Let's Talk About Israel's Aggressive Moves Against Iran
Unforeseen Implications of Potential Conflict
In a disturbing escalation of tensions, Israel is amplifying its operational sphere for military hostilities against Iran, toeing the line of international law violations. What the Israeli government and its allied states are terming a "preemptive strike," is nothing more than threatening action before an attack they claim Iran will start tomorrow or the day after. In reality, there's no evidence of an imminent Iranian attack on Israel, and only then would Israel's actions be in accordance with international law. The Leader of the Left Party, Jan van Aken, cautions against this dangerous escalation that cannot be justified as self-defense. Western states, though, are swallowing Israel's tale of self-defense: no condemnation of Israel's actions, just the routine call for restraint from both sides.
The talks regarding Iran's nuclear program were set to resume in Oman on Sunday. However, the notion of Israel carrying out its threat to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities seems irrational and damaging to a potential agreement. Yet, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that he has no interest in an agreement to manage and internationalize the nuclear program, but rather its complete destruction. Though Iranian nuclear facilities, some of which are buried deep underground, were not completely destroyed, the attempt to secure a nuclear agreement through diplomacy has likely been severely damaged.
Want to stay updated on the latest news without getting overwhelmed? Check out our daily newsletter, nd.Kompakt. It brings order to the news chaos, offering you a summary of the most interesting stories from our editorial team. Sign up for the free subscription here.
Many believe that, despite the US claims of non-involvement, they have provided logistical support to Israel. This could include the provision of satellite imagery and the delivery of modern attack weapons. It's less likely that the Iranian government will retaliate by attacking US facilities in the Middle East as threatened, as this would put them in direct conflict with the US military.
Why didn't US President Donald Trump, who's been pushing for a negotiated solution with Iran, stop Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu from launching the attack? Is he trying to ramp up military pressure on Iran: Look what will happen to you if you don't agree to an agreement? Or is Netanyahu so resistant to advice that he won't listen to his most important ally and act entirely on his own? Were the negotiations initiated by Trump for a new agreement merely a show, staged by the US government to lull Iran into a false sense of security before a long-planned Israeli attack?
The Unpredictable Aftermath of Israel's Aggression
The repercussions of Israel's aggression are far-reaching. The Iranian regime could, following these attacks, officially alter its nuclear doctrine and redouble its efforts to acquire a nuclear bomb. This move would make the country invulnerable and secure the system of the Islamic Republic established in 1979. It is blatantly clear that Iran has nothing to counter Israeli attacks; an effective air defense system to halt Israeli bombers appears to be absent. Moreover, the previous deterrents — Hamas and Hezbollah — are no longer relevant. This also highlights a lot about the long-standing narrative of Iran's alleged military superiority. In this logic, only the bomb would serve as a deterrent.
Iran's regime will likely respond to external political pressure by increasing internal repression. Executions are already at record levels, and radicalization of the political establishment of the Islamic Republic and strengthening of hardliners is expected, as seen during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Some speculate that Israel's attacks aimed to trigger the fall of the Iranian regime. However, it would be naive to believe that the killing of key personnel in the army, Revolutionary Guards, and nuclear physicists could sufficiently shake the system to cause it to collapse. So far, the Islamic regime of Iran has found replacing leadership and power transition to be an attainable hurdle.
Israel's right-wing government seems to have carte blanche to launch military attacks in the region according to its own considerations, without facing any consequences: from Iran to Syria and Lebanon, and even Yemen. Not to mention the genocidal war in the Gaza Strip, which will likely be temporarily out of the global spotlight due to the new theater of war. From Israel's perspective, the timing for the attack on Iran is ideal, despite the ongoing talks between the US and Iran: Due to Israel's brutal actions in the Gaza Strip, public opinion had been increasingly turning against Israel in recent weeks, with criticism of the government growing louder. This may now change, especially if Iran retaliates. Then, Israel's supporters may again use the phrase that Israel is merely defending itself.
Another direct effect of the escalation concerns the future of the Palestinians: Next Tuesday, an international conference on the two-state solution will begin at the UN headquarters in New York, initiated by France and Saudi Arabia. It is expected that several influential countries will recognize Palestine as an independent state, including France. However, given the events in Iran, it is foreseeable that the planned conference agenda will not be implemented in its current form. The Trump administration has already advised potential participating countries against attending this week; Israel, with the opening of the new theater of war in Iran, is doing its part to undermine the goal of a two-state solution.
In light of the escalating tensions, the discussions surrounding Iran's nuclear program could be impacted, as the alleged Israeli threat to destroy Iranian facilities might compromise the potential for an agreement. Politics and general news outlets are closely monitoring Israel's actions in this war-and-conflicts zone, as the international community considers the military hostilities and their potential repercussions on regional politics.
