US attack on Iran, on Israel's behalf, would destabilize the Middle-East and lead to a wider war

At the heart of current Iranian regime change attempt lie decades of effort by the US and Israel to destabilize the Islamic Republic.

 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

As the world watches to see if Donald Trump will make good on his threats against Iran, Western audiences must grasp a crucial reality: Tehran remains the Middle East’s last significant counterweight to Israeli dominance, largely thanks to its unyielding commitment to the Palestinian cause. While many Muslim-majority governments in the region have softened their stance, Iran has offered resolute support to groups resisting Israel’s long-standing occupation, embedding the fight against Israeli expansion as a foundational element of its foreign policy. This defiance squarely confronts Israel's aspirations for regional hegemony, casting Iran as an enduring obstacle in Jerusalem’s strategic playbook. Amid Israel’s growing clout—bolstered by normalization deals with select Arab states and targeted military operations against adversaries—the push for regime change in Tehran, led by the United States and Israel, has only gained momentum.



To understand the geopolitics of the conflict between Iran on one side and Israel and the US on the other, let’s examine the political and historical context which will reveal that Israel functions as the true terrorist state in the region through state-sponsored violence, assassinations, and disproportionate military campaigns against weaker nations and peoples, while the US and Israel combined represent the most dangerous actors in the Middle East, repeatedly destabilizing the region with interventions based on geopolitical ambitions and fabricated pretexts.

The Palestinian struggle remains central to understanding Iran’s isolation and Israel’s animosity towards that nation. Tehran has long provided financial, military, and political support to groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, framing this aid as an “axis of resistance” to Israeli actions in Gaza and the broader occupation in territories where Palestinians want to establish a state. This support contrasts sharply with the shifting stances of Arab nations. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Kuwait—oil-rich powers with significant financial leverage—have increasingly normalized relations with Israel, effectively abandoning their strong historical support for Palestinians.

The Abraham Accords of 2020 normalized relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, bypassing Palestinian statehood, which these nations had as a condition of normalization for decades prior to the agreement. These treaties have prioritized economic and security issues over Palestinian rights, as evidenced by the apathetic response by these nations to Israel’s genocidal crimes in Gaza since October 2023.

For more than 28 months, as Israel has inflicted unimaginable terror on Palestinians in Gaza, there have been no broad-based sanctions imposed by any Arab nations against Israel despite massive demonstrations by their citizens calling for such action. Diplomatic ties remain intact, unlike actions by some European nations—Spain, Ireland, Norway, Slovenia—which have downgraded diplomatic and economic relations, while several Latin American nations—Bolivia, Belize, Colombia, Chile, Honduras—have severed diplomatic ties or recalled their ambassadors. Moreover, no Arab states have forcefully committed to enforcing International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants against Israeli leaders for alleged war crimes. This shift underscores a realignment where Middle East Arab capitals view Israel as a counterweight to Iranian influence, rather than an adversary, as has been the case historically. The result is a region where Palestinian freedom and rights are sidelined, allowing Israel freer rein to pursue its hegemonic agenda.

The ongoing efforts to destabilize Iran’s government stem from decades of US and Israeli pressure aimed at weakening the Islamic Republic. Nationwide protests that erupted in late December 2025—sparked by runaway inflation and severe economic hardship exacerbated by long-standing U.S.-led sanctions—quickly escalated into widespread demands for political change.

Iranian authorities have consistently blamed the unrest on foreign interference, accusing the CIA and Israel’s Mossad of orchestrating and arming demonstrators to sow chaos. Tehran has pointed to reported Israeli intelligence operations that have targeted and degraded Iranian-backed militias across the Middle East in recent years as evidence of broader destabilization efforts.

Compounding these tensions, the Trump administration has significantly bolstered US military presence in the region since early 2026, deploying two aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and other assets while issuing threats of targeted strikes. This buildup aligns closely with Israel’s long-standing objective of confronting Iran’s government more decisively, raising the spectre of coordinated action that could result in the downfall of the current Iranian leadership.

The US push for confrontation with Iran stems largely from decades of sustained Israeli influence via powerful pro-Israel lobby groups. Organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have long shaped US policy toward Iran, portraying it as an existential threat to steer decisions in Israel’s favour. Critics argue this lobby diverts US foreign policy from pursuing America’s own national interests, as seen in the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and the imposition of broad based sanctions, which Israel had called for, even though the agreement was effectively controlling Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Despite claims by pro-Israel voices that war would benefit both nations, history suggests otherwise. A military conflict with Iran could mirror the Iraq War’s aftermath, which resulted in widespread destabilization, sectarian violence, and the rise of extremist groups hostile to the US. The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, launched on fabricated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, unleashed widespread chaos across the Middle East, claiming hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and costing trillions of dollars.

