Published 29 Dhul Hijjah 1446
The Zionist attack on Iran on June 13, followed by the direct American aggression on June 22, comes within a long historical context of colonial and Zionist assaults aimed at subjugating the countries and peoples of the region. The United States and the Zionist entity seek to replace the old British-French colonialism, which collapsed in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to the national liberation movement across the Arab-Islamic-African world, particularly in the West Asia and North Africa region called the “Middle East.”
At its core, the joint aggression sought to achieve this very objective: to turn Iran into a new colony under American-Zionist hegemony. However, what the United States and the Zionist entity failed to grasp is that this aggression occurred during a period of declining unipolarity, the retreat of American dominance, and a growing inclination among the peoples of the region and the world toward resistance, national liberation, and the safeguarding of sovereignty.
The essential driver behind the aggression was the aim of toppling the Iranian national system and imposing hegemonic and colonial plundering projects. The timing—why the aggression occurred now and not earlier—why the Zionist entity initiated it with indirect American support, and how the U.S. conducted its direct assault ten days later, are questions shaped by the evolving dynamics of strategic conflict in the region.
American-Zionist Interventions Before the Aggression
The Israeli-Zionist and American assault on Iran was preceded by the destruction, at the hands of the West, the Zionists, and their terrorist tools, of the revolutionary republics that were born from the legacy of the national liberation movement. These include Iraq, Libya, Syria, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Algeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia. All these states once upheld slogans of liberation, unity, socialism, anti-colonialism, and anti-Zionism.
Moreover, there had been a systematic attack on the Arab national liberation movements—nationalist and leftist factions—while enabling Islamist Salafi, Takfiri, and Muslim Brotherhood movements to dominate regional societies and governments, ignite civil conflicts, and attempt to dismantle Egypt's army. Egypt, as a progressive anti-colonial state, had already fallen under Anwar Sadat.
Today’s American-Israeli aggression is a continuation of attempts to return Iran to the era of the monarchy under the Shah—when it was a colony, the “region’s policeman,” and a Western-Zionist tool for subjugating Arab states, with Iran’s wealth plundered by America and Britain.
What binds the Zionist entity and the United States in this aggression is their refusal to accept the emergence of any politically independent, scientifically and technologically advanced power aligned with a non-Western international axis—whether that be the Russia-China alliance or Latin America. Even peaceful nuclear knowledge is viewed, in the eyes of imperialist power balances, as a crime deserving punishment if it escapes Western market domination and technical control. Knowledge in the hands of the formerly colonized is a direct threat to the structure of global capitalist dominance, as it enables sovereign decision-making and resource control, opening pathways toward genuine liberation.
The Israeli Aggression
On the daily operational level shaped by regional circumstances since October 7, 2023—and which does not contradict the broader strategic level and the inherent contradiction between colonialism and the national liberation movement—the Zionist entity aimed through its attack on Iran to export the suffocating political crisis facing Netanyahu’s “government” and to redirect attention toward an existential external threat.
Simultaneously, the operation served as a preemptive strike to obstruct any qualitative progress in Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. This came amid growing “Israeli” anxiety over Iran’s approach to a nuclear enrichment threshold that could allow for military uses—a development that threatens “Israel’s” strategic superiority in the region. It was a serious attempt to overthrow the Iranian system following multiple meetings with the son of the former Shah.
Through this strike, “Israel” revived the doctrine of “preemptive strike,” which formed the cornerstone of its military strategy in the June 1967 war, when it succeeded in destroying Egypt’s air force in a single blow before the war officially began. This logic was evident in targeting the vital infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program, air defense systems, and command centers, in an attempt to paralyze Iran’s rapid or immediate response capabilities—thereby enforcing a new deterrence equation that would grant “Israel” greater operational freedom.
However, the unexpected Iranian response, following its absorption of both the initial strike and the internal breach shock, successfully curtailed and disrupted the Zionist plan from achieving its declared objectives. “Israel” found itself bogged down in a war of attrition it could not sustain, ultimately calling upon the U.S. to intervene ten days into the confrontation.
The American Aggression
The American assault followed ten days of continuous but ineffective Israeli strikes and a devastating Iranian response deep within the occupied territory, which exposed Israel’s inability to resolve the confrontation.
The direct American aggression sought to redraw the conflict equations in the region. The U.S., which had long avoided direct confrontation with Iran, was now engaged in a military operation targeting strategically fortified underground facilities at a highly sensitive time, as Tehran was engaged in direct nuclear negotiations with European powers.
