Three Tyrants and a War: Don’t Let Trump and Netanyahu’s Attack on Iran Fool You

As of this morning — February 28, 2026 — the United States and Israel have launched what Trump is calling “Operation Epic Fury,” a massive military assault on Iran. The explosions are real. The geopolitical consequences will be severe. But before the fog of war completely obscures our judgment, let us ask the questions that Western media is already rushing past: Who are the men ordering these strikes, and are they really so different from the tyrant they are bombing?


Yes — Khamenei Has to Go

Let us be unambiguous about one thing: Ali Khamenei is a brutal dictator whose crimes against his own people are documented, systematic, and severe. The UN’s independent fact-finding commission has confirmed that the Islamic Republic committed crimes against humanity against peaceful protesters, including the killing of at least 551 demonstrators after September 2022, widespread torture, rape with objects, electric shocks, and forced disappearances — all carried out under the command structure that leads directly to Khamenei.

Iran under Khamenei has executed over 200 prisoners in a single three-week period as recently as November 2025. Women are jailed for removing their hijabs. LGBTQ+ Iranians face execution. The country’s nuclear ambitions have destabilized the region for decades, and its “Axis of Resistance” — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria — has spread violence across the Middle East. The Iranian people themselves have taken to the streets repeatedly, at enormous personal risk, demanding an end to the theocracy.

Khamenei’s regime deserves to fall. The question is: do Trump and Netanyahu have the moral authority, the political integrity, or even the genuine intent to bring that about? And are their own records really so clean?

Khamenei’s Record: What the UN Found

551+
Protesters killed
2022–2023 alone
207
Prisoners executed
in 3 weeks, Nov 2025
Crime against
Humanity

UN designation, 2024
Decades
of proxy wars & terror
Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis

The Real Reasons for “Operation Epic Fury”

Trump declared this morning that the U.S. is conducting a “massive and ongoing operation” to prevent a “wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America.” He vowed to destroy Iran’s missiles, raze its missile industry, and annihilate its Navy. Netanyahu framed the strikes as an existential imperative, invoking the darkest chapters of Jewish history. The official narrative is security. The underlying reality is considerably more complicated.

Motive 1: Nuclear pretext, political timing. Israel and the U.S. had been in negotiations with Tehran since late 2025. Trump had himself called for a new deal. But the moment Iran moved to accelerate uranium enrichment — weeks, not years, away from weapons-grade material — the window for a diplomatic justification closed and the window for a military one opened. Crucially, Iran’s traditional strategic defenses had been gutted: Hezbollah was decimated by the IDF, Assad had fallen, Hamas was operationally crippled, and Iranian air defenses were left unreplaced after Russia declined to restock them following October’s Israeli strike. The military opportunity was, in short, too good to pass up.

Motive 2: Netanyahu’s legal survival. Benjamin Netanyahu is currently on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust — charges that could land him in prison. Multiple Israeli Knesset members have openly accused him of deliberately prolonging military conflicts to stall his court proceedings. The corruption trial has been repeatedly postponed due to “security obligations.” Netanyahu even requested a presidential pardon as recently as November 2025. Israeli political commentator Ori Goldberg put it plainly: “This is mainly for domestic purposes — to restore faith in Netanyahu and make him potentially eligible for the next elections, or perhaps even to be acquitted at his trial.”

Motive 3: Trump’s zone-flooding doctrine. Trump is a master of distraction by escalation. His administration is currently facing over 100 legal challenges in U.S. courts, a deepening constitutional crisis over judicial defiance, and historically low approval ratings on domestic policy. Military action overseas — especially against an internationally reviled regime — is the oldest political redirect in the book. His June 2025 nuclear strikes on Iran were widely celebrated domestically. This operation doubles down on that playbook.

Motive 4: Oil, sanctions, and economic leverage. Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, relaunched on February 4, 2025, aimed to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero — especially to China. Crippling Iran militarily removes a key rival oil supplier and reasserts U.S. dominance over the global energy market at a moment when Trump is deeply invested in fossil fuel supremacy.

“Netanyahu has no exit strategy. Not for Gaza. Not for conscription of the ultra-Orthodox. Not for Iran. Throughout his career, he has always ordered the most expensive items on the menu, thinking someone else would pick up the check.” — Yedioth Ahronoth editorial board

The Mirror They Won’t Look Into: Three Leaders, One Playbook

Here is the uncomfortable truth that Western media is studiously avoiding this morning: the three men at the centre of this conflict — Khamenei, Netanyahu, and Trump — share a remarkably similar operating system. The methods differ in degree and democratic pretence. The underlying logic is strikingly the same.