This catastrophic precedent casts a long shadow over any prospective US attack on Iran, which risks igniting proxy conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond, further fracturing an already fragile region. The current rhetoric mirrors the pretexts used for launching the Iraq war—manufactured threats used to justify American aggression in violation of the UN Charter and international law. Today, Israeli and American narratives cast Iran as an imminent nuclear danger, despite its adherence to rigorous international inspections under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA—Iran nuclear deal), until the US unilaterally withdrew from it due to pressure from Israel.

Such portrayals invert the true dynamics of regional threats. Far from the aggressor depicted by the US and Israel, Iran has acted predominantly in self-defence, responding to external encroachments rather than launching them. Tehran has not invaded a neighbouring nation in over two centuries—unlike Israel, which has initiated multiple wars against its neighbours since it was created in 1948. Iran’s backing of proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria stems from a perceived encirclement by the US military and Israeli belligerence and provocation.

By contrast, the US and Israel have a documented history of attacking other nations based on false pretenses. Prime examples include the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to protect the interests of Western oil companies, installing the Shah and planting seeds of enduring anti-American resentment, and Israel’s 1956 attack on Egypt, in conjunction with the UK and France, which caused the Suez Crisis and nearly brought the US and the Soviet Union into direct nuclear conflict.

For decades, US and Israeli military and covert operations have served as primary drivers of instability across the Middle East and beyond. The US invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and the “war on terror” fuelled sectarian violence, empowered extremist groups like ISIS, resulted in over four million of deaths, and drained trillions from the US treasury. Subsequent interventions in Libya in 2011 and support for Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War fragmented states, resulted in power vacuums exploited by radical elements, and created failed states.

Israel has similarly escalated tensions and created regional instability through acts such as the 1967 pre-emptive strikes in the Six Day War that seized territories from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria; the 1982 invasion and years-long occupation of southern Lebanon that gave rise to Hezbollah; and repeated attacks on Gaza, including Cast Lead (2008-2009) and Protective Edge (2014), and now the current genocidal campaign, which have caused tens of thousands of deaths and deepened Palestinian hardship. These military operations have displaced millions of Palestinians, inflamed anti-Western and anti-Israel sentiments, and sustained cycles of violence. In this context, it is Israel that emerges as the one employing terrorism—through settler violence, targeted assassinations of Palestinian leaders, and disproportionate military force. In comparison, Iran’s action are responses to Israeli and American aggression, and remain overwhelmingly reactive.

This pattern of hostility towards Iran has unfolded through sustained economic sabotage, targeted assassinations, and cyber warfare. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, US intelligence enabled Iraq’s chemical attacks on Iranian forces, prolonging the conflict and causing more than 600,000 Iranian casualties. In 2010, the US and Israel deployed the Stuxnet virus to destroy Iranian nuclear centrifuges and delay the program. Israel has repeatedly assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists, including the 2025 strikes that killed prominent figures like Fereydoun Abbasi. Additionally, the 2020 US drone strike that eliminated General Qasem Soleimani was perceived in Tehran as an act of war, as did Israeli airstrikes in Syria that targetted the Iranian consulate in Damascus.

These acts of Israeli aggression have destabilized the Middle East far more profoundly than Iran’s defensive measures ever have. A direct US attack on Iran would compound these risks, and potentially trigger broad proxy wars, massive refugee crises, disruptions to global oil supplies resulting in economic chaos, and accelerate the rise of nuclear proliferation risks.

Compounding this aggression is the stark nuclear disparity that exposes the hypocrisy at the heart of the threats against Iran. The US, a declared nuclear superpower with a vast arsenal, stands alongside Israel, which maintains an undeclared stockpile estimated at around 90 warheads (with fissile material sufficient for potentially another 300 more weapons), while refusing international inspections or transparency. Yet these two nuclear-armed states fabricate pretexts to attack non-nuclear Iran, which has historically complied with rigorous international inspections under the JCPOA—until the US withdrawal from the agreement undermined it and escalated tensions. Israel’s policy of refusing to cooperate with the International Nuclear Energy Agency, combined with the overwhelming American stockpile, creates a profound imbalance that poses a far greater risk to global peace than Iran’s nuclear program, which was in response to the threat from Israel, and has never produced a functional nuclear warhead.

