You want a conspiracy theory?
Seth Abramson
March 5, 2026 at 4:38 PM GMT
There's no reason for Iran to attack NATO nation Turkey—but a drone did. Iran denies sending it. There's no reason for Iran to attack a UK base in Cyprus—but a drone did. Iran denies sending it. Now Azerbaijan has been attacked. Iran denies involvement. I think this is Israel. I say this for a reason. Right after the illegal invasion, US media reported that America and Israel had reverse-engineered the Shahed drone and had essentially identical copies of it.
Evidence suggests these suspicious strikes are coming from Lebanon—where the IDF is positioned. The Iranian defense strategy isn't opaque—it's transparent. It's firing at Israel and nations that host *American* bases. What's wholly inconsistent with that is the idea that it would attempt to bring the full force of NATO against it by firing on Turkey and a UK base in Cyprus.
Keep in mind we already know the US-IDF alliance is committing war crimes, lying about casualties, lying about imminent threats, lying about timelines. And keep in mind the UK confirms the Cyprus strike came from Lebanon—not Iran. Hezbollah has even *less* reason to anger the UK. Hegseth has admitted that America has *no interest* in "fighting fair." And what it did to that warship near India was an obvious war crime; even the Nazis rescued drowning sailors. So one would have to be naive to say the US-IDF alliance "wouldn't" issue strategic drone strikes. And look at how the UK reacted. That strike was against British property in Cyprus and should have been treated as an act of war. Same with the attack on Turkey. In fact, Article 5 should have been invoked. But what happened? Nothing. Because no one believes the strikes are real.
When you understand that what is *motivating* Donald Trump to be involved in this war is protecting his property—his golf courses in the UAE, his coming golf course in Saudi Arabia, his planned Trump Gaza Hotel— suddenly a fake attack on Azerbaijan makes a lot more sense as well. Trump has a big property in Azerbaijan, in Baku. You will notice that the attack on Azerbaijan *wasn't* on his property—which you might think Iran would have been interested in—but simply on the country itself. Why? Because that's *enough* to light an additional fire under Trump. This supposition is a *conservative* one. Netanyahu's an indicted war criminal who also faces public corruption felonies in Israel—using one-off drone strikes not intended to kill to draw other nations into the war against Iran would be about the most *mild* thing he's ever done.
But don't accept my explanations—use elementary-school logic. If Iran had fired these drones with intention, it'd be counter to that intention to subsequently deny doing it. It'd be *proud* to say it did it. And there'd be evidence the drones were fired *from Iran*. There isn't. One of the few things we know for sure about this war is that the Americans and Israelis don't have boots on the ground—they can't launch drone strikes from Iranian soil. But the IDF was *suspiciously quick* to push deep into Lebanon—and the weird drone strikes come from *there*.
All this comes in the context of the US/IDF trying to get other nations to join their efforts—and seeing that the only thing moving the needle on that is having such nations' own assets be put under threat. Meanwhile, Iran gains nil from these strikes. They're devastating to it. Some may ask, "Why develop a theory on this?" The answer: because we must. And urgently. Unsolved mysteries in a hot war *require* a "theory of the case" to determine what to do next. If we let default (improbable) suppositions reign, NATO could enter this war on false pretenses. In literature, we call this the "unmarked case": that is, if we fail to comment on a situation and note what makes it distinct, we let *whatever the existing presumptions are* govern.
Right now the presumption is that Iran is at war with the world. But I rather suspect Israel is. But candidly, it's not for those of us saying the facts of this war don't support the theory of Iranian strikes on Turkey, the UK and Azerbaijan to prove our case. It's on those who insist that Iran *is* behind these strikes to explain their *extraordinary* claim that Iran *wants* NATO to attack it.