The Three-Leader Comparison: Authoritarian Parallels

Trait / Behaviour Khamenei (Iran) Netanyahu (Israel) Trump (USA)
Attacks on judicial independence Courts subordinated to Supreme Leader Judicial overhaul to limit court power; trial postponed via war Defies court orders; calls judges “enemies”; 100+ legal challenges
Personal legal jeopardy driving policy No independent accountability possible On trial for bribery/fraud; wars used to delay proceedings Multiple criminal indictments; “witch hunt” deflection
Suppression of dissent / demonizing opposition Protesters killed, tortured, and jailed Protesters framed as “anarchists”; hostage families silenced Jan. 6 insurrectionists pardoned; political enemies prosecuted
Cult of personal infallibility Supreme Leader’s word is divine law Framed trial as “political persecution of the right” Claims only he can fix America; demands absolute loyalty
Perpetual war as political oxygen Proxy wars sustain regime legitimacy “Forever War” model; Gaza, Lebanon, now Iran Military strikes in 6+ countries; “flooding the zone with bombs”
Contempt for the press and free media State controls all media; journalists jailed or killed Al Jazeera banned; critical media framed as hostile “Enemy of the people” press attacks; media access restricted
ICC / international law accountability Defies all international tribunals ICC arrest warrant issued for war crimes in Gaza Sanctioned ICC prosecutors; withdrew from international oversight

The Double Standard the World Is Watching

Israeli officials openly declared they “could kill Ayatollah Khamenei but choose not to — for now.” State-sponsored assassination threats against a head of state. Imagine, for a moment, the global outrage if any other government issued the same threat against a Western leader. The UN would be in emergency session. Sanctions would follow within hours. Yet when the threat comes from Israel, backed by the United States, the European community issues cautious statements about “de-escalation” and quietly “expresses readiness to help Israel if its security is threatened.”

Germany, France, and Britain — nations that lecture the world about the rule of law — have offered no meaningful condemnation of a military operation that began without a UN Security Council mandate, against a country that had not launched an attack on either Israel or the United States in this immediate crisis. Iran’s nuclear program is dangerous and its weapons ambitions are real. But the same Western nations that demand due process and proportionality everywhere else simply look the other way when the aggressor is an ally.

Consider the asymmetry in coverage and condemnation:

The Selective Outrage Checklist

  • Iran kills 551 protesters → International condemnation, UN inquiry. Israel kills 45,000+ in Gaza → ICC warrant, but U.S. blocks all Security Council action.
  • Russia invades Ukraine without UN authorization → Immediate global sanctions. U.S./Israel bomb Iran without UN mandate → Called “self-defence” and “necessary.”
  • Venezuela’s Maduro jails opposition → Targeted for regime change. Saudi Arabia executes 196 people in 2022 → Arms deals continue, Crown Prince feted.
  • Iran funds proxies in the region → Called state-sponsored terrorism. U.S. funds coups, proxy wars, and paramilitary forces globally → “National security interests.”
  • Khamenei threatens Israel → Proof of existential danger. Netanyahu threatens to assassinate Khamenei openly → Barely covered in Western press.
“Trump, in many respects, has become the ideal adversary for Ayatollah Khamenei. He serves as a ‘useful enemy’ — offering Iran’s leaders an easy escape from confronting their human rights violations.” — Al Jazeera opinion analysis

What Should Actually Happen

None of this is an argument for Khamenei’s survival or for Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian people deserve freedom, dignity, and a government that does not execute them for protesting. Iran’s region-wide destabilization through Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other proxies has caused immense suffering. The theocracy must go.

But the question of who brings it down, how, and why matters enormously — not just morally, but strategically. Here is what the historical record and present evidence suggest should happen instead:

  • The Iranian people should be centered — not bombed. Every U.S. military strike on Iranian soil hands Khamenei a propaganda victory. It unites Iranians around national sovereignty and away from regime critics. The 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement was the most serious internal threat to the Islamic Republic in decades. Bombs silence that movement; solidarity strengthens it.
  • A genuine diplomatic framework must replace political theatre. Trump himself called for negotiations and had them in progress. Netanyahu torpedoed those talks because a deal — any deal — would have removed the military justification that keeps him politically alive and out of prison.
  • International accountability must apply universally. The ICC warrant for Netanyahu is not a political attack on Israel — it is the rule of law functioning as designed. Western nations that champion international law must accept its jurisdiction even when it implicates their allies.
  • Regime change imposed from outside has a catastrophic track record. Iraq. Libya. Afghanistan. Each time the West has removed a dictator by force, the result has been prolonged chaos, civilian death tolls that dwarf the original oppressor, and regional power vacuums that produce new, often worse, threats. Iran is a nation of 90 million people with a sophisticated, educated population. The conditions for organic political change exist. Military strikes destroy them.

