ‘International Days of Action Against War on Iran’ and ‘Urgent Appeal for Action Regarding Israeli Regime’s Unlawful Military Aggression Against Iran’.

In any case, of course, no state or group of states, or their international organizations, can or will attempt to hold the Rothschilds and other Elite families to account. These families operate beyond the rule of law and beyond constraint of any kind.

Thus, if we are to have any chance of ending this war or war itself, those of us who identify as ‘ordinary’ must take on these Elite actors and their agents ourselves.

And we can do this effectively if we undertake the challenge using sound strategy. You can read a list of strategic goals for ending wars by scrolling down this page to ‘Strategic goals that would be appropriate in a nonviolent struggle to end war’ and access the remaining details of a comprehensive strategy for doing so elsewhere on this website.

The power to end this war and all war is in our hands. Will we use it?

_______________________________________________

Robert Burrowes, Ph.D. is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment and has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He was a member of the Gulf Peace Team in 1991. Robert has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of Why Violence? Websites: (We Are Human, We Are Free) (Charter)  (Flame Tree Project)  (Songs of Nonviolence) (Nonviolent Campaign Strategy) (Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy) (Robert J. Burrowes) (Feelings First) Email: flametree@riseup.net

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 7 Jul 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: War in West Asia: Iran, Israel, the United States and the Rothschilds, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.