Israeli Regime’s Failed Gamble: A Botched Military Provocation Against Iran
webangah News Agency,International Desk: Professor Lana Ravandi,head of the Centre for Eastern Cultures and senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Oriental Studies,analyzed the extensive scope of aggression by the Israeli regime and the U.S. against Iran. She believes Tel Aviv had hoped its experimental plan to alter Iran’s political system would yield fast results-but this did not materialize.
The following is a detailed interview with this Russian scholar:
What initially prompted the Israeli regime to launch an attack on Iran?
In my view, no impartial observer could conclude anything other than that benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister…
The U.S. has abandoned diplomacy, opting rather to rely on its military power to occupy neighboring territories and overthrow any individuals or entities it deems undesirable in the region-including Iran’s goverment. This resembles the tale of “The Emperor’s new Clothes,” with the alarming twist that supposedly civilized nations now justify 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, who have long sought the destruction of “Iranian targets.” Their methodical approach includes bombings, 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 (though not fully eliminating) Hamas,Netanyahu has now turned his focus toward overthrowing governments.
Iran launched an attack. this unprecedented assault on the soil of an independent nation, coupled with strikes on residential areas in Tehran and non-military targets, was shocking. The notion that human rights and democracy held any weight in their calculations is dubious at best.
The primary objective, evident from their rhetoric, appeared to be undermining Iran’s government-a goal tacitly endorsed by Israel’s shadowy support. While they hoped for swift success, these efforts collapsed spectacularly. Now, the world awaits what comes next.
Initial global reactions: How influential were major powers in escalating this conflict?
Is it surprising that the United States, Britain, and the European Union unanimously defended Israel? At minimum, their leaders condoned these actions. Key EU figures-including Germany’s Olaf Scholz and Josep Borrell-openly aligned with 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 expected, strongly condemned Israel’s violations. Iran’s neighbors-including armenia,Turkey,and Pakistan-also joined the criticism. syrian authorities remained silent.
Some Syrian media outlets close to official circles have defended Israel in practice and called for further Israeli attacks on Iran.These outlets also expressed hope that Israel would emerge victorious in its war against Hezbollah while attempting to justify non-stop Israeli airstrikes on southern Lebanon. Qatar has taken a more nuanced position. Diplomatically active and maintaining good relations with both the West and Iran, Qatar has worked alongside Russia and China to mediate pauses in hostilities.
What stage of war has the United States entered, and what is its objective?
while many believe Trump joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, Netanyahu’s team had anticipated broader U.S. involvement in the bombing campaign. Though, America was involved from the outset, assisting Israel with operational planning-a process some claim began a decade or more earlier.Israel leveraged U.S.weapons, funding, intelligence, and diplomatic cover, as it routinely does. After all, they are allies; such collaboration is expected.
Did this intervention spark new alliances among global powers?
It’s too early to tell. The full extent of damages on both sides remains unclear. For now, no significant geopolitical shifts appear imminent-the conflict likely persists. As tensions linger and dust settles,one constant endures: Western support for Israel and opposition to Iran.
Russia supports Iran but remains hopeful for trade opportunities with the United States and a resolution to the Ukraine issue, potentially exercising caution in confronting the Trump administration. 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 grand spectacle-notably for Western audiences,Israel,and American media outlets.Reports enthusiastically highlighted the operation’s technical complexity, heroism, and uniqueness: the long-range precision bombing run, unparalleled accuracy, and other feats. Yet this “masterstroke” may not have been as decisive as advertised-though full details remain unclear-and likely had minimal impact on broader military-political dynamics. America’s long-range strike may have amounted to little more than a dramatic finale for Washington and its allies.
Iran allowed the conflict to end before the situation spiraled out of control, raising questions about potential future attacks by the U.S. and Israel.
Ultimately, what factors led both sides to agree to a ceasefire?
Despite massive military deployments-including U.S. naval fleets and British fighter jets mobilized to protect Israel-Iranian missiles continued penetrating [deep into occupied territories], inflicting unprecedented damage on a scale Israel had never experienced. The conflict was also financially draining, with both U.S. and Israeli forces depleting their missile stockpiles.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 final days of hostilities, tensions appeared to escalate further as Ansar al-
Iran declared its previous agreement with the United States (not to attack American ships) null and void; a U.S. base in Qatar was targeted by Iranian missile strikes; and Tehran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz neared realization. Simultaneously occurring, trump showed no willingness to escalate tensions further, seeking rather 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 complicating relations with Moscow and Beijing-both of which unequivocally backed Iran.
From the Kremlin’s viewpoint: Did Moscow play a unique mediating role in ending the conflict?
Yes. President Vladimir Putin proposed acting as a mediator but emphasized Russia would only intervene if formally requested-without imposing its own agenda. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and other officials reaffirmed this stance while coordinating behind-the-scenes efforts.
Since the conflict began on June 13, Russian officials have expressed condolences to Iran over the significant casualties.
Strongly worded statements condemning Israel’s aggression from senior Russian leaders and diplomats-along with warnings of potential Russian intervention if hostilities escalate-may have tempered Netanyahu’s fervor.
