Israel’s recent strikes against nuclear and military sites in Iran mark a critical point in a long-term strategy driven by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This offensive not only redefines the dynamics in the Middle East but also raises questions about global stability and the role the United States and its allies play in this escalation.

Ignacio García Valdecasas, an international analyst, gave an interview on the program Negocios TV where he explained the nature of this attack.

This is, the expert said, “the end of the strategy that Netanyahu set 30 or 35 years ago and published in his book Fighting Terrorism.” Netanyahu identified seven countries —“Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran”— which he considered “terrorist” and that needed to be turned into failed states to neutralize their support for the Palestinian cause. Six of those countries have already been destabilized with the help of Israel, the United States, and Western allies; only Iran remains from that list as the last major target.

A key part of this campaign is the Mossad’s action, which Valdecasas highlights: “The Mossad is very infiltrated, not only because the Mossad is an extraordinary intelligence agency, but because part of the Israeli population comes from the surrounding countries. It is very easy for them to infiltrate. Not only did Israel attack Iraq with missiles tonight, but the Mossad also carried out sabotage actions inside Iran that very same night.”

Although the United States publicly denies direct involvement in the attacks, the analyst states the reality is different: “Everything Marco Rubio says… does not correspond with reality, because the Israeli attack would not have been possible without the logistical support of the United States — logistical support in areas such as aerial refueling and also logistical support in satellite technology and U.S. intelligence.”

Internal Causes

The analyst then addressed the internal causes that led Israel to attack. According to García Valdecasas, “Israel is in a serious crisis inside the government and within Israeli society. We are seeing it between the ultra-Orthodox and the radical religious right on one side and the liberal Israeli society, and also within the government itself.” This internal division, combined with external pressures, creates a context favorable for Netanyahu to use war as a means of national cohesion and political distraction.

He was emphatic. Israel struck nearly 100 Iranian targets, including nuclear and military sites, and eliminated high-ranking Revolutionary Guard commanders. “This is an intelligence defeat of existential proportions for the Islamic Republic,” said Ali Fathollah-Nejad, director of the Berlin-based think tank Center for Middle East and Global Order (CMEG).

In a scenario where debate continues about whether Iran will respond by attacking U.S. bases or directly targeting Israel, the United States seeks to avoid a direct confrontation, aware that it is “overextended” on multiple fronts, including Ukraine and possible tensions in the Pacific.

Finally, the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program adds complexity. Valdecasas recalls that “Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. security chief, had informed President Trump with reliable evidence that Iran had abandoned its military nuclear program in 2003. But to justify the attack, they had to reinvent the story that the Iranians were about to build a bomb.”

This mosaic of actions, alliances, and internal conflicts raises the inevitable question: where will Netanyahu lead Israel, the Middle East, and the international order? The region faces an uncertain future marked by military confrontations, internal divisions, and constantly tense geopolitics.

With information from AFP