Russia in Global Affairs

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netinyahu has initiated his  long-anticipated war against Iran, launching a sweeping operation^[1] dubbed «The Rising Lion.»

Israel has carried out coordinated attacks on Iranian targets, engaging in open warfare both in the air and security breach on the ground. Tensions have been rising since 13 of June, with increasing concerns that the fighting could soon spill further exacerbating regional and international instability.

This moment marks a pivotal juncture in Middle Eastern history, one that will resonate for decades to come. Regardless of how the conflict ultimately unfolds, it is undeniable that the war will irrevocably reshape the political and geopolitical landscape and the balance of power in the region, setting the stage for a new era of uncertainty and transformation.

An analysis of Israel’s strategy against Iran reveals that Israel has drawn on key lessons from its previous regional conflicts to inform its current military campaign; in which Israel capitalized on the element of surprise—both in execution and timing—in a calculated move that caught Iran off guard. The attack was launched a mere two days before the fifth round of crucial negotiations was set to take place in Oman between Iran and the United States. By striking at this pivotal juncture, Israel not only disrupted diplomatic efforts but also exploited a significant security lapse among Iranian military officers and officials. In the chaos of the initial hours of the assault, several high-ranking figures were assassinated,^[2] further crippling Iran’s ability to respond effectively. While Iranian officials were anticipating the upcoming talks, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his team were already preparing for war.

Israel employed a sophisticated strategy of deception to mislead Tehran regarding its intentions to wage the war, crafting a false narrative that aimed to lull the Iranian leadership into complacency. In the weeks leading up to the strike, Israel orchestrated a series of disinformation efforts, including a fabricated security cabinet meeting focused on hostage negotiations, which diverted attention from the true nature of the plans. Concurrently, Israeli officials perpetuated false claims about Prime Minister Netanyahu being on vacation as his son’s upcoming wedding plans and scheduled diplomatic meetings with the United States, all designed to obscure the imminent military action. Only a small circle of Israeli decision-makers was privy to the full scope of the operation, and all cabinet members were required to sign stringent confidentiality agreements to prevent any leaks.

This deliberate misinformation campaign sought to delay Iran’s progress toward a potential nuclear breakout, buying Israel crucial time. The tactic bears similarities to Israel’s actions during the 1967 Six-Day War. At that time, Israel used deceptive strategies to create a false sense of normalcy and calm, including an order from Defense Minister Moshe Dayan to grant reservists leave, and public images of crowded beaches in Tel Aviv that portrayed everyday life. These images, widely published in the media, helped reinforce the illusion that Israel was not preparing for war. Additionally, Dayan held a press briefing that presented Israel as a nation seeking a peaceful resolution, further misdirecting foreign reporters and international observers into believing that conflict was unlikely.

This calculated manipulation of public perception was central to Israel's effort to mask its true military objectives, ensuring that the surprise attack would be as impactful as possible.

In addition to the inaccurate interpretations surrounding the U.S. President’s visit to the Middle East, Trump’s decision to skip visiting Israel was perceived by some observers as indicative of a potential rift or lack of alignment between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The perception of diminished U.S. support for Israel seemed to embolden Iran, boosting its confidence in its negotiating stance. Tehran, interpreting the absence of strong backing from the U.S. for Netanyahu, began to speculate that President Trump might be less willing to support Israeli military actions against Iran. This belief influenced Iran’s strategic calculus. More importantly, the Security Breach and Technological Superiority; among the numerous shocks the Iranian regime was forced to confront, was the security breach executed by Mossad, in which the Israeli intelligence agency orchestrated a bold infiltration of Iranian territory, deploying missile-armed drones to disable critical radar systems protecting Iran’s nuclear reactors and to neutralize its primary air defense batteries. This operation had multiple objectives, with the most pivotal being the silencing of Iran’s air defense capabilities, while simultaneously instilling shock, suspicion, and a pervasive sense of mistrust within the Iranian leadership. as this operation exposed the alarming indications that local agents had cooperated with Israeli intelligence to undermine the regime’s security apparatus. Such a breach not only revealed vulnerabilities within Iran’s defense infrastructure but also signaled the internal dissent and resentment. This scenario bears striking resemblance to Israel’s «Operation Pager», which targeted Hezbollah operatives and significantly disrupted the trust among the group’s supporters and members and caused a severe psychological blow at a critical time. Netanyahu said; “What we did with the elimination of Iran’s security leadership is the Pagers Operation on steroids!”