Decades of crushing US sanctions have further deepened Iran’s economic turmoil, employing a familiar playbook to weaken Iran and pave the way for potential change. Reimposed in 2018, these measures have frozen Iran’s oil revenues, seized assets, and driven inflation above 40%, with food prices surging over 57% in recent periods—exacerbating shortages and hardship for ordinary Iranians. These policies have eroded Iran’s middle class by an average of 17 percentage points annually in earlier sanction waves (2012–2019), undoing decades of social and economic progress and pushing millions into vulnerability. While the late 2025 protests across the country stemmed from genuine domestic grievances against the theocratic government—fuelled by economic collapse, currency devaluation, and governance failures—Iranian officials have alleged involvement by external actors (Mossad and the CIA) arming demonstrators, with claims of capturing over 3,000 agents and seizing 60,000 weapons as evidence of orchestrated foreign interference.

Additionally, Israel’s persistent espionage against the United States, going back to the 1960s, further erodes any pretense of an unblemished alliance between the two nations. Despite receiving tens of billions of dollars in US aid Israel has engaged in aggressive spying against the US, more than any other ally. High-profile cases, such as the Apollo Affair involving theft of nuclear material, and Jonathan Pollard’s theft of classified nuclear documents, underscore this pattern of betrayal. When combined with Israel’s history of promoting actions based on fabricated and exaggerated intelligence—like its pivotal role in advancing the false 2003 Iraq WMD claims—these actions reinforce the view that the US and Israel, rather than Iran, are the primary forces destabilizing the Middle East.

In contrast, Iran’s authoritarianism and misogynistic policies notwithstanding, its foreign policy has been reactive. It has never attacked or occupied neighbours’ territories, focussing instead on deterrence against invasions, like the 1980-88 Iraq War which led by the US. Additionally, recent escalations, such as the 2025 unprovoked Israeli and US attack on Iran, show Iran’s restraint to avoid full war, given geographic and strategic constraints. In this scenario, pursuing regime change risks unleashing chaos akin to post-Saddam Iraq, empowering radicals.

Ultimately, the relentless push for confrontation with Iran primarily advances Israeli strategic goals while imposing heavy costs on the United States—perpetuating a vicious cycle of violence, economic drain, and regional chaos that threatens the lives of millions across the Middle East.

If any powers truly endanger peace in the region and beyond, it is the United States and Israel, whose repeated interventions, covert operations, and aggressive postures have fuelled discord across the Middle East for years. Genuine stability demands confronting the core injustice that fuels anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments—the denial of Palestinian rights and self-determination—rather than manufacturing existential threats to rationalize further military action.

History has repeatedly shown that military interventions in the Middle East—particularly those involving the United States and Israel—tend to generate deeper resentment and instability, undermine long-term security for all parties, and inflict devastating suffering on civilian populations.

Any American and Israeli military action against Iran now carries the grave risk of igniting a prolonged regional war that could pull in adjacent Arab nations. Such a conflict could rapidly expand through proxy battles across multiple fronts, trigger severe disruptions to global energy markets, unleash massive waves of refugees, and heighten the dangers of nuclear proliferation—ultimately exacting a human and strategic toll far exceeding any short-term tactical advantages the U.S. and Israel might hope to achieve.

In the end, the pursuit of dominance through force risks not victory, but a legacy of enduring instability and destruction that could haunt the region—and the world—for generations.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

US attack on Iran could be a step toward global catastrophe and the beginning of the end of the United Nations

The inability by the UN to rein in aggressor nations mirrors the League of Nations’ failure in 1935, to stop Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia leading to its demise.

  

By Fareed Khan 

       

On June 21, 2025, American president Donald Trump ordered a military strike on Iran, targeting its nuclear facilities and military infrastructure. This unprovoked act of aggression, following Israel’s earlier attacks, not only escalates tensions in the Middle East but also signals the potential collapse of the United Nations as a credible enforcer of international law. The UN, already weakened by decades of inaction in the face of global atrocities by state actors, now faces a crisis reminiscent of the League of Nations’ failure in 1930s, when Japan invaded and conquered Manchuria in 1932, and when Italy invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935, exposing its impotence.

