Attack on Iran: Israel drags the US into 'its' war
At dawn today, several Iranian cities were bombed, including the capital, Tehran. The real goal is to overthrow the Ayatollah regime — a dangerous illusion that in this way it is possible to achieve Israel's security and balance in the Middle East.
Joint attack by Israel and the United States against Iran at dawn on Saturday. Several cities were hit in large-scale attacks, in addition to the capital Tehran (LaPresse photo shows explosions in Tehran and a map showing the cities hit). What we had hoped would be avoided has happened. This was preceded by the lengthy preparation of the war machine, which we have reported on in recent weeks and years.
The pretext remains a nuclear threat from Iran, though this contradicts the triumphant tone with which US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the end of the '12-day war' last June. Trump assured the nation from the White House on 22 June 2025 that 'Iran's key nuclear sites have been completely and totally destroyed' with 'massive precision strikes', and spoke of 'a spectacular military success' that 'puts an end to the nuclear threat posed by the world's leading sponsor of terrorism'.
However, there has never been any objective evidence of the true results of these attacks. Clearly, the nuclear threat – even if it exists – is not the real goal, despite the fact that the ongoing operation also aims to destroy missile depots and nuclear sites. In his address to the nation this morning, in which he confirmed American military participation alongside Israel, Trump made this clear by appealing directly to the Iranian people: “When we are done, take control of your government — it will be yours. This will probably be your only chance for generations.”
In other words, the aim is to destroy Iran's military apparatus in order to bring about the fall of the Ayatollah regime. This is being done by taking advantage of what is perceived as a moment of weakness for the regime amid fierce internal protests and demonstrated security flaws, as evidenced by the spectacular Israeli terrorist actions in Tehran, not to mention the precarious health of the elderly Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
A regime change would also facilitate a new order in the Middle East that would eliminate the threat to Israel's existence once and for all, given that Iran is its number one enemy and the real sponsor of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen. This is why war was waged against Assad in Syria, an Iranian ally, to the point of paradoxically favouring the rise of a jihadist government, such as the current one.
Therefore, the war against Iran is Israel's war — or rather, Netanyahu's war — which Trump is pursuing despite having arrived at the White House with very different promises.
Even the definition of Iran as the 'main global sponsor of terrorism' betrays this subordination: Iranian-Shiite terrorism primarily targets Israeli interests. However, if we are talking about 'global' terrorism, the terrorism that we must defend ourselves against in Europe and even in the United States has an entirely different origin and is financed by Arab governments with which the West maintains excellent relations.
Whether Trump is doing this out of conviction or under duress — the Epstein files may offer some clues in this regard — the fact remains that the president, who nominated himself for the Nobel Peace Prize, is throwing the United States into another war with uncertain outcomes and certain consequences for Western allies, not to mention the possibility of the conflict spreading to the entire region.
Iran is undoubtedly a brutal and bloody regime; it is certainly one of the main causes of instability in the Middle East. However, the idea that the solution to a violent regime is more violence, or even war, is pure madness. The experience of recent decades should have demonstrated this abundantly. Even desired and pursued regime changes have resulted in more serious problems. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are proof of this: a hated regime is overthrown, but all that is gained is war, endless suffering for the civilian population, and political destabilisation. Moreover, it is not certain that it would be so easy to overthrow the Ayatollahs in Iran today.
Believing that the eventual fall of Khamenei and his Pasdaran necessarily results in the birth of a new, democratic, pro-Western government is a dangerous illusion, as was supporting the 'Arab Spring'.
While Israel could gain immediate and certain benefits from the disappearance of a regime such as that of the Ayatollahs, who want its destruction, these would only be short-lived. Basing one's security based on violence and the law of the strongest can only delay one's own ruin; a true biblical reading of the history of Israel would help Netanyahu refresh his memory.