Simultaneously, Israel launched a series of targeted strikes against high-ranking military and security officials, with a clear and precise objective: to cripple the leadership of the Iranian regime.  Following the strikes, Iranian state media reported the systematic assassination of top commanders and senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. These targeted eliminations had an immediate and profound impact, severely damaging the morale of Iran’s leadership and sending a powerful message to the public—that their government was losing control. The subsequent day saw a wave of car bomb attacks throughout Tehran, signaling that the regime was being attacked on multiple fronts—from within Iran’s borders and from external forces.

This coordinated strategy aimed not only to decapitate Iran’s military hierarchy but to sow deep divisions and mistrust within the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard, the military, and among the broader population. By introducing chaos and confusion into decision-making circles, Israel sought to slow the regime’s ability to respond effectively, disrupt internal cohesion, and ultimately destabilize the Iranian leadership.

In essence, Israel’s approach was to exploit both external and internal vulnerabilities, intensifying the sense of insecurity and disarray within Iran at a critical moment in the conflict.

As the Iranian leadership scrambled to reorganize and restructure its military in response^[3] to the loss of key commanders neutralized by Israeli strikes, Israel remained several steps ahead. While Iran focused on reassigning leadership and patching up the gaps in its military command, Israel shifted its focus to psychological warfare, targeting the Iranian population directly. In a calculated move, Israel issued evacuation orders to residents living near military sites or suspected military installations, further destabilizing the country.

These evacuation orders were not merely a strategic effort to create fear and confusion among the civilian population—they also served a critical military purpose. By forcing evacuations, Israel was able to gather evidence confirming the presence of military assets at these locations. The resulting mass movement of civilians acted as a form of intelligence gathering, validating Israel’s targeting strategy while simultaneously escalating psychological pressure on Iran’s public. This move not only disrupted Iranian society but also demonstrated Israel’s ability to manipulate both the battlefield and the minds of the Iranian people, contributing to the destabilization of the regime from within.

Cyber Warfare was part of Israeli warfare; The «Predatory Sparrow» hacking group, linked to Israel’s security services, has claimed responsibility for a cyberattack that crippled the data infrastructure of a bank connected to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. The targeted bank was involved in financing Iran’s proxy operations in the Middle East, as well as supporting the regime’s missile and nuclear programs.

In response to the attack, Iran’s Cyber Authority has issued an  order: all government agencies, their employees, and associated security teams are now banned from using mobile phones that are connected to the public communications network. Analyzing this scene reveals that Iran is in a re-active position in this hybrid warfare.

Additionally, Israel has destroyed the Radio Tehran, the «Revolution Club» and Iran’s state TV building as a strategic move to undermine the Iranian regime’s propaganda and psychological warfare capabilities. By targeting these key communication centers, Israel weakens Iran’s ability to control its narrative, coordinate military actions, and rally both domestic and regional support. The attack disrupts Iran’s information warfare infrastructure, signals a deterrent against further escalation, and challenges the symbolic foundation of the regime’s revolutionary ideology.

Targeting the South Pars gas refinery in Kangan -The world’s largest, Iran’s main gas-processing centre- as well as the Fajr Jam gas plant that processes its fuel. In addition to Tahran’s Shahran oil depot, it marks a move by Israel to cripple Iran’s economic and military capabilities by attacking its critical energy infrastructure. as Oil and gas are vital to Iran’s economy and military operations, such strikes might weaken the regime’s ability to fund military activities and sustain operations. Such attacks  degrade Iran’s military power, as energy is essential for powering military equipment and systems, while sending a psychological message of vulnerability. Additionally, by targeting energy resources, Israel undermines Iran’s strategic resilience, hampers its ability to respond effectively in a crisis, and exerts pressure on the government, potentially causing unrest. Such actions not only destabilize Iran internally but also signal to the wider region that no sector, including vital infrastructure, is immune from attack, thus affecting global energy markets and regional geopolitical dynamics.

