The starting point in understanding the conflict lies with the fact that Israel is an expansionist state which wilfully refuses to constitutionally demarcate its final borders. It needs to "de-fang" Iran as the last obstacle towards ensuring its complete military domination of West Asia. Thus, achieving the destruction of Iran would pave the way for it to expand into territories which its foundational ideology -Political Zionism- claims was promised to them by God.
Israel’s longstanding
strategy towards achieving its ultimate objective of truly establishing Israel
on the “Land of Israel” (Eretz Yisrael) has been to find opportunities to
expand through military conquest and by creating the circumstances through
which its neighbours can be weakened and ultimately balkanised.
The theme of weakening countries who refuse to recognise Israel and who support the Palestinian cause has been repeatedly addressed over the decades by a litany of policy papers prepared by the Israeli state, as well as by influential pro-Zionist think-tanks which are often based in the United States.
In 1980, a paper produced for Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs by one Oded Yinon provided a detailed rationale for Israel’s interest in balkanising surrounding nations into small ethnic and denominational statelets. Known as the “Yinon Plan”, A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties envisioned countries such as Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq being divided into their ethnic or religious component parts. Iraq for example was to be divided into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia states.
Later, a number of neoconservative think-tanks developed on the theme of Israel consolidating its statehood within the framework of a strong relationship with the United States. Two stand out papers were A Clean Break: A Strategy for Securing the Realm which was published in 1996 under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies and the Project for the New American Century’s Rebuilding America's Defenses - Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The “Clean Break document”, which was presented to Binyamin Netanyahu during his first tenure as prime minister, called for Israel to “contain, destabilise, and roll back” a number of states including Syria and Iraq. And in January 1998, members of PNAC wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove “Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.”
Iran has always featured prominently in these studies, as well as in the lobbying of the U.S. government by pro-Zionist intellectuals and the political leadership of Israel. For instance, in January 2003, when the invasion of Iraq was being planned, Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli prime minister, called on President George W. Bush to “disarm Iran, Libya and Syria”. And Binyamin Netanyahu has since the 1990s been actively calling on the Americans to intervene in Iran, using its development of nuclear technology and its potential to develop an atomic bomb as the basis for such intervention.
Iran, as is the case with the Arab states Israel has targeted, is a heterogenous mixture of ethnicities and religious sects, and as such is viewed as inherently vulnerable to the application of pressure intent on fracturing the country. It formed a central part of the concept of an “Arc of Crisis” in the Middle East.
Devised by the neoconservative academic Bernard Lewis in response to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Lewis believed the coming to power of the mullahs would inflame the region with religious fundamentalist movements and lead to increasing anti-Western sentiment. However, he also believed that the West could use the development as a means of re-configuring the Middle East and shaping a policy which would direct the embers of raised levels of ethnic nationalism and religious sentiment towards the Muslim republics of Central Asia on the southern border of the Soviet Union. At the same time, Iran, with its Azeri, Baluchi, Kurdish, Turkmen and Arab minorities, would in Lewis’ thinking, provide fertile ground for stimulating secessionist movements.
Pro-Zionist adherents of the neoconservative movement, whose ultimate mission would be revealed to be to utilise American military power to destroy the enemies of Israel, made their first substantive impact on American foreign policy during the latter stages of the Reagan presidency when they were involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. They were heavily represented in the administration led by George W. Bush when the attacks of September 11th, 2001, occurred.
This tragic event provided the impetus for what U.S. General Wesley Clark described as a policy coup which has never been debated by the American public. During the later part of 2002 while visiting former colleagues at the Pentagon as the invasion of Afghanistan was being planned, a serving general informed Clark of a top secret plan to knockout 7 countries within 5 years. They included Iraq, Syria, and Libya, with the final country being Iran.
The clear implication was that the grand act of terrorism, officially committed by Sunni militants of al-Qaeda, would be used as a pretext to destroy secular Arab Nationalist governments and the largest Shia state in the world, each of which had the common denominator of resisting any accommodation with Israel, as well as supporting the cause of Palestine.
The fates of Iraq, Libya and Syria which have left each as dismembered and weakened countries, are of course a matter of record. Iran thus remains the last nation standing.
The question of Iran developing a nuclear programme and by extension the likelihood of it developing atomic weapons has always been used by Israeli leaders especially Binyamin Netanyahu as a pretext to put Iran in the crosshairs of the United States. Iran, as is the right of all nations has the right to develop nuclear energy under the terms of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory state. Iran’s nuclear sites were inspected in accord with treaty obligations which were continued under the stringent conditions placed by the stipulations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This is in stark contrast to Israel which has secretly developed a nuclear programme in Dimona which it has steadfastly refused to submit to international scrutiny.
