What is the real reason behind Israel's Iran attacks

The Iran-Israel conflict has now entered its fifth day. Many are still reluctant to call it a direct war and prefer to describe it as a conflict. Perhaps this is an attempt to downplay the severity of the situation. Moreover, the armies of the two sides have yet to be deployed on the ground. The war is being fought in the skies. It seems both parties are attempting to demonstrate their aerial capabilities. Even though direct warfare has not begun, the number of casualties is steadily increasing. According to the latest reports, Iran's Ministry of Health has stated that 224 people have been killed in Iran due to Israeli bombings, while the Israeli Ministry of Defence has reported 24 Israeli deaths due to Iranian missile strikes. This indicates that as the conflict escalates, so too will the casualties. We still do not know where or how this will end. But why did Israel preemptively attack Iran? The real reason is revealed in Al Jazeera’s analysis.

Despite Iran’s severe response, Israeli officials have insisted that attacks on various nuclear and military facilities in Iran were necessary. A number of justifications have been broadcast to the Israeli public, but the true reason why the Israeli government decided to launch a unilateral, unprovoked attack has not been explained.

The Israeli government has claimed that this attack was a “preventive” operation. Its aim was to eliminate the potential threat of Iran developing a nuclear bomb. There appears to be no evidence supporting this claim. Because although the attack came suddenly, the nature of the operation indicates that Israel had been preparing for it for a long time. They knew there would be a counterattack. And they were fully prepared for such a response. If the attack had truly been sudden, they would not have been so well-prepared. Moreover, according to international law, a preventive or pre-emptive strike is only justified if there is an imminent, real threat. No such recent threat had emerged from Iran. Rather, it appears that Israel launched the attack on Iran with a pretext. Clearly, this was a well-planned and long-prepared military operation.

Israel has claimed that a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) provided evidence in support of this attack. But in reality, the report did not mention anything of the sort. The contents of the report were already known. Although the report raised concerns about Iran’s past (prior to 2000) nuclear activities, it did not identify them as new or imminent threats. The IAEA itself did not support Israel’s claim.

Another stated objective of the attack, according to Israel, was to “eliminate” or “decapitate” Iran’s nuclear programme. But policymakers and analysts argue that Israel alone does not have the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity. In fact, the nature of the targets struck suggests that the intention was not full destruction but rather to partially weaken Iran.

Israeli forces did not only target nuclear facilities. They also attacked military bases, missile bases, and oil and gas depots. Even Iran’s political leadership was targeted. It was initially reported that Iran’s former Defence Minister and close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Ali Shamkhani, was killed in the attack. Later it was revealed that he had not died. The Iranian government has yet to clarify the matter.

It is believed that Shamkhani had recently played a significant role in discussions with the United States. Therefore, many believe that with his assassination, Israel not only neutralised a nuclear threat but also shattered a diplomatic prospect. Many political analysts think that through this operation, Israel aims to bring about a kind of political change in Iran by removing the old leadership. They believe that killing specific individuals will cause institutions and political structures to collapse. Shamkhani’s death is seen as part of this strategy. Especially since he was a key liaison in Iran-US negotiations, his assassination is being viewed as a calculated act of diplomatic sabotage.

The nature of the Israeli strikes suggests that Israel is trying to shake the entire state apparatus of Iran. Not just the nuclear programme, but every layer of administration, military, and diplomacy. Rather than a “nuclear decapitation,” it is a political strategy. Israel wants to challenge Iran’s internal and international standing. Therefore, instead of calling it a “nuclear decapitation,” it is more appropriate to describe it as “state-level interference and destabilisation.” Israel, however, has denied these allegations. Israel has claimed that the suggestion that it is preparing the ground for a mass uprising in Iran through this attack is mere politically motivated rhetoric. Israel insists these are not the reasons behind its attack on Iran. So what is the real reason behind the attack?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is in the process of issuing an arrest warrant against Netanyahu. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is also expected to deliver a verdict on the legality of Israel’s occupation. Meanwhile, Israel and its army have carried out numerous killings. They later denied them. Eventually, their falsehoods have been exposed.

There is no room to say that the decision to attack Iran was taken suddenly. Rather, Netanyahu has been planning this attack for many years. He was merely waiting for the right moment. That moment arrived on Friday. This is a kind of desperate attempt. An attempt to refocus global attention on Israel and restore its previous status — where it could act with impunity despite everything.

Iran is still seen as a potential threat in the eyes of many Western powers. When Israel carries out a unilateral and lethal attack, various old justifications are brought forward — from religious commitments to the Holocaust. With these familiar narratives, Netanyahu is trying to reinstate the old “status quo” — a situation where crimes could be committed without consequences; so that Israel can once again do whatever it pleases.