As the Israeli-Iranian confrontation enters its third day, casualties on both sides are mounting. At least 80 people have been killed in Iran and at least 10 in Israel. Despite the deadly response from Iran, Israeli officials have continued to insist that attacks on various Iranian nuclear and military facilities were necessary.
A number of justifications have been broadcast to the Israeli public, but none explains the true reasons why the Israeli government decided to carry out the unilateral, unprovoked assault.
The Israeli government claims that the strike was a “preventive” one, meant to address an immediate, inevitable threat on Iran’s part to construct a nuclear bomb. There appears to be no evidence for this claim. Israel’s strike was undoubtedly meticulously planned over a long period of time. A preventive attack must carry an element of self-defence, which, in turn, is generated by an emergency. No such emergency appears to have occurred.
Additionally, Israel has suggested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released on June 12 that condemned Iran for material violations of its Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commitments until the early 2000s constitutes such an emergency. But even the IAEA seems to reject that claim. There was nothing in the report that was not already known to the relevant parties.
The Israeli government has also suggested, in direct relation to the notion of a “preventive” strike, that it aimed to “decapitate” Iran’s nuclear programme. It is generally agreed by scholars and policymakers that Israel lacks the ability to destroy the programme, especially if it attempts to carry out such a strike on its own.
The nature of the campaign as it unfolds also seems to indicate that Israel never meant to wipe out Iranian nuclear activities. The Israeli army has been bombing various military and governmental targets, from missile bases to a gasfield and an oil depot. It has also carried out a string of assassinations against senior Iranian military leaders. Ali Shamkhani, a former defence minister and a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was among those targeted and is reported to have been killed, though Iranian state media and government are yet to officially confirm his death. Shamkhani is believed to have been a leading figure in the talks with the United States over the past months.
His assassination, alongside others’, reflects a favourite Israeli modus operandi. Israel often attempts to “eliminate” specific people in the hope that their deaths would bring about the unravelling of the systems and institutions they lead. The death of Shamkhani can be construed as an attempt to sabotage talks between Iran and the US. In any case, assassinations also seem to indicate the existence of a thorough plan to demonstrate Israel’s might at all levels of Iranian official life and practices. This is not a “decapitation” of the Iranian nuclear programme.
A third suggestion is that Israel has its heart set on jumpstarting “regime change” in Tehran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this overtly when he called on the “proud people of Iran” to stand up for their “freedom from an evil and repressive regime”.
The assumption that Iranians would simply do Israel’s bidding as it bombs them relentlessly and unilaterally seems akin to the notion that if Israel starves and exterminates the Palestinians in Gaza to the required extent, they would rise against Hamas and remove it from power.
Even if that were the case, presuming that all the Iranians are waiting for is an Israeli strike to move against the regime demonstrates a profound lack of understanding with regard to the forces driving Iranian politics. While many Iranians undoubtedly oppose the Islamic Republic, Iranians of all political persuasions are consistently “patriotic”, committed to supporting Iranian sovereignty and independence from any attempts by external elements to impose their agendas on their country.
In fact, just as numerous Israelis who would consider themselves uncompromising critics of Netanyahu jumped to attention when the Israeli attack began and are now vocally supporting the government – most egregiously, members of the parliamentary “opposition” – so are numerous opponents of the Islamic Republic now rallying behind the flag in support of Iran’s violated sovereignty. Claiming that Israel is merely “laying the groundwork” for a popular Iranian rebellion by striking is, at best, a cynical manipulation.
Israel has not struck Iran for all these reasons. So, what drove the attack? Amid the genocidal campaign in Gaza, Netanyahu is very much aware that his government is running out of options. The international community, as well as regional allies, have started to criticise Israel vocally. Some have also been preparing to carry out unilateral measures, like the mass recognition of a Palestinian state.
The International Criminal Court’s warrant of arrest for Netanyahu is looming, and the decision of the International Court of Justice about the legality of Israel’s occupation is waiting to be fulfilled. Israel and its military have continuously carried out massacres, denied them, and have been found to be lying.
There is no doubt that Netanyahu planned the strike on Iran for years, waiting for just the right time. This time came on Friday. It is a desperate attempt to rally the world behind Israel, just as preparations are made to deny it the absolute impunity it has enjoyed since its creation.
Iran is still considered a potential threat by many leading powers of the Global North. By invoking the known tropes associated with unilateral lethal Israeli action – from divine promises to the Holocaust – Netanyahu hoped to re-establish the status quo; Israel can still do whatever it wants.
This is Israel’s current definition of “security”, the most hallowed principle at its core. It is the seemingly apolitical genesis of Israeliness, the site devoted wholly to Jewish supremacy, which is the only “real” way to ensure the integrity of Jewish lives. “Security” means that Israel can kill whoever it wants for as long as it wants and wherever and whenever it wants without paying any sort of price for its actions.
This “security” is what has motivated Israel’s actions from Gaza to Yemen to Lebanon and Syria, and now in Iran. Such a “security regime” must expand continuously, of course. It can never stop. By striking Iran, Netanyahu has gone for broke, staking a claim for complete and absolute impunity for Israel as well as for himself, in The Hague as well as in domestic courts.
Will this be Netanyahu’s salvation? Will the Israeli public forgive him for his abject failures at home and horrid transgressions in Gaza? When observing the current sense of jubilation in public Israeli discourse, this may very well be the case.
The long lines stretching from every open store, hardware to food, demonstrate that Israelis have entered blank survival mode. A docile citizenry may be good for Netanyahu, but it portends ill for any attempt to build and defend a robust Israeli society.
