As anticipated, a joint American and Israeli offensive against Iran has begun, this time following a different trajectory. The stated objective of the attackers is no longer confined to dismantling Iran’s military capabilities, whether its missile arsenal or what Washington and Tel Aviv describe as its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The declared aim now extends to toppling the ruling system itself.
The aggressors present their assault as a necessity for themselves and as an opportunity for the Iranian people to liberate themselves. In doing so, they revive historical metaphors drawn from both ancient and contemporary narratives. This pattern has become familiar in wars waged by Israel and the United States in the Middle East, forming part of psychological warfare against the adversary, mobilisation of domestic support behind the military, and an attempt to soften the brutality of aggression in the imagination of global audiences.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked a distant historical tale of a Jewish leader expelled from Persia who later regrouped and triumphed over those who drove him out. The account lacks conclusive evidence and belongs more to revived legend than established history, whether religious, historical or imagined, as often cited by Netanyahu and other Israeli officials.
US President Donald Trump, for his part, recalled the metaphor of a war of liberation, a phrase previously employed before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. That intervention, as history showed, delivered suffering, poverty and insecurity to Iraq rather than freedom.
These narratives converge in a third overarching metaphor: the Roar of the Lion, the name given to the current war. It carries connotations drawn from the laws of the jungle, evoking predator and prey.
Together, these three metaphors frame what Netanyahu described as the removal of an existential threat to Israel. They also intersect with what the Iranian authorities perceive as an existential threat to their own survival. For the first time, Washington and Tel Aviv have jointly and openly declared regime change in Iran as a war objective. Previously, their approach centred on encouraging internal unrest, amplifying uprisings, or targeting Iran’s allies in Arab states, as well as Iranian presence in neighbouring Syria, without publicly declaring the aim of overthrowing the system established after the 1979 Revolution.
In earlier phases, American and Israeli strikes were limited to trimming or obstructing Iranian military capabilities, without direct and explicit calls for regime change. Tehran understood this equation and sought to absorb or deflect the blows, compensate for losses and continue developing its military capacity. The door to negotiations remained partially open, and Iran’s policy of time management and strategic patience was pursued with skill.
A New Equation Without Time
This time, the Iranian leadership appears to have little room to manoeuvre, no opportunity for delay, caution or gradual escalation under what Tehran has described as strategic patience. The use of regional fronts as defensive buffers or bargaining tools loses relevance when the declared objective is regime change. If pursued as announced by Washington and Tel Aviv, such an outcome would pose a profound threat to the Iranian state itself, regardless of who governs it.
This assessment draws on entrenched structural factors within Iran, including ethnic, sectarian and cultural diversity alongside historical grievances, as well as more immediate pressures such as economic strain and political division.
Iran’s leadership appears to have recognised the altered equation and responded in two simultaneous and unprecedented ways:
First, by retaliating without the hours long delay seen in previous confrontations.
Second, by broadening the scope of confrontation to encompass all of Israel and all American bases in the region.
While this response signals Iran’s entry into an open war with its full capabilities, it also opens every window for a prolonged campaign against it. The United States is unlikely to tolerate direct attacks on its bases, particularly when attributed openly to the Revolutionary Guard. Nor is Israel likely to relinquish what it sees as an opportunity to eliminate a persistent Iranian threat, especially with the United States engaged at an unprecedented level of intensity.
The Weight of Public Endurance
The equation will not be shaped solely by decisions taken in offices or calculations made on battlefields. It will also be determined by the reactions of societies. The Iranian authorities will be able to sustain forceful retaliation, whether through rapid reprisal or prolonged attrition, if the population rallies behind them. The reverse is equally true.
Netanyahu, in turn, will need to assess the capacity of Israeli society to withstand continued missile fire. The previous Twelve Day War demonstrated Iran’s ability to inflict harm inside Israel, reflected in the 75,000 compensation claims filed after the cessation of hostilities.
President Trump entered the war facing internal objections from segments of the Democratic Party and members of the American political, cultural and social elite. His approval rating had fallen to 36 percent, the lowest since his return to office for a second term. He also bears the burden of defending Israel amid widespread American unease over what many have described as a war of genocide waged by the Israeli army against the people of Gaza.
If Iran proves capable of sustaining resilience, inflicting damage on American bases and presenting the war as unjustified aggression against its sovereignty to the American public, it could generate significant pressure on Trump and the advocates of war around him. This would be particularly consequential if air strikes fail to achieve regime change, the conflict drags on, and consideration of a ground invasion emerges, an option widely viewed within the United States as deeply costly.
Beyond the Point of Return
Whatever the forthcoming scenarios, the period after this war, which began only hours ago, will not resemble the period before it. Wars framed as existential struggles with zero sum options do not leave superficial marks. They carve deep and painful scars into the fabric of states and societies alike.
