While the conflict between Iran and Israel continues, it is evident that the war was initiated by the occupying regime of Israel—with full backing from the United States. On the tenth day of escalating tensions, despite officially offering a two-week window to return to diplomacy, the U.S. launched a surprise attack at dawn on June 22. Deploying advanced GBU-57A/B MOP bunker-buster bombs from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, it targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Although some damage was inflicted—particularly to the entrances and exits of Fordow—Iranian Atomic Energy Organization officials confirmed that there was no release of toxic or radioactive gases.

This assault reignited regional instability, turning the Middle East into a global flashpoint once again. In response, Iran issued a short ultimatum before launching a retaliatory missile strike on June 23, targeting the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar with short- and medium-range missiles. While Iranian officials reported successful hits, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed via Truth Social that all but one missile were intercepted, and minimal damage was sustained.

What truly matters is that Iran’s strike demonstrated its resolve to resist Washington’s political and military pressures. Even if, as Trump asserts, the damage was negligible, his call for a ceasefire suggests a recognition of the conflict's potential to escalate beyond control. Had the clashes continued, a wider regional or even global war could have ensued.

The Iran-Israel war revealed the very real risk of escalation. Strategic bombings, missile and drone strikes, cyberattacks, and inflammatory rhetoric—all unfolded alongside diplomatic stalemates. Donald Trump played a central, albeit contradictory, role in steering—or perhaps derailing—the crisis. His fluctuating policies further emboldened Israel and fanned the flames of war. Meanwhile, the conspicuous absence of active roles by China and Russia, and Europe’s confinement to symbolic meetings, has made the future of the crisis increasingly uncertain.

On the battlefield, Iran’s strategic advantage became apparent. Utilizing a sophisticated network of regional allies, Tehran managed to strike deep into occupied territories, targeting military, intelligence, and electronic infrastructure. These successes mark not just military achievements but signal a shift in Iran’s security doctrine—toward what can be called a “smart war” strategy.

Conversely, Israel relied on its aerial superiority and Western logistical support, resorting to indiscriminate bombings of urban centers. Civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction were intended to erode Iranian morale and incite internal unrest. Yet this strategy backfired. A surge of national unity and solidarity emerged within Iran—even among regime critics abroad. Netanyahu’s hopes for igniting civil strife in Tehran were dashed, despite efforts by diaspora media and opposition figures like Reza Pahlavi, whose calls were largely ignored. Instead, public cohesion was strengthened, and dozens of infiltrators and saboteurs were swiftly apprehended.

Throughout the crisis, Trump oscillated between threats and diplomacy. These erratic policy shifts highlight the strategic confusion within U.S. foreign policy. The Trump administration faces two conflicting priorities: maintaining Israel’s security as a linchpin of its Middle East strategy, and avoiding a prolonged military quagmire against a nonconventional adversary like Iran. Engaging Iran—whose asymmetric defense capabilities and regional influence are formidable—would impose unsustainable economic, political, and human costs.

Nevertheless, pressure from extremist pro-Israel lobbies and military-industrial interests may pave the way for a “limited but targeted conflict.” Politically marketable, such a scenario would, in practice, be costly and unpredictable.

Europe’s indecisiveness, and the silence of China and Russia, are equally telling. While the EU troika met Iranian officials on June 20 regarding the nuclear issue, Trump authorized the “Midnight Hammer” strike just a day later. Iran has consistently favored dialogue as a means of de-escalation. However, Europe has shown little resolve to counter U.S. unilateralism and lacks genuine political independence in regional security matters. More striking is the muted response of Moscow and Beijing. Neither has taken concrete steps to support Tehran. China, preoccupied with the Taiwan crisis and U.S. rivalry in the Pacific, opts for tactical silence to preserve economic ties with both sides—especially since Israel ranks among its top trading partners. Russia, bogged down in Ukraine and wary of regional destabilization near the South Caucasus, similarly avoids entanglement.

Thus, Iran stands virtually alone—unsupported by formal military alliances but fortified by regional partners and grassroots solidarity. This stark reality raises profound questions about the reliability of so-called “strategic partnerships” with China and Russia. Iran must recognize that even the closest allies prioritize their geopolitical balance sheets, often choosing pragmatism over principle.

Is regime change in Iran truly a strategic goal? Israel, aware that it can no longer maintain military dominance, now champions the idea of regime change. But this rhetoric reflects more a fear of shifting power balances than a real policy. Israel doesn't just seek regime change—it seeks a regime-less Iran. Its objective is the fragmentation of Iranian territory and the erosion of national sovereignty,........

© Dikgazete.com