And Iran, Iran So Far Away
The True Implications of the Deep State’s Global Power Play
This piece is a direct continuation of The Deep Politics of the ‘12-Day War.
The article contended that the motivation for the US/Israel tensions with Iran was not out of fear of “Schrödinger’s nuke,” but rather centered on geopolitical favors and which segment of the Western ruling elite would shape the future of the Middle East.
On one side, you have the old guard: the interagency bureaucratic amalgam that has long controlled and spread Western hegemony, the Obama-era inheritors of Kissinger and Brzezinski’s legacy, and the foreign policy establishment. This also includes the gargantuan investment firms like BlackRock Inc. and the Vanguard Group, as well as the various think tanks behind the EU, the UN and NATO, groups like the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institute, etc.
On the other side, you have a still-emerging alternative to the old guard: the loose-knit, big-tent coalition of reluctant forces rallying behind men like Donald Trump and similar populist leaders, supported financially and clandestinely by Israel, Saudi Arabia and rogue portions of the private sector.
You may love or hate these factions, but these are the competing powers in the Western world today, and Iran is one of the major flashpoints in their struggle.
At the crux of it all, you have what’s often referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal, otherwise known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which we identified as being one of the most consequential geopolitical maneuvers in recent history.
An appropriate metaphor would be likening Iran to a forbidden “cookie jar,” and whoever were to open that cookie jar would be dipping into a goldmine.
For 50 years, Iran had been kept under heavy sanctions and, despite sitting on the world’s second-largest natural gas reserve and the third-largest oil reserve, remained relatively economically suppressed, as they were blocked from trading with other countries and private companies.
Throughout this time it was generally agreed that it would be better to keep Iran in a weakened state, that a thriving Iran on the level of Saudi Arabia would completely alter the dynamics of the Middle East in a dramatic way, potentially leading to a greater Middle East war, wherein the Iranian proxies suddenly have hundreds of times more funding and support and are able to not only put up a fight, but to likely wipe Israel off of the map.
The coalition between Saudi Arabia and Israel that was birthed as a result of this Iranian power play by the Obama State Department and the NATO foreign policy establishment is, in my opinion, one of the major catalysts creating the conditions and support necessary to see Donald Trump rise to the top of the Republican Party and compete with the Clinton machine.
Remember, a lion’s share of the establishment was behind her: the corporations, the billionaire donor class, the media, Soros, the Pritzkers (the money behind Obama world), and such esteemed dignitaries of high society as Steven Spielberg, Lauren Powell Jobs, and pretty much all of Hollywood.
She was a shoo-in, the vessel that would continue what Obama had started. Everyone believed she would win, but she ultimately lost.
By 2015, after the signing of the JCPOA, tensions between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were well documented. Some claims and speculation have circulated, especially in certain political circles, suggesting Obama sought to undermine or oust Netanyahu, effectively backing an unspoken policy of regime change in Israel, hoping to swap out a Netanyahu government for the Blue and White party.
As this was happening, Netanyahu was supporting a policy of regime change in the US by backing Donald Trump.
If you recall, during Obama’s second term and the first part of Joe Biden’s presidency, there were attempts to get Netanyahu ousted. This is evidenced by many things, including the ongoing corruption probe against Netanyahu, the USAID-funded protests in 2023, and calls by then Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer for new elections in Israel, essentially calling Netanyahu illegitimate.
These attempts at Israeli regime change ended abruptly after October 7th.
This ongoing situation with Iran has implications that ripple out far beyond just the Middle East, and connect to so many other conflict zones and areas of geopolitical intrigue.
At the time, Russia vocally opposed the deal to relieve sanctions on Iran. One of the various reasons that the deal was ever inked in the first place was so that Western-partnered Iranian gas could supplant Russian gas to Europe at a time when the Obama administration was conducting economic warfare by rallying support for European sanctions against Russia.
The 2014 coup and the attempts to reclaim Crimea and the Donbass region of Ukraine were the driving forces behind this.
The U.S. and its European allies imposed sanctions on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine, including its role in fueling the Donbass conflict through military support, funding, and arming of separatist groups.
