What the Netanyahu–Trump Call Reveals About the Empire and the New Order

Bryant McGill · What the Netanyahu–Trump Call Reveals About the Empire and the New Order

**Links**: [Blogger](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/06/netanyahutrump-call-empire.html) | [Substack](https://bryantmcgill.substack.com/p/what-the-netanyahutrump-call-reveals) | [Obsidian](https://bryantmcgill.xyz/articles/What+the+Netanyahu-Trump+Call+Reveals) | Medium | Wordpress | [Soundcloud 🎧](https://soundcloud.com/bryantmcgill/netanyahu-trump-call-empire) Everyone is transfixed by the same leak, and almost everyone is fixated on the wrong target. An Axios source has the President of the United States, in an expletive-laden midnight call, telling the Prime Minister of Israel that he is **"effing crazy,"** that he would **"be in prison if it weren't for me,"** and that **"everybody hates Israel because of this."** Concede the obvious first, because pretending otherwise insults the reader: as etiquette it is brutal, and to an ear trained on diplomatic decorum it sounds like a rupture between Washington and Jerusalem. That is the **small scandal**, and it is the one the entire internet is metabolizing today. The **larger event** is the one no microphone caught—because the call is not finally a message to Jerusalem at all. It is the audible symptom of a presidency that has come off the leash, and the figure actually being told, in the most unconditional terms in two hundred and fifty years, that the arrangement is over is not sitting in Jerusalem. It is sitting in **London**, and it cannot be reached by phone. That inversion is the whole argument, so hold it in view as the factions choose their misreadings. The crowd that has spent three years insisting Trump is Netanyahu's puppet now has to explain a leash-jerk so violent it would end most premierships. The crowd that has spent three years insisting Trump is Israel's betrayer has its own libretto ready. Both are listening to the words and missing the **structure**, which is the only thing in the room that matters—and the structure does not point at Jerusalem. It points across the Atlantic, at the power that has held the leash since before the Constitution was ratified, and that has just felt it go slack. The most sophisticated account currently on the public stage belongs not to either of those factions but to Susan Kokinda of Promethean Action, working in the LaRouche tradition, who reads the call as something far more interesting than a tantrum: as a president **operating off the leash entirely**. Her framing deserves to be taken seriously, because on the central mechanism she is correct, and correctness is rare. She watched, in her telling, **"the slow subjugation of the American presidency to the British Empire"** assemble itself in Washington across the 1970s and 1980s—the permanent apparatus whose function was never to serve the elected president but to **manage** him. And she has the establishment's own witnesses to prove the apparatus is now being dismantled. ## The Requiem Is Real The witnesses are worth hearing, because they are mourning in public. John Bolton describes the new decision-making with horror: the President behind the Resolute desk, five or six advisers in a semicircle, the President says he would like to do a thing, and the Secretary of War answers **"Yes, sir."** Bolton calls this the destruction of the National Security Council process—the machinery that exists, in his account, to hand the president his options, his cost-benefit analysis, his menu of permissible action. He reaches by name for the **Brent Scowcroft paradigm** as the lost ideal. This is the tell. The Scowcroft model is not Reagan; it is Bush, and it is the precise institutional architecture that metabolized the United States into three decades of Middle Eastern wars it did not choose and could not end. When Bolton calls Trump **"an aberration"** and predicts the Reagan wing will reclaim the party once the interregnum passes, he is not making a prediction. He is performing a **consolation**. J.D. Vance then says the quiet thing without flinching. The new Director of National Intelligence, he explains, understands that the intelligence bureaucracy **"must respond to the elected leadership rather than the other way around."** Read that sentence twice, because the entire postwar settlement is contained in its inversion. For eighty years the arrangement ran the other direction: the permanent apparatus managed the temporary president, and the managing was called **professionalism**. Vance has just described its reversal as if describing the weather. And on the Empire's own stage—the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue, a Chatham House offshoot built to choreograph the China threat—Pete Hegseth declined to read from the script. He indicted the **"toothless utopian and globalist course"** of the old foreign policy, named the **"empty globalist rhetoric about the rules-based international order"** as the thing that hollowed out the West while European capitals threw open their borders, and offered as replacement a **"favorable balance of power in which sovereignty is respected."