See Through the Smoke

As the bombs fall on Tehran today, the media will spend the next 48 hours asking whether the strikes “worked.” They will debate blast radii, nuclear facility depths, and missile kill-chains. What they will not ask — at least not prominently — is why three men who each face serious accountability for their own conduct against their own people are the ones deciding the fate of yet another population.

Trump faces more than 100 legal challenges, has been convicted on 34 felony counts, and is openly defying court orders while dismantling democratic institutions. Netanyahu is on criminal trial for bribery and has an ICC arrest warrant pending for alleged war crimes. Khamenei has been directly implicated in crimes against humanity by the United Nations. Three men. Three accountability crises. Three countries whose citizens deserve better than what their leaders are giving them.

The Iranian people deserve liberation. They do not deserve to have that liberation outsourced to two leaders who are themselves running from the law — using the fog of war to stay one step ahead of the courtroom.

When three leaders each face serious accountability for crimes against their own people, we should not mistake their war for justice. We should ask: who benefits from the distraction?

Khamenei’s Iran is a genuine menace. But Trump’s America and Netanyahu’s Israel are not, in their current incarnations, the moral opposites of that menace. They are its mirror image — dressed in the language of democracy, empowered by the silence of allies, and sustained by the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook: point at the monster, so no one looks at you.


Previously on The Collective Brief

For more on the authoritarian convergence reshaping global politics, see our ongoing Trump II coverage at The Collective Brief.

The Collective Brief | February 28, 2026 | Research compiled from Al Jazeera, Le Monde, El País, The New Yorker, Chatham House, CFR, Amnesty International, UN OHCHR, CBS News, Reuters, The Guardian, and IranWire.

The Deportation Lie: How Trump Turned Immigrants into a Detention Economy

Trump’s second-term deportation machine is operating less like a removal program and more like a detention industry — with billions flowing into beds, warehouses, and corporate contracts that depend on keeping people locked up rather than sending them “back.”


From Slogan to System: The Shift from Removal to Warehousing

If you listened only to Donald Trump’s speeches, you’d think America was in the middle of a historic mass deportation. Planes supposedly take off every hour, “illegals” are being shipped out by the tens of thousands, and the only problem is that the White House can’t work fast enough.

But when you follow the money rather than the microphones, a very different story emerges. The real center of gravity in Trump’s second-term immigration agenda is not deportation — it is detention: warehousing human beings in an expanding grid of camps, warehouses, and prisons that now consume tens of billions of public dollars and deliver steady profits to a small circle of corporate partners.

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, there were about 39,000 people in ICE detention. By November, that number had surged to roughly 66,000, and by early 2026, ICE’s detainee population broke 70,000 for the first time in its 23-year history.

ICE is not shy about what it’s building. Buried in the fine print of a Republican spending package Trump dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” is the real strategic goal: enough money to sustain an average daily detention population of 100,000 people, backed by new funding streams and new bricks-and-mortar capacity.

That is not a deportation surge. That is a detention regime.

Detention By The Numbers

39,000
In ICE detention
Jan 2025 (Trump returns)
66,000
In ICE detention
Nov 2025
70,000+
Historic record
Early 2026
100,000
Target population
ICE budget target

How Much Does a Cage Cost?

Behind every sound bite about “law and order” is a very simple budget line: what it costs to lock up a human being for one day.

The official numbers vary, but they all tell the same story. ICE’s own data shows that, in recent years, it has spent between about $150 and $190 USD per detainee per day, depending on the facility. A recent analysis of the second Trump term puts the average around $152 USD per person per day, with more than $10 million USD going out the door every single day just to maintain detention.

And those are averages. Some of the new mega-deals are far more lucrative. One Indiana complex contracted by DHS charges about $291 USD per detainee per day, with a guaranteed minimum of 450 detainees. Tent compounds at another site cost roughly $245 USD per bed per day.