It should come as no big surprise to this audience that the wizards behind NATO have been engaged in an undeclared second cold war with Russia, all while being in bed with China. When Trump ascended to office, he reversed the working foreign policy consensus from maximum pressure on Russia to maximum pressure on Iran and China. It was this maneuver, perhaps more than anything else, that put the crosshairs on Trump’s back.
I think it’s worth dialing more into who and what the term “foreign policy establishment” refers to before getting deeper into how this deal and its consequences reverberated throughout the world.
When I think of the term “foreign policy establishment,” I immediately think of the various think tanks where the heads of industry, finance, military, intelligence and politics convene.
There is one think tank that is particularly relevant to our discussion: the Atlantic Council.
It is not unfair to say that the Atlantic Council is the “brains behind NATO.”
The Council has been described in this way:
The Atlantic Council is an influential extremely militaristic influence network and think-tank, staffed with military, CIA, and their attendant politicians; and CEOs from strategic industries, like oil and media. It has strong connections to NATO, and is a central part of the modern military-industrial congressional complex.
The Atlantic Council is also described as a “civil society institution.”
It is often implied that “civil society” is some kind of third-party, oppositional public force to government and big business, but in most cases, the opposite is true, as civil society institution membership is typically comprised of individuals from both government and business.
The videos below outline the Atlantic Council’s consensus on Iran.
The Atlantic Council is funded by the U.S. State Department, the Pentagon, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, a litany of U.S. government agencies, and several UK government agencies. It is also funded by just about every major energy firm in the West: Chevron, Exxon, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell—they all donate to the Atlantic Council, and have a vested interest in the Iran deal.
Additionally, the council’s board includes at least 7 different former CIA directors. This is what I mean when I say, “the foreign policy establishment.”
These are the people who were fighting to keep the U.S. from pulling out of the Iran Deal.
These big energy firms interest in Iran was not unlike their previous interest in Ukraine, where Chevron signed $10 billion deals with Naftogaz, Ukraine’s state-owned oil and gas company. They basically wanted to do the same deal, only on a much larger scale, with Iran, and as funders of the Atlantic Council, they have influence over the State Department, the CIA, the Pentagon, etc., and can lobby for policies that would open up Iran. This episode is a crucial part of the backstory for how we got here.
Israel, who up to that point had walked in complete lockstep with the rest of NATO, suddenly was dissenting and actively supporting a regime change effort to bring new leadership to the U.S.; this naturally caused the Atlanticists to pursue a policy of regime change in Israel; hence, everything we mentioned previously RE civil unrest, investigations into Netanyahu, calls for new elections, etc.
To reiterate: Netanyahu may be an asshole, but to Trump world, he was their asshole; his government was part of the loosely knit, big-tent coalition that saw Trump to victory, like it or not.
Let's return to the foreign policy establishment.
The Iran Deal was spearheaded by a few names you should all know well by now—recurring characters in the geopolitical play we’ve all been observing: you have Jake Sullivan at the policy level (7th floor group, Carnegie Endowment, Trilateral Commission, Rhodes Scholar), and William Burns as lead negotiator (member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, National Endowment for Democracy, and Epstein associate).
Sullivan was the top cabinet official for Joe Biden and a huge part of Hillary Clinton’s campaign behind the scenes, while Bill Burns would become Biden’s future CIA director.
Two certified swamp creatures in high places.
Former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns headed a secret negotiating team that met with high level Iranian representatives first in 2008 under President George W. Bush, and then in earnest in 2013, when the Obama and Rouhani governments revived the talks.
Bill Burns was the subject of a previous Substack for Badlands called, A Bright Red Line, which showed that he was also involved in diplomatic analysis RE Russia in 2008. This story is relevant because he is part of the very same foreign policy establishment conducting a modern cold war—and an active proxy war vis-à-vis Ukraine—against Russia.
Another card-carrying deep state operator who was involved in the Iran Deal was Tom Donilon.
Donilon has been active in this world for a long time; he advised the presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Joe Biden, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, designing policy, managing conventions, preparing candidates for debates, and overseeing presidential transitions.