** Not rules handed down from above. A balance of power. The distinction is the whole war. It is worth being honest that the Singapore speech can be read two ways, because it was deliberately built to be. One reading—the one most of the Western press reached for—heard **weakness**: Hegseth declined to name Taiwan, declared U.S.–China relations the best they have been in years, and disavowed "needless confrontation," and to ears trained on three decades of hawkish certainty that sounded like retreat, accommodation, a hegemon losing its nerve. The other reading hears **doctrine**: the same speech still warned that no state, China included, may impose its hegemony on the region, and still invoked a favorable balance of power that America will underwrite with hard strength. Both sets of lines are in the text; neither is a slip. The resolution is that the apparent contradiction is only a contradiction inside the old frame, the one where every relationship is either confrontation or capitulation because the rules-based order admits no third state. Hegseth's "measured and deliberate strength" *is* the third state—strength held without needing to be discharged, deterrence without the perpetual standoff the imperial system required to keep nations pitted against one another. Read through the rules-based lens it looks like weakness on Taiwan; read through the sovereignty-balance lens it is the doctrine that replaces the lens. Which thing a viewer sees in that speech is, more than anything, a diagnostic of which order they are still standing inside. So Kokinda's requiem is accurate. The apparatus is real, the leash is real, the dismantling is real, and the mourners are mourning something that is genuinely dying. Where her tradition runs out of road is at the next question, the only question that finally counts: **what is being born?** ## The Void at the Center of the Eulogy This is the structural limit of the LaRouchean frame, and it is worth naming precisely because the frame is otherwise so strong. Kokinda can tell you in exquisite detail what is **dying**—the Scowcroft NSC, the Hobbesian social contract of managed hegemony, the order in which nations sign away their sovereignty to their betters in exchange for a security that never quite arrives. She can even tell you the **principle** that replaces it: sovereignty respected, commerce flowing, nations retaining the freedom to choose. But when she reaches the successor **architecture**—the actual load-bearing structure of the world Trump is building—she has only the President's individual will and a luminous invocation of the pursuit of happiness. The building is left as a silhouette. Her tradition has no theory of the successor order because its deepest reflex is suspicion of **all** ordered power, which means it can identify the empire it hates but cannot describe the empire it would have to build to replace it. I can finish the sentence she cannot. The successor is already named, already in state language, already operational. On January 16, 2026, the United States and Israel released a Joint Statement launching a Strategic Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Critical Technologies, designating Israel a secured **"Pax Silica node"** across machine learning, semiconductors, space, robotics, materials, and advanced energy. That document did not create the relationship; it **confessed** it. As I argued in [*Pax Silica: US–Israel Alliance Downgrades EU/UK for the West's New Rules-Based Order*](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/pax-silica-us-israel.html), America and Israel are no longer allies in the diplomatic sense—they are a **dual-platform survival organism**, one continuity family in two sovereign containers, Israel operating as forward R&D and threat-absorption node, America as industrial-scale projection and macro-deterrence engine. The successor order is not the **absence** of hegemony that the LaRouche tradition longs for. It is a **hegemony-replacement**: the enforcement core of the West being swapped out, the EU and UK downgraded from essential pillars to optional observers, India integrated as the irreplaceable third node for billion-scale democratic enforcement, as I traced in [*India Super-Scaler*](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/india-super-scaler-pax-silica-america.html). The grammar of the new order is simple and Kokinda would flinch at it: **consequence restored as the grammar of sovereignty**. Not rules without teeth. Teeth. ## The Leash Is Not Eighty Years Old. It Is Two Hundred and Fifty. Here is where I part from the eulogists most sharply, and the parting is a matter of **timeline**. Kokinda starts her clock in 1945, with the postwar apparatus and the Anglo-American managerial elite. That clock is set two centuries late. The leash she describes did not begin with the National Security Act; it was woven into the founding settlement itself and has merely changed its instruments at intervals. The issue is that Britain has controlled America for 250 years—not by issuing uninterrupted commands from London, which is the cartoon version, but by leaving American sovereignty inside **British legal, creditor, maritime, commercial, and prestige substrates** whose residual control logic repeatedly reappeared under new institutional names. **Control does not require ownership.