In the past 30 years, Israel, the only nation in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons in contravention of the U.N. Security Council and that does not allow the IAEA inspectors to enter its territory, has insisted that Iran is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons. The brutal aggression by Israel in Gaza and its ongoing escalating attacks on Iranian assets have led to a new, sad history of Israeli violations of international law.
There was no evidence of an imminent Iranian attack against Israel, and this is not sufficient under international law to justify Israel in launching the attack, based on its assessment that Iran will soon acquire a nuclear capability. When a strong opinion within the American intelligence also holds that Iran is not presently engaged in nuclear weapon construction, and it was the US president, Donald Trump, who pulled Iran out of the JCPOA nuclear agreement unilaterally and restored American sanctions on Iran at the behest of Israel.
Critics argue that the foreign policy of Israel is not defensive, it is expansionist, supremacist and driven by a messianic urge.
To his critics, Netanyahu now relies on the conflict against Iran and in Gaza to hold his coalition. Therefore, it positions Iran as a security threat and would carry on with the genocide in Gaza. Critics argue that Israel’s foreign policy is not defensive. It is expansionist, supremacist, and driven by a messianic urge towards controlling the region by military means and portraying itself as a constant victim on the diplomatic front.
This time, Israel is publicly musing about full regime change in Iran. Not a political transition only, but a calculated division of the Iranian state. In a time when all recent history of foreign-imposed regime change holds only cautionary tales. Such a collapse would not only have implications in the Middle East and South Asia but also to world powers such as Russia and China. The initial consequences of this Israeli-Iran war will divert the already considerably dimmed attention to the ongoing starvation and slaughter of innocent Palestinians. The other fear is that war can result in even greater impunity and increase Israeli bombardment in Gaza.
A majority of observers in the oil market also believe that this war is a standing threat to the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could potentially block traffic by using ships and shore-based missiles, which could result in a sudden spike in oil prices. Nevertheless, Iran will directly challenge the security of ships in the Persian Gulf only when it has nothing to lose.
Destabilization of Iran would, pose a clear message that no strategic partner of China is secure against disruption of US.
In addition, although Israel seems to have successfully attacked two natural gas processing plants in Phase Fourteen of the South Pars gas field, Iran shut operations there. Simultaneously, Israel has not attacked oil production installations and Kharg Island, where 90 percent of the Iranian crude oil and condensate exports are loaded onto tankers. This keeps Iran in the oil market intact and keeps the Chinese interest unhurt and the price of oil under control. However, Beijing has sunk a lot in Tehran, not only economically, but diplomatically, in the wider context of developing a multipolar world order that defies U.S. hegemony. The destabilization of Iran would not only threaten China’s westward economic expansion but also pose a clear message that no strategic partner of China is secure against disruption by the US.
In the short term, the conflict between Israel and Iran may benefit Russia, as US interest and favor will shift away from Ukraine to Israel, and the increase in the price of oil will allow Moscow to have more money to finance its military effort against Ukraine. However, the possibility of regime collapse in Iran could lead to the failure of an established regime that had been working closely with Moscow, and Russia would undergo the need to contend with others to gain influence with the new regime that arose in Iran after the present regime became ineffective.
In case of Pakistan, a regime collapse in Iran would lead to chaos on the Iran-Pakistan border, resulting in increased cross-border militancy and potential refugee crisis, disruption in trade, in addition to oil prices shooting up. India and Israel are also close allies, and a pro-Israel or Western-sponsored regime in Iran could make Iran a hostile Western neighbor. This would leave Pakistan between two strategic needles, and this would greatly raise Pakistan’s regional insecurity, as well as adding challenges on diplomatic fronts.
What Israel wants in Iran is not reform, it is ruin.
In conclusion, continuing to hound Iran over and over again about what Israel wants is not the solution. The solution is a viable Palestinian state. Going to war with Iran based not on the threat that Iran poses to America, but by the fact that the powerful lobby group of Israel in the US wants the US to do so, will limit the choices of the US and push the region in chaos. What Israel wants in Iran is not reform- it is ruin. And anyone who chooses sides on this project either through sectarian bias, political calculation, or simple ignorance is not merely on the wrong side of history, they are, in fact, direct partners of the next regional disaster. Pakistan, the region, and the world can still say no to this madness. However, that window is quickly closing.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.