Back-of-the-Envelope: The Daily Price of Detention

  • 70,000 people × $165/day = $11.55 million every single day
  • 70,000 people × $165/day × 365 days = $4.2 billion per year
  • 100,000 people × $165/day × 365 days = $6 billion per year — just for daily confinement costs
  • Total ICE detention budget (FY2026 plan): $38.3 billion

At $165 per person per day, holding 100,000 people turns into a $6-billion-a-year confinement industry.

“Trump’s talking point is that deportation is too expensive not to do. The numbers suggest the opposite: detention is too profitable to stop.

How Many Camps — and How Many More?

It would be comforting to believe that these are a few scattered facilities on the margins. They are not.

Today, ICE relies on a network of more than 200 facilities across the country — a patchwork of county jails, private prisons, and federal sites. The majority of detainees are held in facilities operated by two private prison giants — GEO Group and CoreCivic — even when the buildings themselves are nominally owned by local governments.

Trump’s second term is now reshaping that network into something more permanent and more industrial. A $38.3 billion plan issued in early 2026 lays out the blueprint:

  • 8 new large detention centers, each designed to hold 7,000–10,000 people for about 60 days
  • 16 regional processing centers, each holding 1,000–1,500 people at a time for several days
  • 10 additional “turnkey” facilities, where ICE already has a footprint but wants to lock in greater, guaranteed capacity

By the end of 2026, ICE expects overall bed capacity to reach about 92,600. At the same time, DHS has floated a plan to reduce its sprawling network of 200+ sites to 34 giant, government-owned warehouse-style hubs, many carved out of industrial buildings, while keeping private operators on contract.

This is not the footprint of a temporary emergency. It is the hard infrastructure of long-term mass detention.

ICE Detention Capacity: Then, Now & Target

Moment Detained / Beds Context
January 2025 — Trump returns 39,000 Baseline inherited from Biden era
November 2025 66,000 +69% increase in 10 months
Early 2026 peak 70,000+ Historic record, first time in ICE history
Current funded beds (pre-expansion) ~38,000 Official contracted capacity before new plan
Planned by Nov 2026 92,600 More than doubling of capacity in under 2 years

The Detention Economy: Who Gets Paid to Keep People in Limbo?

Once you see detention as a business, the rest of the picture snaps into focus.

For more than a decade, GEO Group and CoreCivic have cultivated the federal government as their most reliable customer, with ICE as the crown jewel. They invest in ready-to-use facilities — sometimes keeping thousands of beds empty for months — so that when an administration like Trump’s decides to escalate detention, they can flick the switch and start billing.

Under Trump II, those bets are paying off handsomely. New and modified contracts with private firms often guarantee a minimum number of paid beds, whether they’re occupied or not, effectively turning migrants’ bodies into a revenue floor. Both corporations have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and political committees aligned with Trump’s immigration agenda, and on investor calls, executives have spoken openly about “unprecedented demand” and “growth opportunities” created by ICE’s expansion.

Private Profit Snapshots: The Detention Business

Company / Contract Detail Est. Annual Revenue
CoreCivic — Dilley, TX Up to 2,400 detainees incl. families; restarted contract ~$180M/yr
GEO Group — Georgia facility Reopened inactive prison; 1,868 migrants ~$66M/yr
DHS contract — Indiana facility $291/day per detainee; guaranteed min. 450 beds ~$48M/yr
CoreCivic — ICE revenue overall ICE-related revenue nearly doubled in one year ~$245M/yr
GEO Group — Total detention capacity Expanded to 26,000 ICE detention beds under Trump II Billions in pipeline
“When every detained body is worth a daily fee to someone, the system has no incentive to let people go — only to find more space to store them.

Why the “Illegals” Are Not Going Anywhere

Trump’s rhetoric imagines a conveyor belt: arrest, detain briefly, deport. The reality looks more like a warehouse logistics chain, where human beings are inventory slowed down by design.

Consider three basic facts:

  1. The average stay in ICE detention was about 44 days as of late 2025 — and many cases stretch far longer. Deportation itself is legally complex, often involving multiple transfers, court hearings, and appeals that can extend for months.
  2. Every extra day in custody generates more revenue for detention operators and justifies more budget for ICE — while actual legal adjudication capacity remains woefully underfunded.
  3. Bloomberg’s investigation into the “true cost” of deporting one person documented cases where a single migrant is shuttled across multiple detention centers over four months, racking up tens of thousands of dollars in costs before removal even happens.