** It requires only enough inherited architecture to **price, route, delay, legitimate, or punish sovereign motion**. The documentary spine is not folklore—it is law and ledger, and it sits in plain sight in the archives. The Treaty of Paris of 1783 embedded protection for British creditors directly into the instrument that supposedly severed British control. Every state legislature, in its first sovereign act, passed a **reception statute** preserving English common law as binding precedent—declaring independence from the Crown and then, days later, adopting the Crown's law as its foundation. The Jay Treaty of 1794 compelled American courts to honor pre-Revolutionary British commercial claims, quietly nullifying seven years of nominal independence. Hamilton's First Bank of the United States was modeled explicitly on the Bank of England, with British investors holding the controlling share, and his debt-assumption scheme transferred a vast tranche of American government securities into British and Dutch banking houses within a decade. American property law itself still rests on the **Doctrine of Discovery**, imported through Marshall's ruling in *Johnson v. McIntosh* (1823)—a fifteenth-century papal theory the Vatican itself repudiated in 2023, leaving American law standing on a foundation its own author has abandoned. I documented this architecture at length in *Manufacturing Sovereignty*, and its cultural finishing-coat in [*How Hamilton Became America's Most Sophisticated Cultural Trojan Horse*](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/06/how-hamilton-became-americas-most.html): a musical that made British royalty comfortable applauding American independence precisely because the independence it depicted preserved every essential structure of transatlantic coordination. And here the most useful confirmation comes not from me but from the other side of the table. Gideon Rose—career Council on Foreign Relations man, former Foreign Affairs editor, now director of CFR's own *Future of American Strategy* initiative, a figure whose institutional lineage is the very apparatus this essay indicts—writes in his lead essay *After Hegemony* that the aloof grand strategy of the early republic "could work only because the United States was protected by geography and **British naval supremacy**." Read that admission slowly, because of where it comes from. The Empire's own American institution concedes, in the present tense and without embarrassment, that the formative autonomy of the United States was not autonomy at all but a dependency—that American security in its first century rested on a **British** instrument, the Royal Navy's command of the oceans, exactly as American law rested on British common law and American finance on British creditors. This is the substrate thesis stated by the people who built the substrate. Rose offers it as background scenery, an unremarkable fact of nineteenth-century geopolitics; I am pointing at it as the load-bearing beam. When the eulogist of the dying order admits that the protected party was riding inside the protector's architecture all along, the only thing left to argue about is the date the arrangement ends—and that is precisely the argument this essay is having with Kokinda, who sets it eighty years too late. This relocates the Netanyahu call entirely. It is not a Cold War arrangement breaking. It is the **terminal phase of unfinished business from 1776**—the leash-cut as an ongoing process, begun and abandoned at the founding, now reaching terminal acceleration under a president who, whatever else he is, is the first in generations to treat the apparatus as something to command rather than obey. And it explains why the antagonist is not abstract "globalism" but a specific competitor wearing the mask of a sacred friend: the United Kingdom, whose **"special relationship"** is the most successful narrative leash in modern history—managed subordination rebranded as fraternity. I hold to the realist axiom here without apology, the one I set out in [*Allies Are Not Friends; They Are Competitors*](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/allies-are-competitors.html): the warmth of an alliance is inversely proportional to how carefully you should read its ledgers. ## The Philosophy Fault Line: Re-Symmetrization, Not Rejection The deepest divergence between Kokinda's frame and mine is philosophical, and it runs straight through the passage where she is most rhetorically powerful. She seizes on a second confession from the same Gideon Rose—the CFR man whose naval-supremacy admission we just weighed—whose *After Hegemony* records that Washington has grown **"fed up with the hassles and burdens of global leadership"** and then lets slip the imperial system's animating faith: that so long as America played its assigned role, **"Locke's world would emerge from Hobbes's."