 

 

In the face of the global community’s inability to stop the US or Israel from attacking Iran further this could light the fuse for a broader conflict, destabilizing the entire region, and potentially leading to global war. It is up to nations committed to the rule of law—particularly Western democracies—to condemn this naked aggression against a nation that posed no imminent threat to the US or Israel. Moreover, this aggression underscores a troubling pattern where the US consistently targets adversary nations unable to match its military might whey they allegedly violate international law, while shying away from confronting powerful adversaries like Russia which has invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine. Under Trump, and with this attack, the US has provided more evidence that it is a rogue nation, posing the greatest threat to global peace.

 

The UN has long struggled to uphold its mandate to maintain international peace and security. Established in 1945 to prevent the horrors of another global war, the UN’s effectiveness has been hamstrung by the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members: the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France. This structural flaw has rendered the UN a toothless tiger, incapable of acting decisively against powerful aggressors. From the Kashmir conflict between Indian and Pakistan, Israel’s decades-long violations of Palestinian rights to the Rwandan genocide, the Balkans conflict, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the ongoing crises involving the Rohingya and Uyghurs, the UN has consistently failed to enforce the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention or the Geneva Conventions. Nations and their leaders which have committed crimes under international law have literally gotten away with murder.

The US strike on Iran is a stark reminder of this impotence, and how seriously broken the so-called international legal order is. Iran had already called for a UN Security Council session to address this blatant violation of its sovereignty as a result of Israel’s attacks, and threats by the US to join Israel’s unprovoked war. But had the meeting taken place it is more than likely that the US would have vetoed any resolution that would have advocated for peace and a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. This inability by the UN to rein in aggressor nations mirrors the League of Nations’ failure in 1935, when Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia faced only token sanctions, exposing the League’s inability to enforce international law. The League’s collapse soon followed, and the UN is now heading towards that same cliff. It may not happen tomorrow but the drift of the UN towards such an end is evident. A post on X by UN Secretary General Antonio Gutterres, condemned the US strike as a “dangerous escalation” and a “direct threat to peace and security, and urged diplomacy, underscoring the organization’s desperation to stay relevant. Yet, without the ability to hold veto-wielding nations accountable, the UN’s credibility as a guarantor of global stability is crumbling as the great powers ignore its pleas for peace and do as they please, with little regard for diplomacy or peace.

The justification for the US and Israeli attacks on Iran—allegedly to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons—lacks credibility. US intelligence officials have stated as recently as last week that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon—an assessment that Trump has ignored. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, a right it holds under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Israel (an illegal nuclear nation), notably, is not a party. The Israeli strikes, followed by US involvement, appear less about neutralizing a genuine threat and more about advancing Israel’s agenda of becoming the supreme military power in the region, and undercut Iran’s support for the Palestinian resistance movement, which is the strongest among Middle-East nations.

Academic and media analyses reinforces this view. Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute has argued that Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, and any US attack would be driven by Israel’s desire to cripple a regional rival that vocally opposes its policies toward Palestinians. The Atlantic Council notes that Israel’s strikes were motivated by a narrow window of opportunity to target Iran’s nuclear program, not by an imminent threat. This suggests a premeditated act of aggression by Israel rather than a defensive necessity, undermining claims that Iran was an immediate danger to regional peace.

Far from enhancing security, the US and Israeli attacks on Iran risk plunging the Middle East into further chaos. Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israel, which have killed civilians and damaged infrastructure, demonstrate the potential for escalation. The conflict threatens critical global trade routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which half of China’s oil imports pass. Iran’s weakened but still capable military, combined with its proxy forces, could target US bases or shipping lanes, drawing the US into a protracted conflict that will drain its treasury and weaken the US further.

The precedent set by US interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya suggests that such actions often lead to unintended consequences—failed states, refugee crises, and the rise of extremist groups. A destabilized Iran could trigger a regional power vacuum, fuelling civil war or enabling terrorist groups to seize nuclear materials, and create a refugee crisis on par with the Syrian crisis in the early 2010s. The US attack, far from neutralizing a threat, has heightened the risk of a broader regional conflict, with ripple effects that could destabilize surrounding nations, the way that Syria was destabilized as a result of the Iraq War.

