‘If Iran falls, we all lose': Why Tehran's allies see this war as civilizational
In his first public address since the beginning of Operation Rising Lion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to strip Iran of the ability to develop nuclear weapons, eliminate its ballistic missile capabilities, and remove what he called an existential threat to the State of Israel.
'This is a battle for survival,' Netanyahu told reporters in a Zoom press conference on Monday. 'We will continue this operation until the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer a nuclear threat – not to Israel, not to the region, not to the world.'
Netanyahu's bold declaration came as Israeli jets continued a fourth day of coordinated strikes deep into Iranian territory. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), over 370 missiles and hundreds of UAVs have been launched from Iran since Friday, prompting swift Israeli retaliation. The IDF claims to have struck more than 90 strategic targets across Iran, including suspected missile depots, radar installations, and command centers near Tehran, Esfahan, and along the Persian Gulf coast.
The operation has already resulted in more than 200 casualties in Iran, though precise numbers remain unverified due to restricted access for international media. Satellite imagery reviewed by analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security showed significant damage to facilities near Natanz and Parchin, long suspected of being part of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
But critics of the Israeli campaign – and its justification – are raising serious concerns about the underlying motives of Netanyahu and his allies.
Mohammad Marandi, a prominent Iranian academic, political analyst, and adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiating team, rejects Netanyahu's claims outright.
'The regime is lying about nuclear programs just to justify aggression and murder,' Marandi told RT. 'Tulsi Gabbard, who is the Director of US National Intelligence, just recently said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. So it's clear that the issue is Netanyahu, neat escalation, and the Zionist lobby in the United States is behind him.'
Iran's nuclear program has long been a subject of contention. While Tehran has enriched uranium and developed advanced centrifuge technology, it has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons. Iranian officials argue that their nuclear program is designed solely for peaceful energy production and medical research – a position grounded, they say, in religious doctrine that prohibits weapons of mass destruction.
To prove its intentions, Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, an international accord with the US and European powers that limited uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal, reigniting tensions. Since then, Tehran has allowed international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) limited access to its facilities, but Israel remains unconvinced.
According to Marandi, Israel's true objective lies far beyond neutralizing a nuclear threat.
'It's always been so-called regime change,' he said. 'Whether it's the Israeli regime or the Americans or the Europeans. That's how they are. They don't want independent countries, and especially countries like Iran, which support the Palestinian cause.'
Marandi is not alone in his assessment. Syrian analyst Taleb Ibrahim, a longtime commentator on Iranian affairs and an author of several books on the Islamic Republic, agrees that Western powers – particularly the United States – are pursuing a broader geopolitical agenda.
'If the United States will put its hands on Iran again [like it was before 1979],' Ibrahim told RT, 'they will block the Russian southern wall. This means that Russia will not be able to expand its influence beyond the Caspian Sea. And it will be restricted to a very narrow place between Central Asia and the Arctic.'
Ibrahim warns that China, too, would suffer consequences from a weakened Iran. 'China will not be able to reach the Middle East. Because if Iran becomes part of the Western bloc, it will sever China's access. And the most important thing of all – a new world order will emerge. It will be a new American world order.'
Ibrahim believes this is not a regional conflict, but part of a sweeping strategy to restore American hegemony.
'To make America great again is to regain American control across the globe. The war in Iran is just a chapter in that plan.'
President Donald Trump has thus far distanced himself from the Israeli operation, saying America's goals are purely defensive and promising that he will not be starting any wars.
But Ibrahim is unconvinced.
'In strategy, if you want to make war, talk about peace,' he said. 'The United States is preparing for a very big war – first against China, then Russia. After this, they will try to build an American century. One government for the world, headquartered in the White House. That's the final goal.'
Both Marandi and Ibrahim agree that forced regime change in Iran would unleash chaos across the region.
The fall of Tehran's current government could lead to the fragmentation of Iran – a multi-ethnic nation with Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, and Baloch who may pursue autonomy or independence in the power vacuum. It could ignite sectarian warfare akin to what unfolded in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion, and destabilize fragile neighbors like Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Turkey.
Moreover, Iran's alliances with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias across Iraq and Syria mean that a collapse in Tehran could trigger cascading violence across the Middle East. Global oil markets, already rattled, could see disruptions on a historic scale.
