Dimensions of the Zionist Regime’s Military Gamble Against Iran: A Failed Experiment
webangah News Agency, International desk: Professor Lana Ravandi, head of the Eastern Cultural Center and senior researcher at the Russian academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies, analyzed the broad dimensions of the Israeli regime and U.S. aggression against Iran. She believes Tel Aviv had hoped its experimental plan to alter Iran’s political system woudl yield rapid results-but this did not materialize.
Below is the detailed interview with this Russian scholar:
What initially motivated the Israeli regime to launch an attack against Iran?
In my view, no impartial observer could conclude anything other than that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has violated ethical and legal norms…
The U.S.has abandoned diplomacy, opting rather to leverage its military power to seize neighboring territories and overthrow any individuals or entities it deems undesirable-including Iran’s government. This approach mirrors the tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” with the alarming complicity of so-called civilized nations justifying blatant aggression under the guise of “defense” and “necessity.”
Meanwhile, crimes against Palestinians continue on a massive scale. Netanyahu is backed by hardliners within his regime and a significant portion of israel’s population, which has long sought the destruction of “Iranian targets.” Thier strategy has been systematic: a combination of airstrikes, ground operations, and assassinations targeting Hezbollah and Iran-aligned groups-even enabling the rise of Takfiri extremists in Syria. After destroying over 60% of Gaza’s homes and weakening (tho not fully eliminating) Hamas, Netanyahu now aims to topple iran’s government.
Iran launched a retaliatory attack, targeting what it claimed was an “independent country’s soil,” though the strikes reportedly hit uninhabited areas near Tehran and caused no casualties. The operation, framed as a response to perceived threats, has drawn sharp international criticism.
The assault-condemned as a violation of human rights and democratic principles-coincided with visible slogans suggesting its primary aim was to challenge Iran’s government, allegedly complicit in enabling Israeli actions against neighboring states.Analysts expected swift execution but note the effort has faltered.
Observers now await further developments.A faction advocating for political system change in iran faces skepticism; their rapid failure suggests limited traction.
Initial global reactions underscore the conflict’s escalation: Major powers assess how deeply this will destabilize the region.
Notably, the United States, Britain, and EU nations have unambiguously defended Israel. European leaders like Germany’s Olaf Scholz and Austria’s alexander Van der Bellen explicitly endorsed this stance.
Israel, in a politically motivated and unprecedented terrorist attack, carried out a “massacre” in the West, drawing widespread condemnation. Russia and China,as was to be expected,strongly condemned israel’s transgressions. Iran’s neighbors-including Armenia, Turkey, and Pakistan-also joined the criticism. Syrian authorities remained silent.
Some Syrian media outlets close to government circles have reportedly defended Israel while calling for further Israeli attacks on Iran. These outlets also expressed hope that israel would emerge victorious against Hezbollah in past conflicts and suggested that non-stop Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon could be justified.
Qatar has taken a more nuanced position. Diplomatically powerful and maintaining balanced relations with both the west and Iran, Qatar has aligned itself with Russia and China while avoiding further escalation.
What stage of war has the United States entered, and what is its objective?
While many believe Trump joined Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, Netanyahu’s team had anticipated broader U.S. involvement in the bombing campaign. However, America was involved from the outset, assisting Israel in operational planning-a process some claim began a decade or more earlier. Israel utilized U.S. weapons, funding, intelligence, and diplomatic cover, as it routinely does. After all, they are allies; nothing less is expected.
did this intervention lead to new alliances among global powers?
It’s too early to tell. We don’t yet know the full extent of damages on either side. No-at this stage, it appears insignificant since hostilities likely persist. Let’s wait for more time to pass and the dust to settle.The West has always backed israel and opposed Iran.
Russia supports Iran but remains hopeful for trade opportunities with the United states and a resolution to the Ukraine issue, potentially exercising caution regarding tensions with the Trump management. China, too, seeks expanded trade with the U.S., which may have tempered its backing of Iran.
Did the U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities alter the military or political calculus of the conflict?
The U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a highly publicized spectacle-particularly for Western audiences, Israel, and American media outlets. Reports celebrated the operation’s technical difficulty, heroism, and uniqueness, emphasizing details like the long-range precision of the bombing. However, this “feat” may have been less consequential than advertised, though full assessments remain incomplete. The strike might have negligible impact on broader military-political dynamics. America’s long-range technical bombardment could amount to little more than a dramatic finale for Washington and its allies rather than a strategic turning point.
Iran allowed the conflict to end before the situation spiraled out of control. This also raises questions about potential future attacks by the U.S. and Israel.
Ultimately, what factors led both sides to agree to a ceasefire?
Despite massive mobilized resources-including U.S. naval fleets and British fighter jets deployed to protect Israel-iranian missiles continued penetrating [deep into occupied territories], inflicting unprecedented damage on a scale Israel had never experienced. Additionally, the war was costly, with both American and Israeli forces nearing missile depletion. While estimates vary on how long Israel could have maintained even partial aerial defense, none projected this capability beyond a few more weeks.In contrast, Iran showed no signs of missile shortages.
In the conflict’s final days, tensions appeared to escalate further: Ansar al-
Iran declared that its previous agreement with the United States (refraining from attacking American ships) was no longer valid; a U.S. base in Qatar was targeted by Iranian missile strikes; and Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz was on the verge of becoming reality. Meanwhile,Trump showed no willingness to escalate tensions to dangerous levels-he sought a swift resolution. Diplomatic pressure from Russia, China, qatar, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other nations also pushed for de-escalation. Tel Aviv and Washington may have been wary of further complicating relations with Russia and China, which had unequivocally backed Iran.
From the Kremlin’s perspective: Did Moscow play a specific mediating role in ending the conflict?
Yes-President Vladimir Putin proposed acting as a mediator in resolving the crisis. However, Russia was only prepared to intervene if formally requested and had no intention of imposing its will. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and other officials maintained…
Since the conflict began on June 13, they have expressed condolences to Iran over the numerous casualties.
strongly worded statements condemning Israel’s aggression from Russian leaders and senior diplomats-along with the possibility of Russia’s intervention if hostilities escalate-may have tempered Netanyahu’s fervor.