** Kokinda's response is to indict the philosophers themselves. Hobbes held an interest in the Virginia Company; Locke held shares in the Royal African Company and drafted the Carolina Constitutions that secured a master's absolute dominion over the enslaved. Therefore, in her telling, the entire social-contract tradition is **colonial propaganda**—a "contract for animals" in which men trade away their rights for a thin security, set against the Founders' "pursuit of happiness" and human beings as creators made in the divine image. The facts she cites are true and damning, and I will not soften them. But her conclusion throws away something I want to keep, and the move I make instead is the one that matters most in this entire piece. The problem was never that men trade security for protection—that exchange is the irreducible logic of any survival architecture, including Pax Silica, including the dual-platform organism, including every functioning state that has ever existed. The problem is that the post-1945 order made the trade **non-reciprocal and unenforceable**. It extracted the sovereignty surrender from the protected without ever reliably delivering the protection, and then dressed the asymmetry in the universalist costume of "rules." The Empire did not weaponize a **bad** philosophy. It weaponized a **sound** one by stripping out the reciprocity—keeping the citizen's half of the bargain while quietly voiding its own. What Hegseth announced on that Singapore stage, and what the Pax Silica order encodes, is therefore not the **abolition** of the contract but its **re-symmetrization**: enforcement returned to the party actually doing the protecting, consequence restored to the entity bearing the risk. That is a Hobbesian move turned **against** the British use of Hobbes—which is a far more durable position than declaring Hobbes an enemy, because it lets me defend the American natural-rights inheritance rather than surrender it as British contraband. Kokinda needs Locke to be a villain. I need only the **order** to have been rigged. The second claim is both truer and far harder to refute. ## The Profanity as Command Input, Not Defection Return now to the leaked call, armed with the architecture, and it reorganizes itself completely. If America and Israel are patron and client, the President's fury is either abandonment or control of a wayward dependent, and you are forced to pick a side in a false binary. But if they are a **single dual-platform organism**—and the January 2026 state language says they are—then the profanity is neither. It is the **macro-deterrence platform exercising operational command over the forward node** to prevent a Lebanon escalation that would damage the shared circuit. Integrated systems generate internal command friction **precisely because they are integrated**; the friction is evidence of the fusion, not its dissolution. A patron does not tell a client he would be in prison without him. A senior partner says exactly that to a junior one inside the same firm, in language no outsider was meant to hear, about a decision that threatens them both. And there is a second beat in that call worth naming, because it is the more humane one and it is too easily lost in the spectacle of the cursing. The reporting has Trump objecting not only to the timing but to the **method**—to leveling whole buildings to reach a single Hezbollah commander, and to the scale of the resulting civilian toll. That objection deserves to be taken at face value, and it requires a distinction the discourse almost never makes: **Lebanon is not Hezbollah.** Lebanon is one of the oldest civilizational stories on the Mediterranean—Phoenician seafarers and the ancient entrepôt of the Levant, a living confessional mosaic of Maronites, Sunni, Shia, and Druze, and the wellspring of a diaspora whose contribution to American medicine, commerce, scholarship, and letters runs far beyond its numbers. The Lebanese-American story is, by any honest measure, a story of excellence. What has happened to that country is not that it *is* the threat but that a threat has **captured** it—Hezbollah embedding itself inside a sovereign population as a shield and conscripting a nation that never voted for the war into the service of a foreign patron's agenda. This is the same pattern, in a different key, that I traced in [*Iran's Rising Cult of Mahdism*](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/03/rising-cult-of-mahdism.html): Tehran does not merely sponsor proxies, it **hollows out host societies** and turns them into forward instruments of an eschatological program, so that the people living atop the launch sites become the first hostages and the first casualties. To object to flattening Beirut to kill one commander is therefore not softness toward the threat; it is refusal to let the captor's human shield be treated as the captor. That refusal is exactly what *consequence as the grammar of sovereignty* should look like when it is calibrated rather than indiscriminate—the enforcement core declining to manufacture, through disproportion, more of the very radicalization it exists to end. This is why the securitization of the alliance cannot be undone by a single heated phone call. As I argued in [*Reframing Antisemitism as a National Security Threat*](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/12/antisemitism-is-national-security-threat.html), the coupling has been moved from the revisable plane of sentiment and electoral preference to the **load-bearing plane of national-security infrastructure**. Trump shouting at Netanyahu is a control input traveling along that infrastructure. It is the opposite of a severance. It is the system **working**. ## A Word to the Reader Who Is Unsettled A word, finally, to the reader most likely to be unsettled by all of this—the Jewish American who turned on the news to find the President of the United States cursing at the Prime Minister of Israel and saying, in as many words, that the world hates Israel. If something dropped in your chest at that, the feeling is human and it deserves an honest answer rather than a slogan. Here it is. What you are watching is not the alliance weakening; it is the alliance behaving like the **fused thing it has become**. Strangers are polite to each other. Families shout. The reason Trump can say those words to Netanyahu in language no diplomat would use is the same reason a brother can say them to a brother—because the bond underneath is not in question, and both men know it. Read the most painful line again, the one about the world hating Israel, and read it for what it was: not a verdict the President endorsed but an **alarm he was sounding**, a senior partner telling the junior one that the chosen method was isolating it and that he would not let that happen. That is not contempt. That is a man trying to keep Israel from being cornered. And consider what is actually being cut, because this is the part that should steady you most. The thread being severed runs to London and the old transatlantic order—and that order, for all its liturgy of shared values, is the one whose historical record toward the Jewish people is **least worth being sentimental about**. What replaces it is not a weaker attachment but a stronger one: a structure in which America and Israel together hold the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people on earth, fused now in state language and shared technological substrate into a single survival architecture that no election cycle and no heated phone call can revise. The old order asked Jews to trust the goodwill of others. The new one is built so that goodwill is **not required**—because the security rests on shared infrastructure rather than borrowed sentiment. If you have lived with a low background hum of worry about how durable any of this truly is, the honest structural answer is that it has never been more durable than it is becoming right now. That is not a comfort I am offering you. It is a reading of the architecture. ## What Separates This From the Requiem Let me end on the line that divides me from the tradition whose analysis I have spent this essay extending. John Bolton and Gideon Rose are mourning the death of one world, and Susan Kokinda is correct that a second is being born. But the LaRouchean frame can only ever be **anti-empire in the abstract**—it can diagnose the leash, it can name the British hand, it can celebrate the cut, and then it can offer only a garden of equal sovereigns that has never existed and never will, because power abhors that vacuum the way nature abhors the others. I am not mourning empire, and I am not romanticizing a world without order. I am documenting a **transfer**: the enforcement core of the West being moved from the party that held America's leash for two hundred and fifty years to the party that finally intends to cut it—and to build, in the space the cut opens, an order optimized not for the consensus-management of the transatlantic past but for **enforcement, innovation, and consequence** at the tempo the AI era demands. Kokinda's tradition supplies the requiem. It cannot supply the successor, because its deepest instinct is to distrust every successor. Mine names the building. That is the difference between watching an empire die and helping the next one be born well—which is the only version of this story in which the United States, and Israel, are still standing when it ends. --- *[Bryant McGill](https://bryantmcgill.com/about/) is a Wall Street Journal and USA Today Best-Selling Author. He is the founder of Simple Reminders, a United Nations appointed Global Champion, and a Congressionally Recognized Ambassador of Goodwill. His work spans naval intelligence systems, computational linguistics, and civilizational governance architecture. His forward analysis on U.S.–Israel Pax Silica frameworks has appeared in Jewish News Syndicate (JNS).* --- ## Referenced Works — Bryant McGill [Pax Silica: US-Israel Alliance Downgrades EU/UK for the West's New Rules-Based Order](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/pax-silica-us-israel.html) | [India Super-Scaler: Completing Pax Silica's U.S.