Yet, both experts maintain that such an outcome is unlikely.
'Regime change is more likely in Israel and across Europe than anywhere near Iran,' Marandi said. 'These Western governments failed with Russia, failed with China, and they'll fail with Iran too.'
Ibrahim agrees: 'It is impossible to make regime change in Iran by force. The Iran-Iraq war was designed to do exactly that – to overthrow the Islamic Republic established by Ayatollah Khomeini. But after eight years of war, billions of dollars, and support from the US, France, and Gulf states, Iran survived – and emerged stronger. The only way to change the regime is through the Iranian people. And right now, the Iranian people are standing with their leaders. They believe they are fighting the Satan – the US, the bigger Satan, and Israel, the smaller one. And that gives them unity and strength.'
As Israel continues its campaign and the international community watches nervously, the implications of the current conflict are far from limited to the Middle East.
'This war,' Ibrahim concluded, 'will be the starting point of reshaping the world. If Iran wins – and I believe it will, eventually – the world will shift to a multipolar order. That is the shared vision of Iran, Russia, and China. But if Iran loses, we will all live under an American empire. The White House will rule from Washington to Beijing. This is a decisive battle – not just for Iran, but for the destiny of the world.'
As missiles fly and rhetoric intensifies, what began as a regional standoff may ultimately determine the balance of power in the 21st century.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ex-Russian president warns of new Chernobyl
Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities could result in a nuclear disaster akin to the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned on Thursday. His comments come amid reports that the US is weighing a potential strike on Iran's heavily fortified Fordow nuclear installation, which was built deep into a mountain to withstand airstrikes. The US is reportedly considering the deployment of its GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs to target the site. Israel has no comparable military capability. 'Everyone, even the Israeli defense minister, with his loud declaration about Khamenei's fate, must understand that attacks on nuclear facilities are extremely dangerous and can lead to a repeat of the Chernobyl tragedy,' said Medvedev, who is currently deputy chair of Russia's Security Council, in a social media post. Earlier Thursday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz referred to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as a 'modern-day Hitler' who 'can no longer be allowed to exist.' The Guardian reported on Thursday that US officials doubt whether the GBU-57s would be effective. According to the report, some officials have said that only a tactical nuclear weapon could damage Fordow — a scenario President Donald Trump is reportedly not considering. The White House has dismissed the claims. Fox News cited an anonymous official who said the US military is 'confident bunker busters can complete the job, and NO OPTIONS have been taken off the table.' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said a final decision on possible US military action would be made within two weeks. Speaking in a Q&A with journalists on Wednesday night Russian President Vladimir Putin said that despite the attacks, Iran's underground infrastructure remained operational. Moscow is calling for deescalation of tensions and has offered itself as a mediator. On Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called reports about possible US use of tactical nuclear weapons 'speculative' and warned that such a move would be 'catastrophic.' Tensions flared last Friday when Israel launched unprovoked airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites and assassinated multiple Iranian nuclear scientists and high-ranking military officers. West Jerusalem claimed the operation was a 'preemptive' effort to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran denies its nuclear program has a military dimension, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has said it has seen no signs of imminent weaponization.
Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
The end of Israeli exceptionalism
Israel has now been at war with its neighbours for nearly two years. The latest round began with the Hamas-led terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. In response, West Jerusalem launched an aggressive military campaign that has since expanded to touch nearly every country in the region. The escalation has placed the Jewish state at the centre of Middle Eastern geopolitics once again – this time, dragging in Iran, a state that had long avoided direct confrontation through strategic caution. Now, even Tehran finds itself under fire, with US backing making the stakes far higher. Iran is left facing a grim choice between the bad and the very bad. But this isn't about Iran. It's about Israel, a country that has for decades functioned as the West's forward operating base in the Middle East. Since the mid-20th century, Israel has enjoyed a privileged position – a bridgehead of Western power in a volatile region, while also deeply enmeshed in its politics and rivalries. Its success has rested on two pillars: the unshakable support of the United States, and its own internal capacity for innovation, military strength, and a unique social model. That second pillar, however, has weakened. The clearest sign is in demographics: Israel is facing rising negative migration. In 2024, some 82,700 people are expected to leave the country – a 50% increase from the year before. It is not the unskilled or disengaged who are leaving, but the young and educated. The people who are needed to sustain a modern state are choosing to go. Of course, Israel's troubles are not unique. Like many developed nations, it is struggling under the weight of a decaying neoliberal economic system. The pandemic made things worse, exposing the fragility of the model and encouraging a shift toward a 'mobilisation' mode of governance – rule through emergency and constant readiness for conflict. In the West more broadly, war and geopolitical confrontation have become a way to delay or disguise necessary systemic reform. In this regard, Israel has become a laboratory for the West's emerging logic: permanent war as a method of governance. In the autumn of 2023, the Israeli establishment embraced this fully. Conflict became not just a tactic, but a way of life. Its leaders no longer see peace as the goal, but war as the mechanism for national unity and political survival. In this, Israel mirrors the broader Western embrace of conflict with Russia and China – proxy wars chosen when actual reform is off the table. At the global level, nuclear deterrence limits how far such wars can go. But in the Middle East, where Israel wages war directly, those constraints don't apply. This allows war to serve as a pressure valve – politically useful, even as it becomes self-destructive. But even war has limits. It cannot indefinitely mask economic decay or social unrest. And while conflict tends to cement elite power – even among incompetent leadership – it also drains national strength. Israel is now consuming more and more of its own resources to sustain this permanent state of war. Its social cohesion is fraying. Its once-vaunted model of technological and civic progress is no longer functioning as it did. Some in West Jerusalem may dream of 'reformatting' the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed. Crushing a neighbour doesn't eliminate the threat; it merely brings distant enemies closer. Most importantly, Israel's deepest problems aren't external – they are internal, rooted in its political and social structures. War can define a state, yes. But such states – Sparta, North Korea – tend to be 'peculiar,' to put it mildly. And even for them, war cannot substitute for real diplomacy, policy, or growth. So has Israel, always at war, truly developed? Or has it simply been sustained – politically, militarily, and financially – as a subdivision of American foreign policy? If it continues down this path of permanent conflict and right-wing nationalism, it risks losing even that status. It may cease to be the West's bridge in the Middle East – and become something else entirely: a militarised garrison state, isolated, brittle, and increasingly article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
12 hours ago
- Russia Today
Pentagon & US national intelligence chiefs sidelined from Iran‑Israel discussions
President Donald Trump has excluded Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard from high-level discussions on the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict, NBC News and The Washington Post have reported, citing senior administration officials. Gabbard's sidelining, according to NBC, reportedly stems from her public and internal pushback against the official US and Israeli narrative that Tehran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, Hegseth has also been edged out of operational discussions, with The Washington Post reporting that two four-star generals overseeing the deployment of additional US military assets in the Middle East have taken the lead. Trump is now said to be relying on a smaller, more experienced 'Tier One' advisory group – comprising Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chair General Dan Caine – which is now reportedly shaping US policy on Iran, rather than the traditional civilian defense and intelligence leadership. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell has denied the reports, insisting that Hegseth is 'speaking with the President multiple times a day each day and has been with the President in the Situation Room this week.' Gabbard also told reporters that she and the president were 'on the same page.' Israel launched a large-scale bombing campaign against Iran last week, claiming Tehran was close to producing a nuclear weapon. Trump will decide whether to join the Israeli campaign 'within the next two weeks,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday. However, US intelligence still assesses that Iran, while it has stockpiled enriched uranium, has not taken concrete steps toward developing nuclear weapons, according to Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. This view has remained unchanged since March, when Gabbard told Congress that the US intelligence community 'does not believe Iran is building a nuclear weapon.' Trump contradicted this assessment on Tuesday, stating that Iran was 'weeks away' from obtaining a bomb and dismissing Gabbard's remarks by saying, 'I don't care what she said.' A former Democratic congresswoman and Iraq War veteran, Gabbard has long been critical of the US intelligence community she now oversees, and she was known for supporting NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Her release of a video warning about the horrors of nuclear war following a visit to Hiroshima reportedly annoyed Trump's advisers. Her absence from a key June 8 meeting at Camp David on Iran policy has fueled speculation about her diminished influence, with multiple sources telling NBC that she has not participated in recent strategic discussions.