The United States declared multiple objectives—some public, such as the destruction or permanent disabling of Iran’s nuclear program. Trump framed the strike as a "qualitative military success" that ended Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities, proclaiming “Fordow is done” and declaring that Tehran no longer posed a nuclear threat.
Another declared goal was to support the Zionist entity and affirm the strategic alliance with it. The U.S. intervention followed “Israel’s” failure to achieve a military resolution, revealing the fragility of “Israeli deterrence” and creating a U.S. imperative to affirm unwavering support for “Tel Aviv” through direct military engagement.
The U.S. also sought to compel Iran to return to negotiations on American terms. The operation was promoted as part of a “stick before carrot” strategy, suggesting that the ultimate aim was negotiations—albeit under conditions imposed by a show of force.
Unstated goals included restoring America’s eroded regional prestige after years of tactical withdrawal and indirect defeats in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen. Washington aimed to reassert its image as a power capable of initiating and attacking, not merely defending.
The timing was also politically sensitive within the U.S., with Trump seeking to capitalize on the image of “successful deterrence” to boost his popularity and regain support from conservative and pro-“Israel” constituencies—an effort to portray himself as a “strong president” after a period of image erosion among Democrats and even some within his own party.
The operation also carried a dual deterrence message aimed not just at Iran, but at its allies (Russia, China, and the resistance axis), placing the strike within a broader strategic signaling effort directed at forces challenging American unipolar dominance—especially as a multipolar world order begins to crystallize.
Yet initial data indicates Iran evacuated the targeted facilities—Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow—and no radioactive contamination was reported, suggesting the strike failed to achieve its principal strategic goal of destroying the nuclear program.
The attack achieved only partial tactical success—demonstrating American aerial power, testing penetration capabilities against deep fortifications, and damaging non-essential infrastructure. Strategically, however, it failed to destroy enrichment capabilities, halt nuclear fuel production, or force a change in Iran’s political decision-making regarding its nuclear project.
The U.S. intended to show it could reach the heart of Iran’s nuclear program at any time—a deterrent message rather than a decisive blow. Iran responded calmly and deliberately, reaffirming the continuity of its nuclear program, thereby neutralizing the impact of the American message.
The Failure of the Aggression and Iran’s Strategic Victory
Available evidence indicates that Iran’s nuclear program remains technically operational. While some delays may occur, the program itself is intact. Iran is now likely to accelerate uranium enrichment and enhance its missile and defense programs to compensate for the losses.
Amid collapsing trust in the West, Tehran is expected to deepen its strategic partnerships with Moscow and Beijing, as part of a broader alliance opposing U.S. hegemony.
In contrast, the image of Israeli deterrence has been severely shaken. After ten days of failed strikes, Netanyahu had to turn to Washington—signaling “Israel’s” failure to act as an independent regional power. Following the U.S. strike, “Israel” can no longer maneuver freely; its future responses will be more dependent on American decisions than ever before.
The U.S., which failed to alter the balance of power through its assault, was careful to avoid open war with Iran. It absorbed Iran’s calculated and limited retaliation on Al Udeid base in Qatar and then promoted peace and ceasefire.
Strategically, the Iranian national system remains intact. The Shah has not returned, nor has any alternative regime emerged. Iran’s sovereignty is unbroken; its territory remains unoccupied. Its nuclear and missile capabilities are still functioning. Its anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist foreign policy aligned with the Global South remains unchanged. From this essential perspective, the American-Israeli aggression failed to achieve its objective—a goal previously achieved in Syria months earlier.
However, the aggression was not a mere theatrical act. Iran suffered serious losses: the top leadership of its armed and security forces across various branches, and senior nuclear physicists. The damage to its infrastructure was extensive, and the reputation of its security institutions was tarnished, as the country appeared exposed both internally and externally to the Zionist entity. These setbacks will slow its projected progress in military and scientific spheres.
Nevertheless, these losses—human and material—can be compensated in the short to medium term, given the resilience of Iran’s national system, which was the primary target.
The cohesion of the national system and the resilience of state institutions are the guarantees of reconstruction. Unlike Iraq, which was subjected to an American invasion and institutional dismantlement and has yet to recover, Iran’s national structure remains intact. Dismantling it remains a U.S.-Zionist objective, but one that cannot be realistically achieved.
