The United States and Israel's decision to engage in a new war with Iran has created a highly dangerous moment with unpredictable consequences. Israel justified the attack as "pre-emptive," but it is not a response to an imminent threat, rather a war of choice.
Both nations calculated that Iran's Islamic regime is vulnerable due to economic crisis, fallout from crackdowns on protests earlier this year, and defense damage from last summer's war. Their conclusion was that this opportunity should not be missed.
This move is another blow to the faltering system of international law. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stated Iran poses a danger, but given the power disparity, the legal justification of self-defense is hard to apply.
War is a political act. Netanyahu has long viewed Iran as Israel's most dangerous enemy. For him, this is a chance to inflict maximum damage on Tehran's regime and military capacity. Netanyahu also faces an election later this year, and evidence from the Hamas war suggests he believes his political position strengthens during conflict.
Trump's objectives have shifted: in January, he promised aid to Iranian protesters but lacked military options. While deploying carrier strike groups, he emphasized Iran's nuclear ambitions, though he previously declared the program "obliterated."
The Iranian regime denies seeking nuclear weapons, but uranium enrichment to levels with no civilian use indicates a desire for the option. No evidence of an imminent threat has been presented by the US or Israel.
Trump and Netanyahu messaged Iranians about "the hour of freedom" and regime overthrow, but this is uncertain. There is no precedent for regime change via air strikes alone: Iraq and Libya cases led to state collapse and civil war.
Even if air power topples the regime, it won't be replaced by a liberal democracy. No credible alternative government exists. Iran's regime, built over half a century on ideology, corruption, and force, has shown willingness to kill protesters.
The US and Israel may aim to assassinate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel believes in assassination as strategy, but Iran is a state, not an armed movement. If Khamenei is killed, he'd likely be replaced by another cleric backed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), tasked with regime defense.
Source: www.bbc.com