How I Outsmarted the President
I outsmarted the President, his administration, and Donald Trump’s very powerful media/press machine. When it came to the Iranian strikes, I was the first person with legitimate doubts about the entire premise of this operation. For months I’ve been investigating the personal financial conflicts of interest that Donald Trump has wrapped America and our economy into. My time has been spent explaining to various officials (Congress, other government agencies) and the press, exactly how I see things that we all are being shown or told – but that the press keeps missing. They keep falling over themselves to report what amount to untruths or antisocial disinformation.
When I say that I outsmarted the President, I say that because this entire affair with Iran has been cover for negotiations that Donald Trump is personally failing to secure for himself, and his associates. He not only ran a public campaign on “no new wars” and things of that nature, but he has privately committed to people in America and all over the world, regarding financing and trade deals. Those trade deals were predicated on his ability to leverage the assets of the American empire including our tax dollars and the welfare of our citizenry.
So I outsmarted the President a while ago.
Everybody else is just catching up with me.
To understand how I outsmarted the President and continue to be lightyears ahead of everybody else in the world about how to stop Donald Trump from what he is doing, you need to reconsider what you think of as “intelligence.” You also need to reconsider whether or not you use your own intelligence very often. Spoiler alert: you do not.
What I Said vs. What He Said
Trump said the site was totally “obliterated,” i.e. destroyed beyond recognition. My knowledge of military technology, manufacturing, operational management, and delivery tells me that there is absolutely no way to know that immediately following strikes.
I also said that the Iranians were probably smart enough to move the stockpile they had.
In addition, which you’ll read further here, I am the only person to detail that “nuclear weapon” and “weapons grade” enrichment is a concept of the past. This means that there is no way to destroy the program. In true Donald Trump fashion, though, I believe that he thinks (due to his “intelligence” between his own ears) that rhetorically he obliterated their program.
He made it clear that they “cannot” have a program and got a lot of people in the world to agree with that both rhetorically, and supportive militarily. But physically, and in reality, nothing was obliterated. I issued that statement with an analysis that any thinking person could do if they also had my expertise, like some other journalists (who I also market my writing to) do.
Yet, the government usually gets away with forcing the press to carry their story, even kicking screaming and calling it lies. This time, though, the narrative was hijacked and stolen from Donald Trump because I’ve spent the last (5) years learning how to jam the signals sent from the White House.
A Picture (of Intelligence) Is Worth 1,000 Words
When most Americans picture “intelligence” in the context of war and statecraft, their minds default to grainy satellite photos in manilla folders, obtained by top secret equipment in space that is controlled solely by the highest levels of the American g government. People run through the West Wing scrambling to show those photos to the right people in a room that nobody even knows exists. Noise erupts as secret cables are slipped between agents, and some grizzled Cold War era commander is squinting at a screen with live feed from directly inside a key location far remote.
It’s not just the phenomenon of Hollywood that skewed this for people. It is the evolution of technology, and the proliferation of OSINT tools, which made it possible for people outside of the government to review the same intelligence they use. The differences between OSINT tools and whatever else “the intelligence community” may have, might consist of human sources – who can be very helpful – but who do not always have reliable information. There is only so much you can get from a spy.
In the case of Donald Trump’s retaliatory strikes on Iran, he telegraphed his moves broadcasted (almost) live for the world to see, read, hear, and think about.
It was in no way covert, secretive, or hidden.
Whether or not that was the intent, it was transparent what they were going to do and they even told the world which munitions and planes they’d be using.
Therefore, prior to them even actually dropping the “bunker buster” bombs” on Fordow and these other sites, it was possible to analyze whether or not it was going to work.
“Work” in this context (of the administration’s public explanations) means ensuring that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
Intelligence Requires Understanding English, Language, and Logic
My intelligence suggests that the United States cannot dictate what countries around the world do simply with strongly worded rhetoric. But also “cannot” implies that the United States has dictatorial control over the entire Iranian population and government. We do not. Therefore, in my opinion, diplomatically shifting from “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” to “If Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, the American posture towards them will become increasingly offensive, as a defensive measure,” that would be a lot more respectable and honest.
Another intelligent question might be, “If we cannot stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, how might we diplomatically relate to them in such a way as to mitigate violence or kinetic conflict?” That was never asked, because Trump is not interested in mitigating violence or kinetic conflict. He is also not interested in stopping Iran from pursuing a nuclear program. He just wanted to dictate, own, control, and/or siphon money off of their trade. That was the context of Witkoff (Trump’s fake diplomatic “envoy” to the world) and his “consortium” which the Iranians rejected outright. It was just a bureaucratic maneuver attempting to oust Iran from their own production rights.
