When the United States stands with you, there’s no need to worry about who stands against you—or who will pay the price. All that matters is the satisfaction of Benjamin Netanyahu. “Bibi” dreams, and the world foots the bill—militarily, economically, politically, even environmentally. So long as Netanyahu’s vision advances, the collateral is considered acceptable.
The U.S. airstrikes, personally announced by President Donald Trump, targeted three of Iran’s key nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These attacks came at a cost. Militarily, they required mobilising naval fleets, aircraft carriers, and preparing forward bases across the region. The U.S. deployed B-2 stealth bombers equipped with GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrators—weapons that Tel Aviv lacks both in arsenal and delivery systems. According to Israel’s Channel 14, the operation was executed in secret coordination with the Israeli occupation, confirming shared strategic planning.
This military build-up was paralleled by a political campaign, including repeated statements from President Trump oscillating between veiled threats and open warnings. While publicly urging Tehran to “listen to reason,” the true aim behind the strikes was to cripple Iran’s nuclear project and force it back to the negotiating table. Following the attack, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff informed Tehran through diplomatic channels that no further strikes were planned, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Strikes Aligned With Regime Change Strategy
From the first day of Israeli attacks, it has become increasingly evident that Tel Aviv’s objective goes beyond deterrence—it seeks regime change in Tehran. The deliberate targeting of senior IRGC commanders, top military personnel, and threats against Iran’s Supreme Leader suggest a coordinated effort to destabilise the Islamic Republic.
Sites belonging to Iran’s intelligence services, Basij militia, national police, and even state broadcasting stations were struck. The arrest of dozens of operatives, alongside the seizure of large caches of weapons and explosives, hints at plans to install a new regime post-collapse—a scenario that appears to have been pre-negotiated with Washington. Yet, Trump distanced himself from regime change rhetoric following the nuclear strikes.
A One-Sided Disarmament in a Nuclear-Asymmetric Region
While the strikes may have weakened Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the broader implications are alarming. If Tehran’s program was intended as a regional deterrent, its neutralisation leaves the Islamic world exposed—especially in contrast to Israel’s undeclared but widely acknowledged nuclear arsenal.
Since 1980, the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council have passed numerous resolutions calling for Israeli disarmament. Yet Tel Aviv maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, dodging accountability. Estimates suggest that Israel possesses between 90 to 400 nuclear warheads, deliverable by air, submarine, or ballistic missiles—a strategic imbalance that now grows wider.
In response, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claimed that the U.S. strikes damaged six buildings, four of which had already been previously hit, and asserted that no radiation leak was detected as no nuclear material was present. The statement, while contradictory, echoes the agency’s historic complicity in justifying the invasion of Iraq, which led to decades of destruction. It raises the question: What has truly been destroyed in Iran, and what long-term impact will this have on the region?
The silence of Iran’s neighbours—many of whom are complicit by inaction—only underlines the predictability of this escalation. All that mattered, once again, was Netanyahu’s satisfaction.
A Shockwave Across Global Energy Markets
The U.S. strikes triggered an immediate surge in global energy prices, reminiscent of the fallout from the war in Ukraine—a conflict the U.S. helped ignite, plunging the world into economic turbulence.
Now, with the Gulf region under threat, the poor once again pay the price of imperial adventurism. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned of “permanent consequences,” hinting at retaliatory strikes on U.S. interests, a scenario that could engulf the Gulf in chaos.
If the Houthis move to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, and Iran follows through on threats to shut the Strait of Hormuz, global shipping costs will skyrocket—further inflating fuel and transport prices worldwide.
Tehran has long stated that its regional allies would not intervene unless the United States enters the war directly. That moment has now arrived—opening the door to an expanded, prolonged conflict. But if it serves Netanyahu’s grand strategy, then the world must apparently adjust.
Toward a Redrawn Middle East?
The American attack marks an unprecedented turning point, one that may alter Iran’s trajectory for decades to come. It could significantly diminish Tehran’s regional influence, thereby reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East.
Yet this weakening plays directly into Israel’s long-standing goal of regional hegemony, a vision championed by Netanyahu for years. It is a project actively supported by the United States, and embraced—either openly or quietly—by those Arab regimes that have normalised relations with the Israeli occupation.
What we are witnessing is not simply a military campaign—it is the forced reconfiguration of the Middle East, tailored to Israeli dominance and American strategic interests.
And for those who paved the way or stood silent, history will not be kind.
