Israel-Iran: Why now? What comes next?

By: Ricardo Israel - 15/06/2025

Originating from the Bible, it was the name given to the attack on Iran, the purpose of which was to prevent it from acquiring an atomic bomb, an operation described as "offensive, preemptive, precise, and combined." And if detonated, the bomb would have killed as many Jews as Palestinians, including those living in the occupied territories.

Claus von Clausewitz defined war as “the continuation of politics by other means” in the 19th century, and although he was always right, Israel has rarely listened to him, since, although it has not started any of its wars and has won them all, it fails to achieve peace, in addition to losing in narrative and image, precisely because of the lack of a political plan for the day after, as illustrated by what happened in the Gaza war, where, strange as it may seem, in the absence of that, the only one that exists is the one proposed by Trump.

However, for this attack, much attention was paid to the political context, and they waited for what was called a "window of opportunity," which occurred when a set of prerequisites coincided: first, there was internal consensus; second, there was support from the US and, even more notably, from Sunni Arab countries, who welcomed the attack, whether they said so or not. Third, Iran was weakened by the destruction of its air defense system the previous year; fourth, proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, which had attacked Israel, were greatly weakened in Gaza and Lebanon, so much so that Hezbollah did not defend Iran now; and Israel had reached an agreement with Turkey to avoid clashes in Syria. Fifth, the day had come when the red line should not be crossed, as there was evidence of how close Iran was to the atomic bomb, not stated in secret documents, but for the first time in a public report by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

In other words, Israel had no alternative, since its destruction has been the official policy of the Islamic Republic since 1979. It was a remarkable intelligence operation, prepared for years, which was launched in September of last year. By November, the first draft of the final order was ready for execution in April, the date on which Trump asked them not to act and gave the Iranians 60 days to accept, which was fulfilled in the first week of June. On Friday the 13th, just like the previous year, Israeli planes managed to enter Iran without any problems and departed without any casualties, with none of them being shot down by Iran's air force or defenses. With an added bonus, the level of penetration was such that the Mossad was able to operate as if it were a movie. In addition to directing missiles at their targets, it was able to arm drones inside Iran, which allowed it to eliminate senior military officials and those in charge of the atomic program. In some cases, their homes were attacked with such precision that neighboring rooms were unharmed. In any case, with this level of success, the question of how the horrific failure of the Hamas invasion on October 7 could have occurred returns.

I am writing the day after the attack and missiles are flying in both directions causing destruction, but after two days, it is clear that there are different objectives, since for Israel what has happened will only have had meaning if it gets rid of, and for a good while, the possibility that Iran is arming its atomic bomb, while for Tehran the purpose is varied, first, to get rid of the feeling of humiliation by causing significant damage, second, to delay or prevent the peace agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, third, that Israel is forced or is forced by international pressure to stop the attacks and fourthly, for the ayatollahs, the fundamental purpose is to survive in power.

The latter should perhaps come first, since control of Iran is the instrument that enables the Islamic revolution, and first, preaching its Shiite version to the rest of the world, as well as having a network of militias and countries it controls, with the Revolutionary Guard in second place. And third, since 1979, it has been the basis that allows them to spread their jihad against what the West represents, for whom Israel is still fighting today, despite a cowardly Europe's criticism. Finally, even if Israel achieves its objective with the bomb, something that is unknown based on the information available today, it is still difficult for a tyranny of this type to collapse, just as dictatorships that lose elections in other countries do not fall.

Will it become a regional war? It isn't today, as was the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which became the first global war of the 21st century, as it immediately impacted global fuel and food markets. The Middle East hasn't globalized its conflicts, except in rhetoric, since there is no neutrality on the matter and everyone in the West, from individuals to governments, believes they have an opinion.

Given the mutual attacks that can last for weeks or months, we could be witnessing an escalation, but a regional war has not yet emerged. In this regard, there has been talk of a regional war since Israel entered Gaza and was attacked by proxies, which has forced fighting on no fewer than seven fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, the West Bank, Iraq, and Iran itself. The same was also said when Israel and Iran attacked each other last year, in April and October, and that didn't happen either. There is no evidence that this is happening now, unless Tehran makes the mistake of attacking US soldiers and diplomats or bombs Arab countries that currently collaborate with Israel.