In such a system, the so-called “illegals” are not primarily being “removed.” They are being held — in camps, jails, and warehouses whose financial and political logic depends on them not going anywhere quickly.

This is why ICE and DHS are investing in new mega-sites and warehouse hubs rather than in legal adjudication capacity or community-based alternatives. It is why investors were frustrated in parts of 2025 not because Trump was too soft, but because ICE’s detention ramp-up was slower than the corporate sector had hoped. When confinement itself is the product, justice becomes a cost overrun.


Call It What It Is

It is not hyperbole to describe aspects of this system as concentration camp–like when people are:

  • Collected through sweeps that blur any meaningful distinction between “criminal” and “non-criminal” migrants
  • Moved into remote facilities with restricted access to lawyers, family, or oversight
  • Held for weeks or months in conditions that human-rights groups continue to document as abusive and degrading

What Trump has built in his second term is not simply an immigration policy; it is an infrastructure of captivity. It lives on no-bid contracts and guaranteed bed minimums, it is financed by a $170 billion enforcement bill, and it is sold to the public as “border security” while operating, in practice, as a pipeline of public money into private hands.

Deportation is the alibi. Detention is the business model.

The people who will profit most from Trump’s “mass deportation” agenda are not the American workers his base imagines will benefit. They are the executives of GEO Group and CoreCivic, who have already begun describing ICE’s expansion as a “growth story” to their shareholders. They are the politicians who receive their campaign contributions. And they are the contractors, lobbyists, and infrastructure firms who will build the next generation of American detention warehouses with public money and private profit.

The immigrants trapped inside? They are not going anywhere — because keeping them locked up is, for a small number of very powerful people, extremely good business.


Previously on The Collective Brief

For more on how detention fits into Trump’s broader second-term blueprint, see our ongoing coverage of Project 2025 and the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

fits into Trump’s broader second-term blueprint, see our ongoing coverage of Project 2025 and the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The Collective Brief | February 2026 | Research compiled from ICE budget documents, DHS contract filings, Bloomberg investigations, and independent detention tracking databases.

The Ultimate Irony: How Project 2025 Inverts Lenin’s Playbook to Serve the Oligarchy

The Ultimate Irony: How Project 2025 Inverts Lenin’s Playbook to Serve the Oligarchy

In one of history’s more exquisite ironies, the architects of Project 2025 have spent years railing against "Marxism" and "socialism" whilst simultaneously crafting a governing blueprint that mirrors Vladimir Lenin’s political playbook.

From centralized decision-making and ideological training to the concentration of power in a central committee, the parallels are striking—and deeply unsettling. Yet, the irony runs deeper still. Lenin deployed these tactics to overthrow oligarchs and empower the working class. Project 2025 deploys them to entrench oligarchic rule and corporate dominance.

It is not merely borrowed methodology; it is revolutionary tactics inverted to serve reactionary ends. Here is how the Right’s "anti-Marxist" crusade became a mirror image of the very thing it claims to hate.

The Vanguard Theory: Building an Elite Cadre

Lenin’s strategy centred on the vanguard party—a disciplined elite cadre designed to lead the masses and seize state power. This vanguard was not meant to be a loose collection of voters, but a professional body of revolutionaries.

Project 2025 has created a remarkably similar structure. The Heritage Foundation and its partners built a massive personnel database designed to have 20,000 ideologically vetted candidates ready to staff a Trump administration. By mid-2024, this database was approaching 20,000 profiles, all searchable by "loyalty" rather than just expertise. These aren't simply civil servants; they are foot soldiers subjected to rigorous ideological screening.

"The screening process... focused intensely on applicants' ideological beliefs and less interested in their professional qualifications." — Politico

Democratic Centralism Meets the Unitary Executive

Lenin’s principle of democratic centralism demanded absolute unity in action. Once a decision was made by the high command, it was binding. Dissent was treason.

Project 2025’s embrace of "unitary executive theory" is the modern American equivalent. The plan explicitly places the entire federal bureaucracy—including traditionally independent agencies like the DOJ, FBI, and FTC—under direct presidential control. This eliminates institutional independence, streamlining decision-making to allow the president to implement policy by fiat.

By 2025, we saw this move from theory to practice. Trump’s executive orders began to bring independent agencies under strict White House control, effectively eroding the separation between political will and impartial administration.