Another lack of intelligence on the part of the entire world, really, is this stringent definition of “weapons grade” enrichment of uranium.
My intelligence (studying the science, considering a red team outlook from the Iranian perspective, etc) suggests that 60% enriched uranium is plenty to create new kinds of dirty bombs or other radioactive weapons that would not qualify as “nuclear weapons” the way Americans think of them – but would still be incredibly dangerous. If they have developed something of that nature, they might have just tested it on Israel and Qatar.
So while the President, politicians, and press continue to speak about “nuclear weapons” like we are in an old spy novel from the 20th century, the reality of today’s world and science has not caught up with people. That’s because our intelligence lacks intelligence. Analysis of information is the most important aspect of intelligence, since the amount and quality of information you must assess is usually going to be limited.
All the people who chant “Iran was not developing nuclear weapons” may be wrong.
We won’t be able to find that out unless people start using their own intelligence.
The Rise of OSINT: “Open Secrets” Are No Longer a Contradiction
This isn’t a niche trend. The proliferation of OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence) tools and communities has fundamentally changed the landscape. Anyone can pull up satellite photos of a military base. Groups like Bellingcat are known for providing OSINT analysis and information that keeps pace with government.
The intelligence community, has grown to include people in the public. Not just government operatives. For decades the gatekeepers of hidden knowledge were capable of keeping the public uninformed. Now, even the commander in chief is routinely caught off-guard by collective digital sleuthing.
Who is the “Intelligence Community” Now?
In this new world, the “intelligence community” isn’t just a closed circle in Washington.
It’s a global, decentralized swarm of journalists, nerds, partisans, and professional analysts. Sometimes they work together. Sometimes they are at war. But in a world where being “first” has become more valued than being “right,” even in the OSINT community, professionals can be misled by propaganda or the pace of media.
The Iran story is a perfect case study.
At this point, the President and his henchmen like Hegseth have been on a warpath claiming there was some leak. A “leaker” with inside knowledge on what this administration claims was the most covert operation in history – whose “low confidence” analysis – is what was leaked. So…was there a “leak”?
Who said there was? Hegseth. Others in the administration. FOX News hosts. Does that mean there is a “leaker?” Or, could my analysis have been incorporated into the thought process of a CNN reporter who agreed with it. There was nothing to quote because my intelligence was published on an open forum, in this case somewhat anonymously. But also I included that same analysis in publicly distributed content like my political blog Write In Freedom, which is read by Congressional chiefs of staff and thousands of members of the American media.
Nobody from within the Trump administration would dare speak out against him and they have gone through painstaking operations to remove dissent from within the federal government – or silence it – so who could have possibly gone against them simply to report that the strikes were not as advertised?
That story gives them control.
Acknowledging that an OSINT intelligence expert (and civil rights activist) – me – had enough intelligence (in terms of analysis) to rebut the President with their own information. That sent them into a bizarre spiral where people within the administration (and lackeys in the press) started saying odd things like – first reports are never accurate – when Trump’s report was the first report the nation actually got.
“Artificial Intelligence” Cannot Outsmart the Real Thing
A somewhat unexplored topic in the media has been the fact that our government has been incorporating more artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Tulsi Gabbard was reportedly using AI to analyze information for her role. Marco Rubio and JD Vance had many of ChatGPT’s famous em-dashes in their content which was suspect. Using AI is fine and journalists do as well. But, replacing your own intelligence and analysis with AI is where you have to draw the line as a professional.
The irony: while the “intelligence community” automates its thinking, the White House and Pentagon have become echo chambers.
We’ve entered an era where intelligence is less about gathering secrets and more about making sense of endless, noisy streams of data.
That’s a cybernetic problem: How do you filter, weigh, and verify, when everyone’s a source and nobody’s an authority?
Time to Rethink What Counts as Intelligence
Let’s be honest: most Americans, if you asked them what’s in an “intelligence report,” wouldn’t know where to start. They’d say lab results, photos from “sources,” intercepted calls. But today, some evidence is hiding in plain sight.
We need to stop equating “intelligence” with whatever the President’s spokesperson says in a press briefing. The job of journalism – and citizenship – is to slow down, check, and question. Not just print whatever powerful people say.
It’s time to admit that most secrets are gone. Intelligence isn’t about possession. It’s about discernment. And if we don’t reexamine what counts as intelligence in this world, we’ll keep sacrificing truth for clout, partisanship, or the illusion of control.