So what was initially declared as Israel’s primary objective—halting Iran’s nuclear program—has evolved over, with the scope now expanding to include the destruction of Iran’s strategic missile capabilities and, ultimately, the aim of destabilizing or changing the regime itself.

Netanyahu said : “Cyrus [the Great] freed the Jews. Perhaps today the Jews will free the Persians.”

With this statement Netanyahu cites Cyrus the Great, the Persian emperor who, according to history and religious texts such as the Bible, freed the Jewish people from Babylonian captivity and allowed them to return to their homeland. By saying, «Perhaps today the Jews will free the Persians,» Netanyahu is likely expressing a symbolic or metaphorical idea: that the Jewish people now are aiding Iranian people to be liberated from its regime, similar to Cyrus’s historical assistance to the Jews.

similarly; Khamenei has tweeted, «in the name of Haydar the battle began, and Ali returned to Khaibar with Thulfiqar».

Khamenei’s tweet calls upon the legacy of Ali ibn Abi Talib and his Thulfiqar sword as a symbol of righteousness in the AlKhaibar battle against the Jews. It frames this war conflict as one of justice versus oppression, with Iran (and Khamenei’s leadership) aligned with the forces of right, as represented by Ali in Islamic history. asserting that this war  is a continuation of the spiritual and historical legacy of Ali, and that victory will come as a result of divine justice—just as it did in the past. It is said that Prophet Muhammad remarked on Ali’s qualities, calling him the «Lion of God».

Both Netanyahu’s statement and Khamenei’s tweet demonstrate how they  use historical symbolism and religious rhetoric to frame the war.  Netanyahu’s appeal to Cyrus the Great positions Israel as a liberator, while Khamenei’s reference to Ali casts Iran as a defender of righteousness and defeating the Jews. These statements reflect deeply entrenched the role of religion and history in shaping the Iranian- Israeli war.

Has Israel Destroyed Iran’s Nuclear Program?

Till the date of writing this article, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran’s nuclear program, systematically targeting and disabling several critical facilities. However, despite these efforts, Israel has not been able to completely eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Iran operates 21 nuclear sites across 12 locations, with the most strategic and heavily fortified being Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, and Bushehr.

While Israel has successfully bombed the surface facility at Natanz, it was unable to penetrate the deeper, underground core, which lies about 80 meters below ground and is shielded by reinforced concrete. To neutralize this facility entirely, Israel lacks the necessary capabilities, and it is widely believed that the United States may be called upon for the task. Similarly, Fordow, located 80-110 meters underground within a rugged mountainous region, remains well beyond Israel’s reach and would similarly require American intervention to neutralize. The Bushehr reactor, which is operated by Russia and situated on the Persian Gulf, presents another significant challenge. Israel has refrained from targeting this facility due to its proximity to Russian interests and the immense geopolitical risks involved in attacking a site under Russian control. Despite these limitations, Israel has dealt a major blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions by successfully striking key installations such as the Isfahan conversion plant, a vital component in Iran’s nuclear weapons production. These strikes have disrupted Iran’s ability to produce new nuclear material, significantly halting its enrichment capabilities.

However, Iran still retains substantial reserves of nuclear material. It possesses approximately 500 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% stored securely. If Iran increases the enrichment rate to 90%, This stockpile grants Iran the potential to rapidly ramp up enrichment to weapons-grade levels, allowing it to produce up to 10 nuclear bombs^[4] and possibly conduct its own nuclear test, much like North Korea,when it announced in 2006 that it had successfully conducted the first nuclear test. and In 2007, the North Korean regime reaffirmed its possession of nuclear weapons.

Despite Israel’s efforts, the nuclear threat from Iran remains far from neutralized, and the risk of a nuclear-capable Iran looms large.

This may serve as a key motivation for the United States, France and Britain and potentially NATO to intervene in support of Israel should the conflict escalate further.

Or the United States could provide Israel with the needed bombs to complete the destruction. 

