Despite narratives about religion or ideology, the core of many international conflicts is economic control over critical resources like oil. A nation's reaction to attacks on its oil infrastructure versus its leaders reveals the true economic nature of the fight.

Despite ideological or religious motivations, sustained conflict is impossible without economic support. Even highly motivated groups cannot fight without money to buy weapons and maintain their infrastructure, revealing economics as the fundamental, inescapable driver of global power dynamics and war.

The historical establishment of Israel is presented as a playbook for political conquest through demographics. A group can immigrate into a region, grow its numbers until it becomes a dominant political class, and eventually assume control, a strategy potentially being replicated by other groups in modern nations.

The US needed a conflict that offered the 'appearance of victory' and could be quickly concluded. Israel's goals were more fundamental: ensuring it could never again face a surprise attack, implying a longer, more disruptive war. This misalignment created strategic tension between the allies.

A key geopolitical theory suggests Israel's grand strategy is the "Greater Israel Project," a plan to expand its influence across the Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates. This would involve conquering territory in modern-day Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey.

Modern conflicts are not fought for clear victories but as a mechanism to funnel wealth from the public to military, financial, and technical industrial complexes. This framework makes seemingly illogical, perpetual wars make financial sense for a select few.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is often framed as a religious clash, but its root is the political reality of military occupation. The Palestinian response is a predictable human reaction to subjugation, similar to the Irish resisting the British, not a unique feature of their religion.

The neoconservative movement gained immense influence by creating a symbiotic relationship with the defense industry. Their ideology advocating for numerous wars provided the justification, while defense contractors provided the funding for their think tanks, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of conflict and profit.

Despite Trump's stated goal of ending "stupid wars," U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has aligned more closely with the neoconservative and Israeli lobby's long-term goal of remaking the region. This suggests their influence is a more reliable predictor of U.S. action than the President's own rhetoric.