Tehran Times uncovered plans for an Israeli false flag operation targeting U.S. soil.

The goal is to incite war between the U.S. and Iran.

Iran thwarted the plot after intelligence sharing with a friendly nation.

Israel’s 1954 Lavon Affair and 1967 USS Liberty attack exemplify similar tactics.

Analysts warn of escalating provocations if diplomatic efforts falter.

(Natural News)—In a startling revelation, the Tehran Times has reported that Israeli intelligence planned a clandestine operation to detonate an explosion on U.S. soil and falsely accuse Iran, aiming to trigger a war between Washington and Tehran. According to intelligence shared with Iran by a foreign ally, the plot was thwarted after Iranian officials notified U.S. authorities. Analysts warn this conspiracy underscores an alarming pattern of Israeli strategies to manipulate alliances, invoking parallels to Cold War-era deceptions like the Lavon Affair and a disputed attack on a U.S. warship in 1967.

The Lavon Affair and USS Liberty: A history of sacrificing alliances for advantage

Israel’s willingness to risk alienating allies to advance strategic goals is laid bare in two landmark incidents. In 1954’s Lavon Affair, Israeli agents bombed Western targets in Egypt—airports, post offices and U.S. facilities—before falsely accusing local extremists. The scheme aimed to derail rapprochement between Egypt and the West, but backfired when the truth emerged, sparking diplomatic riots.

Decades later, the USS Liberty incident (1967) remains more contentious. During the Six-Day War, Israeli jets and torpedo boats attacked an unarmed U.S. Navy intelligence ship in international waters, killing 34 Americans. Israel claimed “misidentification,” but survivors insisted the strike was deliberate, citing visible American flags and targeted communication systems. The incident highlighted Israel’s readiness to gamble with American lives to achieve battlefield advantages.

“False flags 2.0”: Analysts outline how history could repeat

Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a Pentagon veteran, told Sputnik that Israel may escalate covert tactics if U.S. support wanes. Scenarios include staged attacks on U.S. infrastructure or “accidental” strikes on civilian aircraft. “Israel holds blackmail power over Trump and Congress,” she noted, “but a USS Liberty-style incident — maybe targeting the aging USS Nimitz — can’t be ruled out.”

Geopolitical analyst Yeghia Tashjian emphasized Israel’s practical limits: its air strikes cannot penetrate Iran’s fortified nuclear sites, and ground forces are insufficient for occupation. “Without U.S. escalation, its war on Iran falters,” he said. Tashjian warned that Israel might resort to manipulating anti-Iran sentiment through cyberattacks, fake terror acts, or even radioactive sabotage.

Public opinion as a firewall — or fodder?

The plot’s exposure shines a light on public resistance to war. Recent polls reveal a chasm between public sentiment and policy, with 85% of Americans opposing military action against Iran, including nearly 60% of Republicans who once strongly supported hawkish agendas. A June Chicago Council survey further underscores this divide, showing that 55% of U.S. adults reject deploying troops to defend Israel, despite Israel’s security concerns dominating headlines. Meanwhile, Reuters polls indicate half of Americans fear a U.S.-Iran war within years, even as 80% insist on military retaliation for Iranian aggression — a paradox that critics argue stems from fearmongering narratives prioritized over diplomatic solutions.

The U.S.-Israel “special relationship” intensifies this disconnect: $40 billion in military aid over a decade and bipartisan congressional backing for Jerusalem’s policies have insulated decision-making from voter frustration. Former President Trump’s shift — from “America First” rhetoric to endorsing Israeli aerial bombardments — epitomizes the ethical compromises many view as corruption within traditional institutions. Grassroots movements and alternative media platforms now amplify voices demanding transparency, challenging White House justifications for entanglement in Mideast conflicts that outrage voters but enrich defense contractors.

The next false flag: A choice between vigilance and catastrophe

The Tehran Times’ report signals a boiling point in a shadow war where alliances bend to deception. As Israel confronts Iran’s nuclear advancements—enrichment to 60% purity, per IAEA monitors—TEL AVIV’S dire scenarios risk manufactured crises. Historians draw parallels to the Iran-Contra scandal, where covert operations blurred truth, while security analysts warn of tactics echoing Vietnam-era false flag incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin. The specter of false flags grows alongside dwindling diplomatic avenues: the U.S.-brokered JCPOA’s collapse and stalled talks heighten desperation for quick military answers.

This summer alone, three Israeli unmanned submarines were found in Iranian waters, fueling conspiracy theories about staged incidents to justify war. Independent media outlets, long marginalized for questioning official narratives, now highlight these inconsistencies, urging skepticism of any “evidence” trumpeted as casus belli. Analysts like Columbia University’s Rashid Khalidi stress that without independent verification, even legitimate grievances could be exploited by hawkish actors pushing geopolitical agendas. The public’s fading trust, paired with swelling opposition to conflict, presents a crossroads: rigorous scrutiny of information—or a repeat of past deceptions that plunged nations intoneedless bloodshed.

Sources for this article include: