The pretext for the war that Israel launched on Friday, June 13, with massive attacks on Iran, was to hinder the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear bomb. This attack occurred just before the sixth round of talks between US and Iranian representatives on the Iranian nuclear issue, scheduled to take place in Oman on June 15. The Israeli attack constitutes an act of aggression under international law. More surprisingly, it came while high level negotiations were ongoing, during a period when diplomacy might have prevented war— and there is no evidence that Iran was close to developing the “n-bomb.”
The attack started with around 200 Israeli warplanes launching massive raids deep inside Iran. The raids targeted Iranian military command and control, air defences, airports, and nuclear facilities. Iran’s energy infrastructure was also targeted: such as Bushehr refinery and the South Pars gas field, meaning that the Islamic Republic’s main source of income is also under attack. Hundreds of Iranian civilians were killed and injured as a result. Israel succeeded in assassinating many Iranian military leaders, including army chief of staff Mohammad Bagheri and the leader of the Revolutionary Guards Hossein Salami, as well as several nuclear scientists. This was just the beginning, as the initial Israeli declarations said that the attacks will continue for at least two weeks.
One mystery is how Israeli warplanes managed to attack Iran and return to their bases. Israel seems to have used its most advanced F-35s, as well as F-15 and F-16 warplanes, all US made. However, these aircrafts cannot strike targets inside Iran at distances exceeding 2000 km. The F-35 has a range of no more than 1093 km, while the F-16’s range is only about 550km. This suggests that Israel received external support, either in the form of aerial refuelling (likely from the US) or access to military bases in one of the regional states. In any case, Israel lacks the capability for a sustained aerial campaign against Iran without support from the US in arms, ammunition, and intelligence.
Politically, the Israeli attack is reminiscent of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was justified by the search for “weapons of mass destruction” and alleged collaboration between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qaeda. At the time, US president George Bush announced that he was fighting an “axis of evil,” which, next to Iraq, included Iran and North Korea. The invasion resulted in thousands of Iraqi casualties and many more tortured in prisons like Abu Ghraib. Yet no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
As for al-Qaeda, after years of so-called “war against terrorism,” on May 14 this year, US President Donald Trump smiled at cameras while shaking hands with Ahmad al-Sharaa, now the ruler of Syria and once a commander of al-Qaeda. Whether Islamist, terrorist or al-Qaeda, ideologies— even value systems and alliances—seem less important today than ever before.
Militarily, the current war on Iran resembles the war Israel launched against Hezbollah in Lebanon last year. In fact, Netanyahu stated on the record that the decision to attack Iran was taken shortly after the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah, who was killed in a massive air raid on Hezbollah headquarters on September 27, 2024. Israeli forces also decapitated Hezbollah’s military leadership in targeted bombings, revealing high levels of intelligence due to complex levels of human intelligence, infiltration within Hezbollah ( being witnessed today within the Iranian hierarchy as well) combined with the use of advanced sensors, artificial intelligence, and data mining.
Iranian response has come in the form of drone barrages designed to saturate Israeli air defenses, followed by ballistic missile attacks. While some of those missiles have managed to penetrate Israeli air defenses and produce spectacular images, their military impact appears limited, as Iran lacks the intelligence and the air force capable of precision strikes.
Iran’s weakness is not just military, as were the cases of Iraq and Syria, but also political. The repressive regime has successively repressed social movements demanding change, starting with the post-electoral protests in 2009, to demonstrations against economic hardship in 2017-18, fuel price hikes in 2019, and the 2023 protests against the killing of Mahsa Amini. The regime’s rigidity and its refusal to implement reforms created the fissures through which the Mossad could penetrate and recruit within Iran’s hierarchy.
The war against Iran may not truly be about preventing nuclear weapons, just as the 2003 war against Iraq was not genuinely about Saddam Hussein’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction.” However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has clearly declared his intention: the destruction of the Islamic Republic and its replacement with decentralized entities similar to today’s Iraq or Syria. If the US invasion of Iraq unleashed two decades of wars and disasters and led to the rise of a monster like Daesh, the destruction of the Iranian state would be no less than a large-scale civilizational catastrophe.
Israel’s obsession with its (in)security will not end with Iran. New geopolitical tensions are already emerging between Israel and Turkey, which now share a common border in southern Syria for the first time. A stable Syria allied with a regional power like Turkey poses a significant threat to Israel. Turkey’s civilian nuclear program, supported by Russia, adds another layer of concern for Israeli decision-makers. Conversely, Turkey worries about Israel’s growing regional influence, including over Kurdish entities in Iraq and Syria, which could threaten its territorial integrity. These tensions were the subject of talks between Israeli and Turkish leaders in Baku, but the question remains: how far is Turkey willing to go in making concessions to satisfy Israeli concerns?
This conflict might become the largest war in the Middle East, but it almost certainly will not be the last.
