Israel’s attack on Iran: a calculated escalation

Israel bombs Tehran — to start a war, and win back Western support

There seems to be no end to the chaos, destruction and death that Israel is determined to inflict upon the Middle East.

In a shocking and unprovoked act of aggression, Israel launched a large-scale aerial assault overnight on multiple high-value targets in Iran — including the capital, Tehran. The strikes hit not only nuclear facilities and missile infrastructure but also assassinated key figures in Iran’s military hierarchy: General Mohammad Bagheri, the Chief of Staff of Iran’s Armed Forces, and General Hossein Salami, commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Geopolitical analyst Pascal Lottaz remarked that these targeted killings “fit neatly into Israel’s military playbook, in which they go for ‘decapitation’ strikes against nations they choose they must eradicate. They did so with Hamas in Gaza, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now they are going after the leadership of Iran, and, in the process, are terrorising the entire civilian population of the country”.

Israel has attempted to justify its actions as a “preemptive” strike against the alleged threat of an Iranian nuclear weapons program — a claim that lacks any factual basis. As Lottaz noted:

Not only is it a verified and accepted truth, even by Israel and the US, that the Iranians currently have no nuclear weapons, but the Americans were in active negotiations with them and scheduled to hold another meeting on Sunday, when Israel decided to commit this blatant act of war.

This is indeed correct. Yet even if Iran were pursuing nuclear weapons, the legitimacy of Israel’s position would still be dubious. On what legal or ethical grounds can Israel — a nuclear-armed state that has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty — deny other regional actors the same capability?

The narrative that a nuclear-capable Iran would be inherently destabilising is not just unconvincing, but misleading. As political scientist John Mearsheimer argued, the opposite would be true:

A nuclear-armed Iran would bring stability to the region, because nuclear weapons are weapons of peace. They are weapons of deterrence. They have hardly any offensive capability at all. And if Iran had a nuclear deterrent there is no way that the United States, or Israel for that matter, would be [attacking] Iran now, in the same way that if Saddam had had nuclear weapons in 2003, the United States would not have invaded Iraq. And if Libya had had nuclear weapons in 2011, the United States would not have gone to war against Libya. So I think that if you had a Middle East where other states besides Israel — and this of course includes Iran — had a nuclear deterrent, it would be a more peaceful region.

But, of course, peace and stability in the region are the last thing Israel — and especially the criminal Netanyahu regime — wants, given that it thrives on war and chaos. Indeed, this latest escalation seems deliberately designed to provoke an Iranian response, thereby justifying broader conflict. As Lottaz observed, this attack appears designed precisely to force Iran to retaliate, thus giving Israel an “excuse to start an all-out war with Iran (and ultimately commit the United States to it)”.

It also provides Israel with a smokescreen for the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing being carried out by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. As Lottaz notes:

The real reason why Israel is attacking Iran at this moment is that they are losing the propaganda war. The mood has changed decisively, especially in Europe, where large pro-Palestine protests are now a daily occurrence. The tremendous PR success of the Freedom Flotilla, together with the change in the press coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, must have come as a great shock to the Tel Aviv regime. They know that the only thing that enables their genocidal military extermination campaigns is the unwavering support of the Collective West. That this support is eroding in front of their eyes is probably the largest threat to the Zionist project in 100 years.

As international public opinion — particularly in Europe — turns against Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza, Tel Aviv finds itself increasingly isolated. Large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations are now a near-daily occurrence across major Western cities. The Israeli government appears to be attempting to restore its victim status by provoking a dramatic conflict with Iran that can reframe it once again as the target of aggression.

“Israel is losing the victim card; nobody believes its ‘we are just defending ourselves’ BS anymore. And it wants the card back, desperately. Hence, this attack is geared to make it certain that Iran must strike back”, Lottaz added. “Israel is desperate, and it needs an all-out war with an all-out war narrative of the type and kind the Ukrainians have had for the past three years. It needs to somehow win back narrative control in the West”.

One pivotal question remains: what role did the United States play in this act of aggression? US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted on X that “Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense”.

Yet even this admission — that the US was informed in advance — raises serious doubts. Did Washington approve or coordinate the operation behind closed doors? Or did Israel act independently, exploiting America’s silence as tacit consent? Senator Chris Murphy offered a damning interpretation:

Israel’s attack on Iran, clearly intended to scuttle the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran, risks a regional war that will likely be catastrophic for America and is further evidence of how little respect world powers — including our own allies — have for President Trump.

This explanation, however, seems disingenuous. As journalist Glenn Greenwald argued:

If Trump had wanted to stop the Israeli attack on Iran, he could have easily. Israel depends on money from US workers, bombs from US stockpiles, and promises of US military protection. Impossible to imagine Israel doing this without clear expectation of US military protection.

In fact, Trump himself boasted that Iran had been hit because it “didn’t respect” his ultimatum. While this could be mere face-saving bluster, it aligns with reports that the US helped mislead Iran prior to the assault. According to the Times of Israel, “the US participated in a massive campaign to lull Iran into thinking an attack was not going to happen immediately”.

If true, this points to active collusion — not mere complicity.

The remaining question is: who is setting the strategic agenda? Are American neoconservatives using Israel as the spearhead for their own long-standing plans to reshape the Middle East and eliminate the Iranian regime, and to what extent does Trump share these aims? Or is the Israel lobby driving US policy toward war — even, possibly, against Trump’s wishes?

In either case, one thing is now clear: with this attack, Israel — and by extension, the United States — has pushed the world one step closer to catastrophe.

---

Putting out high-quality journalism requires constant research, most of which goes unpaid, so if you appreciate my writing please consider upgrading to a paid subscription if you haven’t already. Aside from a fuzzy feeling inside of you, you’ll get access to exclusive articles and commentary.

Thomas Fazi

Website: thomasfazi.net

Twitter: @battleforeurope

Latest book: The Covid Consensus: The Global Assault on Democracy and the Poor—A Critique from the Left (co-authored with Toby Green)