The US has a long history of targeting adversary nations unable to match its military might, while avoiding direct confrontation with more formidable adversaries. Iran, despite its regional influence, lacks the capacity to challenge US military dominance directly, making it an easy target. In contrast, the US has refrained from military engagement with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia’s clear violation of international law. Trump’s cancellation of a planned meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 17, 2025 at the G7 Summit, to focus on the Iran conflict highlights this selective approach. If the US truly prioritized enforcing global peace, it would have confronted Russia’s aggression head-on with military force, rather than targeting a nation like Iran, which has not invaded or occupied another country in modern history.

This pattern of selective aggression—attacking weaker states like Iraq, Libya, and now Iran, while avoiding peer adversaries—exposes the US as a global bully and a rogue nation. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in more than a million deaths, a destabilized region, the creation of ISIS, increased incidents of terrorism, and failed to enhance US security. Similarly, the US intervention in Libya in 2011 led to a failed state and a proliferation of arms to terrorist groups, undermining global stability. These actions demonstrate that American aggression, far from making the US safer, often exacerbates threats and fuels anti-American and anti-Western sentiment.

Under Donald Trump, the US has embraced a reckless foreign policy that prioritizes unilateral action over diplomacy. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, including threats to “take out” Iran’s Supreme Leader and demands for “unconditional surrender,” reflects a delusional and dangerous disregard for international norms. His decision to attack Iran, despite ongoing nuclear negotiations, undermines the diplomatic efforts of US allies and shows the world that the US is a danger to its adversaries as well as its allies. Trump’s apparent yearning for an era when imperialism ruled the world is likely to cause other nations to see it as a danger to global peace and will accelerate US decline as a global power.

The United State’s actions under Trump mirror those of a rogue nation, launching unprovoked attacks, flouting international law and destabilizing peace and the global order. By aligning closely with Israel, another state accused of violating international norms, the US has eroded its already diminishing moral authority. The failure of US allies—particularly NATO members—to condemn this unprovoked aggression risks legitimizing a global order of might-makes-right. If these nations do not act to uphold the rule of law, they will be complicit in the erosion of the international legal order and the potential slide towards a conflict that could engulf nations around the world.

The American attack on Iran could be the spark that ignites a broader war. Russia, a key Iranian ally, has warned that the conflict risks a “nuclear catastrophe,” while China, reliant on Iranian oil, faces significant economic disruption, and could act to protect its economic interests. In addition, the involvement of regional actors, such as the Houthis, who have threatened to target ships in the Red Sea or Hezbollah, could escalate the conflict further. If Iran retaliates against US bases or allies, the cycle of escalation could knock over other dominoes, draw in other major powers, and result in a global conflagration.

The UN’s inability to act decisively, coupled with the unilateral aggression by the US sets a dangerous precedent. Nations like China, North Korea, or India, emboldened by the collapse of international norms, may pursue their own aggressive ambitions—China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea and Japan, and India against Pakistan—further destabilizing the global order. The failure to hold the US accountable could mark the beginning of the end for the UN, just as the League of Nations dissolved in the face of unchecked aggression by Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany.

The international community, particularly US allies, must condemn this act of aggression and demand accountability. The UK, France, Russia and China, as veto holding members of the UN Security Council, along with the 10 non-permanent UNSC members should push for sanctions against US officials involved in the strike, even if a US veto renders such efforts symbolic. Failure to act will embolden further violations of international law, paving the way for a world where aggression will become the norm between adversarial nations, and make meaningless the few rules that maintain an uneasy global peace. The US attack on Iran is not just a regional crisis, it is a global warning. If the rule of law is to survive, nations (including US allies) must unite to reject this dangerous rogue behaviour and chart a path towards diplomacy leading to peace.

  

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Unprovoked attack on Iran shows Israel to be a rogue, terrorist state violating international laws with impunity

The world stands at a crossroads. Allowing Israel to continue its aggressive wars and genocidal campaign threatens the survival of international law and global peace. Military intervention by a UN-led coalition is urgent to halt Israel’s criminal actions . . .

 
By Fareed Khan

In launching an unprovoked attack on Iran under the flimsy pretext of "self-defence," Israel has not only escalated tensions in an already volatile region of the world, but has also inflicted irreparable damage to the international legal order. 