Donilon has also been a regular fixture at such prestigious deep political think tanks as Bilderberg (sat on the steering committee), the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the World Economic Forum. But it is his current gig as chairman of the BlackRock Investment Institute—essentially the “brain” of BlackRock Inc.—that will be important to remember going forward.
Donilon was technically Jake Sullivan’s boss at the time of the Iran Deal, and played a key policy role. When Trump pulled out of the Iran Deal, he was quoted as saying that it was “the worst move in the Middle East since the Iraq War.”
This is the man who Joe Biden originally tapped to be CIA Director, by the way, but ended up going to BlackRock instead. Not a small fish.
It is worth noting that Blackrock has considerable—if not majority—equity stakes in Chevron, Exxon, BP, Shell, etc., all of which stood to gain tremendously from this deal. There was an incredible amount of money on the line, so when Israel backed Trump, it naturally caused the CIA-controlled Chamber of Commerce to turn on Israel.
The Iran Deal split the ruling class factionally, more so than any other issue at the time.
China
When Trump pulled out of the deal, he threatened every country on Earth under the “maximum pressure” campaign, claiming that there would be “enormous consequences” for evading sanctions on Iran.
Biden’s policy was the opposite; within months of getting into office, he allowed China to sign a $400 billion deal with Iran.
This was an oil and gas deal that would have the added effect of creating a comprehensive economic and military partnership between the two nations. Iran would also be doctored into China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the centerpiece of Chinese foreign policy. So China would not only pay large sums for the oil and gas, but would also initiate sweeping infrastructure investments in Iran, in much the same way that the U.S. did in Saudi Arabia.
Joe Biden allowed this geostrategic nightmare to occur only two months into his presidency. Some people might call it incompetence, but when you consider that the Biden family has a now very public history of making money off of China, it starts to seem intentional.
Remember, the Bidens made millions off of CEFC China Energy, which was one of China’s largest energy firms at the time.
Biden isn’t the only character in our little play who’s profited greatly from China; Bill Burns and the Carnegie Foundation also made millions off of China.
While serving as president of the Carnegie Endowment board for International Peace, Burns welcomed into the board a Chinese businessman named Zhang Yichen, with links to two CCP entities; the Center for China Globalization and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Yichen donated between $750,000 and $1.5 million to Carnegie.
Carnegie also received millions of dollars from another CCP-backed organization called China-U.S. Exchange Foundation (CUSEF) is responsible for the United Front (a group that advances CCP interests) work in the United States. Carnegie received the money to build the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center in Beijing.
Prior to the $400 billion oil and gas deal with Iran, relations between China and Israel were relatively good, but the relationship naturally strained once China decided to dump nearly half a trillion dollars into the country that funds the proxies on Israel’s borders.
Though the Israel/China partnerships had been a boon for both nations, Iran was essential to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, far more important than Israel could ever hope to be.
China was in bed with the Atlanticists and the Democrats/neoconservatives, and Trump world, populated by notorious China hawks, was further incentivized to align with the Netanyahu government.
Now, there have been a litany of pundits claiming that “Iran is a paper tiger,” and thanks to decades of heavy sanctions, that’s true. However, Iran has powerful friends in low places.
The extent to which China is willing to back Iran and the extent to which the US is willing to back Israel are two important unknowns as the world watches what’s taking place here. China obviously doesn’t want to lose its $400 billion investment or the geostrategic benefit of having Iran doctored into the BRI.
While Iran may lack the economic and military strength to pose a major threat to Israel on its own, if it partners with a superpower like China—especially after being integrated into the BRI—China could supply Iran and its proxies with significantly more missiles than the Iron Dome and David’s Sling could intercept in a single barrage.
China could turn Iran into an existential threat to Israel.
Think about it, another proxy war of attrition a la Ukraine, one that could go on forever, theoretically, depending on how hard China wants to protect its investment.
If China protects its investment, what will the US do that it isn't already doing?
Hot war with China?
Pakistan
But it’s not just China; as I stated before, this Iran debacle ripples out and affects the whole geopolitical chessboard. When the Biden administration and the foreign policy establishment went all in on Iran, they also engaged in a series of additional foreign policy moves that altered the geopolitical equation; one of those moves was the overthrow of Imran Khan in Pakistan.