More Resources, Greater Stakes: Wars never one dimensional:

In 2015, the Democratic administration under former U.S. President Barack Obama reached a landmark agreement with Iran concerning its nuclear program. This deal was part of a broader U.S. strategy aimed at countering China’s growing global influence. However, in 2018, President Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement as part of a strategic pivot toward the East, embracing the theory of «dual containment»—a policy designed to target Iran regionally and China globally. The intent was to disrupt the burgeoning cooperation between China and Iran, thereby hindering China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Silk Road project. This strategy also aimed to position India as a rival or counterbalance to China while bolstering the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) project. Grasping this context helps explain why India chose to distance itself from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) condemnation of Israel’s ongoing attacks on Iran. Conversely, Pakistan’s declaration of support for Iran against Israel—particularly in light of the recent escalation—may be influenced by the longstanding animosity between the two nuclear-armed nations. Together, these developments underscore the gravity of the current conflict and its broader international implications.

From this vantage point, we can trace the connections between the Syrian and Iranian situations, particularly as they intersect with the broader confrontation with China. The Turkestan jihadists, who were deployed to Syria, view the conflict as a victory for their cause. They believe the «Levantine jihad» has been successful, and thus they can return to their homeland to «liberate» China from what they perceive as «communist occupation.» Their return is framed as a means to «support the Uyghur issue» by joining the Uyghur resistance within China. This scenario aligns with U.S. interests, as weakening China internally through the presence of jihadi forces serves the broader goal of exhausting and destabilizing the country. Concurrently, weakening Iran aligns with the strategic interests of both Israel and the United States. Israel aims to neutralize the Iranian threat in the region, a longstanding issue that has also affected the Gulf states. The United States views this as an opportunity, not only to counter Iranian influence but also to advance its own strategic interests, including challenging Chinese influence and securing access to valuable economic assets.

Iran plays a pivotal role in global energy markets. Over 20% of the world’s seaborne oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime choke point between Iran and Oman. Additionally, Iran holds the second-largest proven natural gas reserves globally, surpassed only by Russia, with an estimated 1,200 trillion cubic feet (34 trillion cubic meters)—representing 16% of global reserves and 45% of OPEC’s total. As the third-largest producer of natural gas, behind only the US and Russia, Iran’s production reached 9,361 billion cubic feet (265 billion cubic meters) in 2023, contributing to at least 6% of global output. These vast resources increase Iran’s significance on the world stage, attracting more global powers to engage in its geopolitical dynamics. Thus, while the rewards of the US, or other powers joining the war are enticing, the risks of intervention could outweigh the potential gains.

It is clearly evident that Israel is not acting alone in this conflict. The United States, Britain, France, NATO, and Japan all stand in support of Israel. Consequently, Israel is moving forward decisively to achieve its objectives, which have been publicly stated as the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program. However, it is also evident that their broader aims include destroying Iran’s missile systems and ultimately overthrowing the Iranian regime established by the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Analysts and experts can provide countless analyses of the goals, causes, and regional and international dimensions of the Israel- Iran war. They may agree or disagree, but one thing is certain that this is a hybrid open war, violent, brutal, and relentless. With every missile launched, every building reduced to rubble, every assassination, and every targeted nuclear facility, the enduring legacy of decades of hatred and premeditated malice takes its toll.

Between Iran and Israel, innocent civilians bear the heaviest burden, their lives shattered by the bloodshed of war. The true cost is borne in the stolen futures of young men and women, in the tears and fears of children, and in the crushed dreams of those who long only for a simple, peaceful existence.

While the Iranian regime may have invested years, vast wealth, and resources in constructing underground nuclear reactors, it failed to recognize—much like Bashar al-Assad’s regime did—that true power does not only lie in weapons or infrastructure, but in the people. The real wealth of a nation resides in its youth, in their potential, and in the development of a thriving, prosperous economy. When a nation’s leadership unites with its people, and when rhetoric aligns with the will of the populace, it becomes an indomitable force—an equation too complex for external powers to unravel or undermine. However, when the regime fails to address this equation, disillusioned and betrayed young people will become the very fissures within their society—the «Trojans» that may enable external enemies to weaken or destroy the regime from within. Simultaneously, this conflict underscores the enduring dominance of political realism in international relations, highlighting how the deteriorating and unpredictable nature of the global system increasingly drives regional and international actors toward confrontations, wars, and conflicts. To address this, efforts must focus on reforming the international order or establishing a more inclusive and balanced parallel framework—one that ensures, in a multipolar world, that all actors, regardless of their power, have meaningful roles, representation, and voices. Such a structure would help safeguard their sovereignty and rights, fostering a more stable and equitable international System.