Although the US, through Marco Rubio, claimed it was not involved, there is no doubt it was informed and collaborated in various ways. It provided intelligence, had an aircraft carrier in the region, pledged to support Arab countries that allowed Israeli aircraft to pass through their territories, put its bases with 40,000 troops deployed throughout the Middle East on alert, and helped calculate the trajectory of Iranian missiles toward Israel. This is US collaboration, just as its assistance will be essential when public condemnations of Israel begin, also in Europe, Canada, and Australia. In any case, this is nothing new, as it was also criticized when it eliminated smaller atomic programs. It did so first by air with Saddam Hussein's program, and second, with special forces, it operated in Syria when North Korea had joined the Assad family.

Today, support is as mentioned above and nothing more, since what the US likes goes elsewhere, since there is the advantage that American soldiers will not be needed, since those who wear other uniforms do not participate in Israel's wars, which Israel fights alone, with its own people, which is not even the case with the United Kingdom, as two world wars demonstrate.

Therefore, it is undeniable that the many who underestimate Israel's capabilities insist on exaggerating the role of the world's leading power, without giving sufficient credit to the autonomy and power achieved with a small population in such a small territory, and where the hard-won military superiority has contributed to providing security and permanence to scientific and human development successes.

In the attack on Iran, the most important thing turned out to be that Israel and the White House always agreed, so much so that when Israel attacked immediately after the 60-day deadline had expired, it was, to me, a sign that the deadline had been agreed upon. My impression is that Trump is going to offer Tehran negotiations again, and he already said something about it, assuring them that they were living on day 61, that a peaceful atomic program was still on the table if they agreed not to process uranium on their territory, but could, however, acquire it abroad.

Why does Donald Trump act this way? As an aside, my impression is that his offer coincides with a life path where, contrary to what is said, he truly doesn't believe that solutions from the US should be imposed by military means. Trump, who with tariffs has changed economic parameters but hasn't achieved anything geopolitically. Furthermore, I'm convinced he thinks his actions should be rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, and perhaps he should have received it for the Abraham Accords, which is now an official policy to address some old hatreds in the Middle East. However, it's extremely unlikely he'll receive it, since it's a political award in the sense that it's given not by a Swedish academy but by the Norwegian parliament. Given his positions and personality, the political correlations within him don't allow it, just as there wouldn't be a prize for any Vatican pope.

That being said, everything indicates that the ayatollahs' actions bear a striking resemblance to their arch-enemy Saddam Hussein. In 1991, faced with a potential attack by the US and its allies, Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw from Kuwait, as he could have done, thereby leading to a military defeat. In this instance, it was enough to cease processing uranium, as is the practice of those who pursue peaceful atomic programs instead of atomic bombs and the missiles to deliver them. Saddam Hussein also doubled down on this occasion, kidnapping Westerners as hostages, transforming them into human shields, a precursor to Hamas, although Saddam was an adversary of fundamentalist groups.

To understand what's happening today, we must accept that wars in the Middle East differ from the Western view of winning or losing. They don't end with victory or defeat, as the case of Israel demonstrates. The theme persists, reappearing in different forms again and again, sometimes only changing names. In other words, what Sun Tzu (544 BC–496 BC) said more than two millennia ago applies: that wars only end when the will to fight ends, which is not the case today with either Israel or the Ayatollahs.

Furthermore, the war between Iran and Israel did not begin with yesterday's attack, but in 1979, with the emergence of the Islamic Republic of Iran, with the Shiite idea of martyrdom, and with a declaration of intent, expressed in the fact that the diplomats of the then U.S. Embassy were taken hostage. This signaled the beginning of a jihad against the West, including the destruction and disappearance of Israel. War was declared there, despite the fact that before Khomeini, until 1979, Israel had maintained good relations with Iran.

It is, therefore, a war that will continue as long as the contenders' will to fight exists, and in Israel's case, it cannot lose. There is no other country facing a similar challenge, and it has no alternative but to win, a matter about which there is too much misunderstanding in the rest of the world. The Israeli case is an example of the malfunctioning of international institutions. If a healthy international system existed, the UN should protect Israel's right to defend itself, which is not the case, since, instead of receiving support, it only receives rejection.

