The Middle East stands on the precipice of regional war, and Israel’s actions have become the primary catalyst. According to the Financial Times (14/06/2025), Israel’s recent attack on Iran has been two decades in the making. For years, Israeli leaders have insisted that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, consistently signalling a willingness to resort to military force to cripple Iran’s nuclear programme. That strategic vision materialised in the early hours of Friday, the 13th of May, when Israeli forces struck the Natanz nuclear facility near Tehran, triggering a dramatic escalation in regional tensions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu labelled the assault “Operation Rising Lion,” framing it as a mission to neutralise a threat to Israel’s survival.
While Netanyahu portrays Iran as an existential danger, this narrative masks the reality that Israel already holds overwhelming military superiority in the region. With missile defence systems, one of the world’s most advanced air forces, and an undeclared but widely acknowledged nuclear arsenal, Israel’s security position remains unrivalled in the Middle East.
These attacks may not yet match the scale of Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza, but they are far more dangerous in terms of the risk of wider escalation. The strike against Iran functions as an offensive operation under the current leadership of Netanyahu’s far-right government rather than a defensive requirement. The military doctrine shows growing restraint as it prioritises regional control and geopolitical power over diplomatic solutions and conflict resolution methods. The Israeli government has documented its practice of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities and executing its scientists. The present operation presents an alarming new direction that occurs during heightened global and regional rivalry.
Ongoing Western sanctions and systemic corruption in Iran have allowed Israeli clandestine organisations to infiltrate its security apparatus, making such operations more successful and devastating. These vulnerabilities have made it easier for Israel and its allies to exploit internal weaknesses and intensify strategic pressure on Iran.
The roots of this confrontation are deeply embedded in history. After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Iran established itself as a strong opponent of Western imperialism, especially that of the US. Its strong rhetoric and anti-Western position, together with its growing regional influence, have led Washington and its allies to see Iran as an unstable force in the world. The historical experience of foreign intervention in Iran continues to shape its present-day position as an essential element. Western powers under UK and US leadership have interfered in Iranian domestic matters since the start of the 20th century. A significant event marking this interference was the 1953 coup organised by the CIA and Britain’s MI6 against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, which resulted in the reinstatement of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The foreign intervention repeatedly undermined Iran’s sovereignty and fostered decades of distrust, which resulted in reactive foreign policy measures. The legacy of these events continues to affect Iran’s geopolitical stance and its ongoing suspicion of Western motives.
Before the Israeli strike, the European Union expressed “deep concern” about Iran’s accelerating uranium enrichment progress while emphasising that all parties should return to diplomatic talks.
The rising apprehension created difficulties for the revival process of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). One of the reasons the President Trump withdrew from the international agreement was pressure from Israel lobbying and Netanyahu, who dismantled the foreign policy structures established by Obama in 2018. The JCPOA withdrawal was presented as a demonstration of power, while intensifying tensions with Iran.
This attack, however, serves as an Israeli strategic move to assert control because of ongoing structural changes to global and regional powers. The Israeli military operations against Gaza, followed by Lebanon and Syria, and now Iran, demonstrate a strategic plan to limit Iran’s regional alliances, beginning with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The military approach combines with political objectives in this strategy. Netanyahu works to establish Israeli supremacy in the long term by blocking Iran from developing into a regional power. Several Arab states, together with Turkey, publicly denounced the strike, but privately, they support a weakened Iran because it aligns with their strategic goals of reducing Iranian power in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
US officials express concerns over the Israeli attack on Iran, fearing it could provoke wider unrest among Arab states allied with Washington. Despite this, Netanyahu remains convinced that military escalation will silence criticism and solidify the US support, as it has in the past. He has long sought to draw the US into direct confrontation with Iran, knowing that Israeli operations, particularly long-range strikes, ultimately depend on American logistical support, such as aerial refuelling and intelligence coordination, if they have not done this by now.
The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, merely stated that Israel had “advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defence,” stopping short of offering direct endorsement. This rhetorical distancing is difficult to receive, given that the Trump administration had walked away from the JCPOA in 2018.
The war provided Netanyahu with a breathing space to divert attention from the international criticism about Gaza because Israel faces growing condemnation for its blockade and the severe humanitarian crisis that approaches famine conditions. The Iran operation allows Netanyahu to recast Israel as a defensive actor in a broader regional war, thereby redirecting attention and compelling European powers, some of which had begun criticising Israeli conduct, to rally to Israel’s side under the banner of confronting Iran.
The political survival of Netanyahu depends on his ability to keep the support of his ultra-nationalist coalition partners, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who do not want any ceasefire in Gaza. The Israeli establishment is showing signs of internal dissent as more and more people are becoming worried about the long-term effects of permanent occupation, insurgency, and global isolation. Yet, attacking Iran presents a more unifying narrative domestically—one that invokes existential fear and national cohesion.
While Russia condemned it as “state aggression” and called for an emergency session of the UN Security Council, China described the strike as a “reckless violation of international law,” urging restraint and reaffirming its commitment to diplomatic solutions. Support for Israel primarily comes from Western countries, highlighting Israel’s growing isolation following the genocide in Gaza and the situation with Iran.
Since 1979, Western powers and Israel have long supported opposition groups and figures, such as the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and Reza Pahlavi, the son of the Shah, in efforts to destabilise the Islamic Republic. The West’s backing of groups such as the MEK or Reza Pahlavi has rarely prompted domestic protests in their favour. Although they may enjoy some support abroad, they lack legitimacy within Iran and are frequently regarded with scepticism. Consequently, their political relevance on the ground remains limited.
The conflict could potentially reach beyond the boundaries of regional political dynamics. It has already caused Brent crude oil prices to rise more than 8% because anxious because of the potential threats to shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian oil facilities. A prolonged conflict would intensify worldwide inflation rates while creating more severe food and energy shortages in developing nations and disrupting the weak economic growth of Europe after COVID-19.
The rising aggression of Israel threatens to create long-term instability in the Middle East, which would result in severe damage to human life and the environment. The number of civilian deaths increases while the destruction of essential infrastructure and sensitive ecosystems worsens the regional crisis. Opposing this trajectory is not an endorsement of the Islamic Republic of Iran but it is a recognition that the war is pushing the region and possibly the world toward catastrophe. It is necessary to resist Israel’s drive to war and to hold the US and the West accountable for their enabling role. At the same time, this moment demands a renewed commitment to justice and peaceful resolution because these principles represent the only enduring solution for regional stability and a safer future for everyone.
Farhang Morady is a Reader in International Development at the University of Westminster in London.