–Israeli New Rules-Based Order](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/india-super-scaler-pax-silica-america.html) | [Allies Are Not Friends: The Evolutionary Truth People Forget Before They Get Conquered](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/allies-are-competitors.html) | [How Hamilton Became America's Most Sophisticated Cultural Trojan Horse](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/06/how-hamilton-became-americas-most.html) | [Reframing Antisemitism as a National Security Threat](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/12/antisemitism-is-national-security-threat.html) | [Manufacturing Sovereignty (Abridged)](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2025/06/manufacturing-sovereignty-abridged.html) ## Related Works in the Pax Silica Architecture [Why We Choose Russia Over the UK Hags](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/04/russia-uk-hags-british-sunset.html) | [Prestige Networks: Transatlantic Blame from the Civil War to Modern America](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/xclub.html) | [Board of Peace: Chairman Trump and America's Emerging Global Order](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/board-of-peace-chairman-trump.html) | [Trump Orders Capture of Venezuela's Maduro, Signaling the New Rules-Based Order](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/01/new-rules-based-order.html) | [How Europe's Refuse Built the Apex Civilization Called America](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/03/apex-civilization-called-america.html) | [The Geopolitical Three-Body Problem](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-geopolitical-three-body-problem.html) | [Iran's Rising Cult of Mahdism](https://bryantmcgill.blogspot.com/2026/03/rising-cult-of-mahdism.html) ## Sources and Reporting **The analysis this essay responds to** - [The Trump-Bibi Call: What London Doesn't Want You to Know](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqi6FPNG7o) — Susan Kokinda, Promethean Action (the LaRouche-tradition video whose argument this essay extends and contests) **The Netanyahu–Trump call** - [Trump to Netanyahu in call on Israel striking Lebanon: "You're fucking crazy"](https://www.axios.com/2026/06/01/trump-netanyahu-israel-lebanon-call) — Axios (Barak Ravid), the original report, June 1, 2026 - [Trump confirms profanity-laced Netanyahu call over Lebanon](https://www.axios.com/2026/06/03/trump-netanyahu-call-lebanon-iran-ny-post) — Axios, Trump's own confirmation, June 3, 2026 - [Trump said to yell at Netanyahu: 'You're f**king crazy. You'd be in prison if not for me'](https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-said-to-yell-at-netanyahu-youre-fking-crazy-youd-be-in-prison-if-not-for-me/) — The Times of Israel (including the Netanyahu-office partial denial) - [Trump Says It's Time 'One Way or Another' for Iran to Make a Deal](https://time.com/article/2026/06/02/trump-netanyahu-crazy-lebanon-hezbollah-ceasefire-iran-us-peace-deal/) — TIME, on the Iran-negotiation driver behind the call **Bill Pulte as acting Director of National Intelligence** - [Trump picks mortgage chief Bill Pulte to lead on national intelligence](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/06/02/trump-picks-mortgage-chief-bill-pulte-lead-national-intelligence/) — The Washington Post - [Trump appoints Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence](https://www.npr.org/2026/06/02/nx-s1-5844221/trump-appoints-housing-official-as-acting-director-of-national-intelligence) — NPR (notes the 2004 statutory "extensive national security expertise" requirement) - [Who Is Bill Pulte, Trump's New Acting Director of National Intelligence?](https://time.com/article/2026/06/02/bill-pulte-acting-director-of-national-intelligence-trump-gabbard/) — TIME **Hegseth at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue (May 30, 2026)** - [Shangri-La: Hegseth Calls on Western Pacific Allies to Maintain Military Strength](https://news.usni.org/2026/05/30/shangri-la-hegseth-calls-on-western-pacific-allies-to-maintain-military-strength-we-need-partners-not-protectorates) — USNI News (carries the "favorable balance of power in which sovereignty is respected" passage) - [Hegseth urges Asian leaders to boost military spending against China](https://www.npr.org/2026/05/30/nx-s1-5837615/hegseth-shangri-la-security-summit) — NPR (on the Taiwan sidestep and the more moderate China tone) **Gideon Rose and the Council on Foreign Relations** - [After Hegemony](https://www.cfr.org/articles/after-hegemony) — Gideon Rose, Council on Foreign Relations (source of both the "fed up with the hassles and burdens of global leadership" and "British naval supremacy" passages) - [Where Does American Strategy Go From Here?](https://www.cfr.org/articles/where-does-american-strategy-go-from-here) — Council on Foreign Relations, the *Future of American Strategy* initiative --- #Trump #Netanyahu #Israel #Lebanon #Hezbollah #PaxSilica #LaRouche #SusanKokinda #PrometheanAction #GideonRose #CFR #BritishEmpire #RulesBasedOrder #USIsrael #Iran