Purging the 'Deep State': The New Bolsheviks

Lenin understood that you cannot build a new order with the old regime’s personnel. The Bolsheviks ruthlessly purged the Tsarist civil service.

Trump’s Schedule F initiative (rebranded as Schedule Policy/Career) follows this template precisely. In April 2025, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposed a rule reclassifying approximately 50,000 positions as at-will appointments, stripping them of civil service protections.

This was combined with a "Fork in the Road" email encouraging mass resignations and a hiring freeze extended through 2025. The goal is an ideological purification of the federal workforce.

"Fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people." — JD Vance

Unity of Action: Loyalty Over Competence

Under democratic centralism, alignment with the party leader is the only metric that matters. Project 2025 explicitly called for bypassing Senate confirmation to install loyalists in acting roles.

By 2026, the evidence of this strategy is conclusive. In his first year back in office, Trump signed 225 executive orders, with more than two-thirds of his first week’s orders aligning directly with Project 2025 proposals. One specific order mandated that agencies reassign Senior Executive Service (SES) members to ensure their skills were "optimally aligned to implement my agenda."

Not competence. Not fidelity to the Constitution. Alignment with the leader. This is democratic centralism in all but name.

The Great Inversion: Same Tactics, Opposite Masters

Here lies the deepest irony. While the mechanics are Leninist, the objectives are diametrically opposed.

Lenin’s vanguard party was explicitly designed to overthrow the capitalist oligarchy. "Workers of the world, unite!" was a call to dismantle concentrated wealth. Project 2025 uses the exact same organizational tactics—the disciplined vanguard, the purges, the centralized command—to protect the oligarchy.

Lenin sought to expropriate the expropriators.

Project 2025 seeks to protect the expropriators from accountability.

The Trump administration’s 2025 actions make this inversion explicit: dismantling regulatory agencies, cutting taxes for the wealthy, and appointing billionaires to oversee the industries they profit from. It is a revolution from above, designed to crush labor protections and consolidate corporate power.

The Racial Subtext: A Civilizational Twist

There is, however, one area where Project 2025 diverges sharply from Lenin. The Bolsheviks championed internationalism. Project 2025 is an explicitly racial and civilizational project rooted in white Christian nationalism.

The administration’s November 2025 National Security Strategy warns of "civilizational erasure" in Europe, echoing the white nationalist "great replacement theory." By 2025, U.S. refugee admissions had shifted to favor white South Africans, and TPS was revoked for over 800,000 people.

"We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence." — 2025 National Security Strategy

This represents a double inversion: it inverts Lenin’s class objectives (protecting oligarchs) and his internationalist principles (dividing by race).

A Revolution by Any Other Name

Project 2025's architects style themselves as defenders of American conservatism against socialist tyranny. Yet their blueprint for governance—centralised executive control, ideological purges, loyalty-based appointments, and the systematic dismantling of institutional independence—reads like a page from Lenin's revolutionary handbook.

The great irony is that in their zeal to combat a largely imaginary 'Marxist' threat, they are subverting genuinely revolutionary tactics. But the even deeper irony is this: Lenin used these tactics to overthrow oligarchs and empower workers. His goal was to expropriate the expropriators and transfer power to workers' councils. Project 2025 has apparently studied that organizational lesson well—but inverted the revolutionary purpose entirely. Instead of dismantling oligarchic power, it weaponizes Leninist tactics to protect billionaires, crush labour protections, and ensure that the 'deep state' it destroys is replaced NOT by workers' power but by corporate executives loyal to a plutocratic president.

Project 2025 is not just a mood; it is a machine. By early 2026, the dismantling of USAID (funding reduced by 83%) and the firing of 17 inspectors general proved that the "Deep State" being purged was actually the system of checks and balances.

The question now is whether American institutions—and the American people—will recognize these tactics for what they are before it's too late. The difference between Lenin and Project 2025 lies not in their methods but in the masters they serve. Lenin sought to smash the oligarchy and empower the working class; Project 2025 seeks to protect the oligarchy and further subordinate the working class. One was a revolution from below; the other is a coup from above. The tactics may be identical, but the class objectives are inverted—and that inversion changes everything.

One was a revolution from below; this is a coup from above. The tactics are identical, but the inversion changes everything.


Featured Post

Forced Labour and the Mirror Washington Won't Look Into

On March 12, 2026, the United States Trade Representative launched Section 301 investigations into 60 of its largest trading partners — Cana...

Please subscribe

Name

Email *

Message *