By launching air raids on Iran, that have killed over 400 Iranians to date (mostly civilians) and injured 654, and committing genocide in Gaza for more than 18 months, Israel has exposed itself as a rogue, terrorist state without parallel. The only path to a safer Middle East lies in decisive international military intervention to halt Israel’s  unprovoked wars against neighbouring nations, its genocidal campaign against Palestinians, and to dismantle its ethno-supremacist state apparatus, just as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were dismantled post-World War II.  Israel needs to be reconstituted as a state free of the supremacist ideology of Zionism if Palestinians and citizens of neighbouring Muslim nations are ever to feel safe. 

Furthermore, for the sake of justice for the Palestinians slaughtered by Israel, every Israeli political leader, military commander, soldier, and pilot complicit in the genocide of Palestinians since October 2023 must face trial for their criminal acts and complicity in those acts at the International Criminal Court (ICC), or in states such as Denmark, Norway, Finland or Sweden, which rank highest on the World Justice Project’s rankings of nations with the most impartial and unbiased legal systems, given the limited resources of the ICC. The global community must act swiftly to restore the principles of international law and ensure justice for the victims of Israel’s unrelenting aggression.

Israel’s claim of "self-defence" in its pre-emptive strike on Iran is a grotesque distortion of international law. The Geneva Conventions and Article 51 of the UN Charter affirm a nation’s right to defend itself when under attack, but Israel’s actions invert this principle. As critical analyses have noted, Israel’s strike was not a response to an Iranian assault but a calculated act of aggression designed to provoke and destabilize. 

Iran, despite its unsavoury regime, has not launched wars of aggression against its neighbours, occupied their territories, or committed genocide. Additionally, unlike Israel, which possesses an arsenal of an estimated 90–400 illegal nuclear warheads, Iran’s nuclear program remains under stringent international scrutiny and for now complies with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The hypocrisy is glaring. Israel, armed with undeclared nuclear weapons, accuses Iran of posing a nuclear threat and commits an act of aggression, while Western powers grant it impunity and blame the victim of Israel's aggression. This double standard not only undermines the credibility of international law but also emboldens other states to flout it given Israel's example.

Israel’s history reveals a pattern of aggression that systematically violates international norms. Since its founding, it has occupied Palestinian territories, committed crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, annexed the Golan Heights from Syria, and conducted airstrikes in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and now Iran with impunity. Its ongoing campaign in Gaza, described by UN experts and human rights organizations as genocidal, has killed over 63,000 Palestinians as of the middle of June 2025, displaced millions, and reduced entire neighbourhoods in Gaza to rubble. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures in 2024 demanding Israel cease actions that could constitute genocide, yet Israel ignores the ICJ, emboldened by Western, particularly American, support. The blockade of Gaza, restricting food, water, and medical supplies, has been condemned as collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva Convention. Israel’s actions are not those of a state led by sane leaders upholding the rule of law but that of a rogue actor led by criminals who are demolishing it, and setting a dangerous precedent for global stability.

The extremist leadership driving Israel’s policies exacerbates the current crisis. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich represent a theocratic-nationalist cabal whose ideologies mirror the violent ethno-nationalism of history’s darkest regimes. Ben-Gvir, once deemed too radical for Israel’s military, idolizes Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinians in a Hebron mosque in 1994. He once celebrated the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for negotiating peace with Palestinians. Smotrich, a self-proclaimed "fascist homophobe," has incited settler violence that has killed and displaced thousands in the West Bank since October 2023. These Israeli politicians, backed by Western military aid, are orchestrating policies of mass starvation, indiscriminate bombing, and civilian slaughter. Their actions echo the genocidal campaigns of Nazi Germany, which the world vowed never to allow again. Yet, Western media often sanitizes the extremism of Israeli leaders, focusing instead on Palestinian groups like Hamas, or on Iran’s flaws to justify Israel’s aggression.

The comparison to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is legitimate given the racist decisions and policies of Israeli leaders for decades, which mimic the racist policies of those two fascist regimes. Israel’s racist Nation-State Law, passed in 2018, was the latest anti-Palestinian law that privileges Jewish citizens over non-Jews within the territories Israel controls, and codifies a state ideology of Jewish supremacy akin to the racial hierarchies seen in fascist regimes. As with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, Israel’s policies of exclusion, occupation, and extermination of "the other" are driven by an ethno-nationalist vision that dehumanizes its victims. As victors post-World War II, the Allies dismantled their fascist adversaries, denazified Germany, and demilitarized Japan to ensure they could never again threaten global peace. 