On the contrary, despite being the only country in this situation, other members of the international community declare their intention to destroy it daily, while the discredited and biased UN does nothing. In this regard, among nations, the United States is the only one who can do something, and I hope it decides to promote a new system, since it was the only one that created the two that existed in the 20th century and continues to largely finance the current one, as well as creating the defunct League of Nations. Therefore, no other country seems able to undertake a similar task.

Although the military superiority achieved by Israel had protected it, as had the progress made with Arab countries in signing a peace treaty, the country had previously experienced threats of disappearance. This happened with its Declaration of Independence in 1948 and with the Six-Day War in 1967, where its preemptive attack on Egypt was successful. However, that last experience serves to understand that relations between allies go through stages, since it also bombed, with victims included, the American spy ship Liberty in those days of June, when the relationship of close allies that exists today with the USA did not exist. In fact, today the relationship seems to be good enough for the attack that took place yesterday the 13th to be the first time that it has received approval to proceed unilaterally against Iran, since the US had never before allowed Israel to do so, until now.

Furthermore, within the dynamics of relations between states where interests are the only permanent factor, perhaps this honeymoon could suffer a storm if the US tries to impose the creation of a Palestinian state as soon as possible, under conditions that, if Israel were to accept, could mean the end of the current government, since Netanyahu would lose the vote of confidence in the Knesset if the most extreme ministers were to withdraw in protest.

What should come next? Still in doubt is how much damage the Israeli attack did to the sites where the atomic bomb is being prepared, whether it rendered the project useless or only postponed it for a few years. Therefore, he is putting pressure on the Iranian population to rebel against tyranny. Iran has faced rebellions for years from its Arab minority as well as separatism promoted by those who want to recreate Baluchistan, an idea originating from the Persian Empire, today with people spread across several countries, such as the Kurds, the Palestinians, or the Druze.

I think internal decisions should come later, both in Iran and Israel. These aren't ideal scenarios, so I don't think democracy will emerge from Iran today. But since the society is more secular and educated than its ayatollahs, it can be governed in a more decent and less feudal manner than the religious tyranny that was enthroned in 1979, after prevailing over the liberal and communist alternatives of that time, one that cares more for its people than for imposing a universal jihad. I wouldn't worry so much about its international alliances either, as they are temporary, given that China is only concerned with gas and oil, and in the case of Russia, Putin is far removed from fundamentalism.

A government that doesn't seek to impose the bomb that the majority doesn't want, and that, moreover, is the best way to address the issue, since once scientific knowledge enters a society, it never leaves. I am convinced that those who enjoyed, and perhaps found the greatest joy in, the defeat of the ayatollahs were the majority of Iranians, but that doesn't mean the ayatollahs will be removed from power.

In Israel's case, an election is a good idea, and letting the people choose is the best way for a democratic society. I think Netanyahu is not the person for this stage, and that, first and foremost, the Supreme Court should finally decide whether he is innocent or guilty of the charges against him. I believe that the long-delayed Commission should be formed at the highest level to try to understand how the entire state failed Israel on October 7—not just the government, but also the security and intelligence institutions, as well as the armed forces, which were so slow to react.

I believe the election result should produce what Israel had in 1967, a national unity government, one where right and left meet at the center, in my opinion what Israel needs today, a majority government that can govern and confront the modification of an electoral system incapable of generating governability, and also look for something pending since the (re)creation of the State in 1948 and which is lacking, a written constitution, with rules that allow overcoming the polarization that exists today.

Above all, it must produce a political plan for Gaza without Hamas, which Israel lacks today. I am convinced that Israel's future lies in an alliance with the Sunni Arab countries, and the less Europe and the United Nations participate, the better for everyone. I am reluctant to talk about a "new" Middle East, after such profound mistakes as the fall of the Shah and the Arab Spring. Do you remember the illusions in both cases?

An alliance based on mutual interests, such as the threat posed by Iran, is more permanent and lasting than other alternatives. A partnership with the Arab governments that collaborated in the defense of Israel is better for the remaining challenge, the creation of the Palestinian State, and will help distance that people from fundamentalism and finally find what has been missing after so many rejections: the Palestinian partner for two states, one beside the other, and not one instead of the other, as Hamas and Iran intended.

@israelzipper

-Master and Doctor (PhD) in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Law (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».