To provide context, Kahn was yet another notch in the belt of the regime change machine at the US State Department. He was a populist figure, a former cricket star and founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, and at first perceived as having ties to the military establishment, including the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) (Pakistan’s CIA; it’s an open secret that they are kept on a tight leash by the US, and that they run Pakistan), particularly during his ascent to political prominence.
While Khan may have initially benefited from ISI support, his relationship with the agency became strained during his tenure for a number of reasons; not unlike Donald Trump, Khan seemed to have had his own plans about how to run the country, plans that went against his country’s own rogue intelligence and the foreign policy establishment.
Khan’s relationship with the ISI deteriorated significantly after his ouster via a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April 2022, which he attributed to military and ISI interference. Khan openly accused the military, including then-ISI chief Nadeem Anjum and former army chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa of orchestrating his removal.
One of the primary reasons that a target was put on Kahn’s back was his “aggressively neutral” stance on Russia and threats to block Pakistani arms shipments to Ukraine. Essentially, he was pursuing an independent foreign policy that aimed to maintain friendly relations with both the US and Russia without favoring either side.
The establishment dislikes leaders making their own foreign policy decisions.
So Khan was ousted, and CIA/MIC/deep state-friendly assets are once again running Pakistan and the ISI. Fast forward to last month, and we have Pakistan threatening to nuke Israel.
It’s worth noting here—and I believe we touched on this briefly in Operation Cyclone: The Seeds of Terrorthat Pakistan is indispensable in its utility to the US as being an ally against Russia, just as it was in the 1980s, when the Reagan government was arming and funding the Al Qaeda precursors to fight against the Soviets.
One of the functions of the CIA-controlled ISI at that time, which still continues today, was being a major clearinghousefor US weapons, equipment and funds to be sent out to various CIA/DoD conflict zones.
We already have more conflict with Pakistan than the NatSec wizards would like.
Biden essentially overthrew the democratically elected government of Imran Khan and then tried to regime change Modi in India; one of the lenses you could see these moves through is the one where Biden is partnered with China.
Trump’s relationship with Modi is the opposite; it appears to be fantastic and growing. Trump clearly wants to build up India to create a wedge between it and China.
This is all to show you how this conflict could pull in some of the world's largest and most consequential countries, and that it's not just about nukes.
You have the US Chamber of Commerce companies, the world's largest energy firms, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and the two competing factions of the Western ruling class—all with a vested interest in how things will play out with Iran.
Considering all of this, you should see why it needs to be handled with care.
This situation, if it was handled any differently, could have rendered Trump a lame duck president by fracturing his base so badly that Republicans get absolutely wrecked in the midterms, rendering the term ineffective at making any of the necessary changes domestically that were promised.
At the same time, it couldn’t be ignored completely.
The Iran question, interwoven with the machinations of the foreign policy establishment, the Atlantic Council, and the competing interests of global powers like China, Russia, and Pakistan, is a geopolitical minefield. Missteps here could destabilize the Middle East and draw in nuclear-armed states like Pakistan and India, escalate tensions with China, and further erode the fragile public trust in the current administration.
Navigating these issues requires a finesse that balances populist appeal with strategic pragmatism. Trump’s ability to hold together his coalition while countering the foreign policy establishment’s entrenched power will determine whether he can reshape the global order or fall victim to its traps.
The pressure that Trump is under from Israel, the Netanyahu government specifically, is tremendous.
It’s challenging to know what’s in Trump’s heart, but it’s one of those things where the truth is difficult, and the truth of the situation is no Israel, no Trump 1 or 2.
For now, the “12-day war” is over, but we haven’t heard the last of Iran; they are still a hugely important piece on the board. While the writer's room is currently working on the next story arc of "War with Iran," it's evident that the show has been renewed for another season.
Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.
If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of Ryan’s work for free at the Post-Liberal.
Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.
Iran is already an existential threat to Israel. Iran has 400kg of highly enriched uranium and the ability to paste tiny Israel with hypersonics..dirty bombs are a thing 🤷♂️
This analysis is so detailed and comprehensive and the insight is amazing. Thank you for giving us a glimpse into all the key players and their moves and countermoves.