A similar reckoning is required for Israel given its criminal history and acts of state terrorism. The international community must intervene militarily under a UN-led coalition to halt Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, disarm its illegal nuclear arsenal, and oversee the reconstitution of a state based on equality, not ethnic supremacy. This is not a call for destruction but for transformation, ensuring justice for occupied Palestinians, Arabs in neighbouring nations, Iranians, and all victims of Israel’s aggression.

Individuals also must be held accountable for their criminal actions. Every Israeli leader, from Netanyahu to Smotrich, all members of the Israeli cabinet, every military commander ordering attacks on civilians, and every soldier or pilot executing these orders must face charges of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. In addition, those who implemented the policy of starvation of Gaza's inhabitants by withholding vital food and humanitarian aid shipments must also face justice.  The ICC’s 2024 arrest warrants for certain Israeli officials are a step toward that, but they must be expanded to include all complicit actors, and possibly leaders of Western nations that sold weapons to Israel which were then used in the Gaza genocide or in the attacks on Iran. 

Historical precedent supports this. Nazi officials, both military and civilian, faced trial at Nuremberg, and Japanese leaders were prosecuted in Tokyo after World War 2. Israel’s perpetrators cannot be exempt from being charged and tried for their crimes. The unprovoked and indiscriminate attack on Iran which killed hundreds of civilians constitutes a clear violation of the UN Charter, and the deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians, including children, medics, and journalists is a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, or religious group.

Western complicity in Israel’s crimes compounds the damage to international law. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom Germany, and others Israeli allies reflexively parrot Israel’s "right to defend itself" argument while ignoring its violations of international law. When Russia invaded Ukraine citing "national security," the West rightly condemned it as aggression, imposing sanctions and isolating Moscow. Yet Israel’s identical pretext for attacking Iran is met with silence or support, and if there is criticism it is mere political platitudes. This double standard erodes the principles of sovereignty and non-aggression that underpin global stability. By shielding Israel, the West undermines the very legal order it claims to champion, inviting other states to unilaterally commit acts of aggression with impunity to solve political conflicts.

Iran, while no model of global virtue, does not even compare to Israel’s record of aggression. Its government represses dissent, restricts women’s rights, and surveils minorities, but it has not invaded its neighbours, occupied them, or committed genocide. Iran’s Jewish community, numbering around 10,000, enjoys constitutional protections, operates over a dozen synagogues in Tehran alone, and holds a reserved parliamentary seat—facts that belie Israel’s portrayal of Iran as inherently anti-Semitic. Iran’s comparative restraint in the face of Israeli provocations, including assassinations of its scientists and military leaders, and sabotage of its nuclear facilities, contrasts sharply with Israel’s record of belligerence against anyone it perceives as an enemy. The West’s selective outrage, fixating on Iran’s flaws while ignoring Israel’s extremism, exposes a campaign to manufacture consent for war, reminiscent of the fear-mongering that led to the Iraq invasion, which killed millions, destabilized the region, and birthed more terrorism.

The consequences of Israel’s actions will ripple beyond the Middle East. Its consistent defiance of international law emboldens other states to act unilaterally, risking global chaos. Rising oil prices, economic instability, and strengthened hardliners in Iran are a few of the predictable outcomes of Israel’s aggression, some of which will burden ordinary citizens worldwide. Additionally, silencing critics with unfounded accusations of antisemitism because they criticize Israel violates the principles of free speech, stifles legitimate debate, fuels actual antisemitism, and shields Israel from being held accountable for its crimes. As one op-ed powerfully noted, exploiting the Holocaust to justify present-day horrors is not remembrance but manipulation. The memory of past atrocities should compel action to stop current ones, not serve as a shield for impunity.

The world stands at a crossroads. Allowing Israel to continue its aggressive wars against its neighbours and its genocidal campaign against Palestinians threatens the survival of international law and global peace. Military intervention by a UN-led coalition is urgent to halt Israel’s criminal actions, protect civilians, and enforce compliance with the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, UN Security Council resolutions and the Genocide Convention. Dismantling Israel’s supremacist framework and reconstituting it as an inclusive state that represents all its citizens is the only path to lasting justice. Prosecuting those responsible for the Gaza genocide will signal that no state, no matter how powerful, is above the law. The time for equivocation is over. Israel’s rogue status demands a response as resolute as that against history’s worst aggressors. The international community must act to restore the legal order it claims to uphold, ensuring a world where no state can cloak genocide and aggression in the language of self-defence.

 

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.