Israel's war on Iran is not about nuclear weapons
The claim that has been adopted by the United States, Israel and its European partners, that the attack on Iran was a 'pre-emptive' attempt to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, is demonstrably false. It holds about as much weight as the allegations against Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003 and this war of aggression is just as illegal.
For the best part of four decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet, every single attempt to strike a deal which would bring more monitoring and restrictions to Iran's nuclear program has been systematically dismantled by Israel and its powerful lobbying groups in Western capitals.
In order to properly assess Israel's attack on Iran, we have to establish the facts in this case. The Israeli leadership claim to have launched a pre-emptive strike, but have presented no evidence to support their allegations that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Simply stating this does not serve as proof, it is a claim, similar to how the US told the world Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Back in March, the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.'
On top of this, Iran was actively participating in indirect negotiations with the US to reach a new version of the 2015 Nuclear Deal. Donald Trump announced Washington would unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in 2018, instead pursuing a 'maximum pressure' sanctions campaign at the behest of Israel.
Despite the claims of Netanyahu and Trump that Iran was violating the Nuclear Deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report which stated Iran was in full compliance with the deal at the time.
If you trace back every conversation with neo-conservatives, Israeli war hawks and Washington-based think tanks, their opposition to the Obama-era Nuclear Deal always ends up spiraling into the issues of Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for regional non-State actors.
Israeli officials frequently make claims about Iran producing a nuclear weapon in 'years', 'months' or even 'weeks,' this has become almost second nature. Yet their main issue has always been with Iran's support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who strive for the creation of a Palestinian State.
Proof of this all is simple. Israel, by itself, cannot destroy Iran's vast nuclear program. It is not clear the US can destroy it either, even if it enters the war. An example of the US' ineffectiveness at penetrating Iranian-style bunkers, built into mountainous ranges, as many of Iran's nuclear facilities are, was demonstrated through the American failure to destroy missile storage bases in Yemen with its bunker-buster munitions, which were dropped from B-2 bombers.
Almost immediately after launching his war on Iran, Netanyahu sent out a message in English to the Iranian people, urging them to overthrow their government in an attempt to trigger civil unrest. The Israeli prime minister has since all but announced that regime change is his true intention, claiming that the operation 'may lead' to regime change.
Israel's own intelligence community and military elites have also expressed their view that their air force alone is not capable of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. So why then launch this war, if it is not possible to achieve the supposed reason it was 'pre-emptively' launched?
There are two possible explanations:
The first is that the Israeli prime minister has launched this assault on Iran as a final showdown in his 'seven front war,' with which he hopes to conclude the regional conflict through a deadly exchange that will ultimately inflict damage on both sides.
In this scenario, the desired outcome would be to conclude the war with the claim that Netanyahu has succeeded at destroying or has significantly degraded Iran's nuclear program. He would also throw in claims, like we already see him making, that huge amounts of Iranian missiles and drones were eliminated. This would also make the opening Israeli strike, which killed senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists, make sense. It would all be the perfect blend of propaganda to sell a victory narrative.
On the other hand, the assumption would be that Tehran would also claim victory. Then both sides are able to show the results to their people and tensions cool down for a while. If you are to read what the Washington-based think-tanks are saying about this, most notably The Heritage Foundation, they speak about the ability to contain the war.
The second explanation, which could be an added bonus that the Israelis and US are hoping could come as a result of their efforts, is that this is a full-scale regime change war that is designed to rope in the US.
Israel's military prestige was greatly damaged in the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, and since that time there has been no victory achieved over any enemy. Hamas is still operating in Gaza and is said to have just as many fighters as when the war began, Hezbollah was dealt significant blows but is still very much alive, while Yemen's Ansarallah has only increased its strength. This is an all round stunning defeat of the Israeli military and an embarrassment to the US.
As is well known, Iran is the regional power that backs all of what is called the Axis of Resistance. Without it, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas would be significantly degraded. Evidently, armed resistance to Israeli occupation will never end as long as occupied people exist and live under oppressive rule, but destroying Iran would be devastating for the regional alliance against Israel.
The big question however, is whether regime change is even possible. There is a serious question mark here and it seems much more likely that this will end up on a slippery slope to nuclear war instead.
What makes the Israeli-US claim that this war is somehow pre-emptive, for which there is no proof at all, all the more ridiculous of a notion, is that if anything, Iran may now actually rush to acquire a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If they can't even trust the Israelis not to bomb them with US backing, while negotiations were supposed to be happening, then how can a deal ever be negotiated?
Even in the event that the US joins and deals a major blow to the Iranian nuclear program, it doesn't mean that Iran will simply abandon the program altogether. Instead, Tehran could simply end up rebuilding and acquiring the bomb years later. Another outcome of this war could end up being Israeli regime change, which also appears as if it could now be on the table.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
5 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
11 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
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
Americans irritated by Zelensky's top aide
A growing number of American officials – from Capitol Hill to the Trump administration – are expressing deep frustration with Vladimir Zelensky's powerful chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, according to a Politico report. Yermak's repeated visits to Washington since the escalation of the conflict with Moscow in 2022 have been seen as increasingly unproductive and even counterproductive, according to ten people familiar with his interactions, the publication reported on Thursday. US officials describe Yermak as 'abrasive,' prone to pressing unclear demands, and 'uninformed' about the realities of US politics. His most recent trip to DC earlier this month included poorly attended briefings, last-minute meeting cancellations – including with Secretary Rubio – and confusion among aides about his purpose in town. 'We don't know why he's here,' one of the sources said, while another Trump administration source branded him a 'bipartisan irritator.' The Biden White House reportedly tolerated Yermak as an acceptable source of friction during wartime. But with President Donald Trump pressuring Kiev toward diplomacy, he now appears to have become an 'existential liability' for Ukraine, according to another source. Yermak dismissed the criticism, telling Politico through a spokesperson: 'If that means being considered 'challenging' by others — so be it,' stressing that he is focused on championing Ukraine's sovereignty regardless of political niceties. However, Yermak was reportedly 'extremely frustrated' with the results of his visit, according to another Politico source. One person described the trip as 'a disaster from the Ukrainian perspective.' Yermak is a former film producer whom Zelensky – an actor turned politician – brought into government in 2019. The 53-year-old has previously been described as 'Zelensky's right-hand man' and 'Ukraine's real power broker,' with some officials even claiming that he de facto runs the country.