It is important to note that Iran’s desire to pursue a nuclear programme dates back to the time of the Shah when in 1957, it signed a cooperation treaty with the United States Eisenhower administration under its “Atoms for Peace” policy. With a large population of over 90 million people, the Iranian nation’s requirement for nuclear energy to meet industrial and domestic needs is clear.
But while the potential for extending this to military needs exists, no credible evidence has ever been presented to show this to be the case. Indeed, after a debate among Iran’s spiritual, political and military leaders, in October 2003, Ayatollah Khamanei issued an oral fatwa forbidding the production and use of any form of weapon of mass destruction.
During the period that has elapsed, the U.S. Intelligence Community have repeatedly reached the conclusion that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon, the latest was being in March 2025 when Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, informed U.S. senators during a hearing. The book Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare which was written by Gareth Porter and published in 2014, provided compelling evidence that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb.
But these findings by the intelligence apparatus of the American state, a prize-winning investigative journalist and Iran’s acquiescence to a regime of regular inspections did not impress Israeli leaders whose object has been to overthrow the government of the Islamic Republic. The strategy of achieving such regime change can be found in the 2009 paper-turned-book titled Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran which was written under the auspices of The Brookings Institution.
The enduring Zionist goal of regime change as a prelude to balkanisation was reflected in a recent editorial in the Jerusalem Post. Titled “Trump should use his power to defeat Iran's regime”, the article called on President Donald Trump to “embrace regime change as a policy” and to “forge a Middle East Coalition for Iran’s partition,” while “offering security guarantees to Sunni, Kurdish, and Balochi minority regions willing to break away.”
Were this to come to pass,
Israel would become the undisputed regional hegemon with a free hand to attempt
the final destruction of the two resistance movements which Iran has supported
in their fight to prevent Zionist designs on their territories: Hamas in Gaza
and Hezbollah, the Shia organisation which has prevented Israel’s claim to
south Lebanon up to the Litani River.
The fall of Iran would also
be of benefit to the United States in retaining its status as the primary
global hegemon. This is because Iran is an important part of the germinating
Eurasian order and stirrings of a multipolar world. It is now a full-fledged
member of BRICS, an organisation undergirded by China and Russia which poses a long-term
threat to U.S. global economic dominance. A powerful BRICS would diminish the
influence of the Bretton Woods institutions, U.S. and Western corporate power
and accelerate the trend of de-dollarisation.
Beleaguered by decades of U.S.-imposed sanctions, Iran has signed extensive agreements on economic cooperation with both China and Russia. Iranian and Russian cooperation is central to the development of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) which will serve as an alternative route to the Suez canal, something which would be of tremendous benefit to China as it develops its "New Silk Road" under the auspices of its “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI).
Destroying Iran and imposing a regime favourable to the West -as was achieved after "Operation Ajax", the joint CIA-MI6 endeavour which in 1953 overthrew the Iranian nationalist leader Mohamed Mossadegh- would provide the United States with an opportunity to control and loot Iran's natural resources much as it did to Russia during the Yeltsin era.
The leaders of Iran are well aware of this and have responded forcefully and effectively against Israel since it launched its surprise attack on June 13th. They have refused President Trump’s demand for unconditional surrender and fight on with the knowledge that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is a captive of both the United States and Israel.
In an intelligence coup against Israel, Iran acquired documentary evidence of the IAEA’s collusion with both America and Israel, the latter of which was furnished with details of the Iranian programme including the details of scientists who Israel has assassinated over the years and targeted on June 13th. Iran is also aware through the utterances of Donald Trump that the United States used negotiations as a cover to aid Israel in its surprise attack.
Prior to the beginning of talks, Prime Minister Netanyahu was adamant that only what he termed the “Libya-style” solution -Iran’s complete disarmament- would present the alternative solution to the use of force. The implications of this were clear: Iran was being told to surrender its sovereignty. Moreover, giving up its formidable stockpile of indigenously developed hypersonic and ballistic weapons would leave in the position of being destroyed in the manner of Iraq and Libya.
It underscores the overarching point about regime change being the primary objective of Israel. The parallels with the Iraq war in 2003 are apparent. The claim that Iran was making a bomb is analogous to the claim that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. And just as the claims made against Iraq were proved to be unfounded, those directed at Iran also appear to be false.
Ironically, the pressures exerted on Iran – a country which has not attacked another nation for over 200 years- may well convince the Iranian supreme leader to rescind his fatwa and develop a bomb which would have provided a deterrence against Israel’s June 13th, attack.
In this existential threat between Iran and Israel one thing remains clear: If Iran falls there will be little to stop Zionist Israel in pursuing its foundational objective of expanding its borders.
© Adeyinka Makinde (2025).
Adeyinka Makinde is a Law Lecturer based in London, England. He has an interest in geopolitics.
No comments:
Post a Comment