Why did Israel really attack Iran? Analysis with wit and additional perspectives by PR included.

Israel’s recent strikes on Iran mark a dramatic escalation in a decades-long shadow war that’s finally emerged from the shadows – rather like a pensioner suddenly taking up parkour. The reasons behind this attack weave together existential threats, geopolitical manoeuvring, domestic politics, and enough ideological hostility to make a North London dinner party look tame. Below, we dissect the key drivers – from nuclear paranoia to Netanyahu’s increasingly creative approaches to job retention – and throw in a deeper look at Iran’s creaking regime, a misfiring axis of resistance, and the global political theatre fuelling it all.

The nuclear threat: Israel’s existential fear

Israel views Iran’s nuclear programme with the same enthusiasm one might reserve for finding a spider in one’s breakfast cereal – as an immediate and existential danger. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been sounding the alarm for years with the persistence of a malfunctioning smoke detector. Israeli intelligence claims Iran is “weeks rather than months” away from weaponisation, prompting strikes on enrichment facilities like Natanz and Fordow – because nothing says “diplomacy” like precision munitions.

But here’s the twist: this Iranian nuclear effort looks less like a coordinated march toward deterrence and more like a desperate lunge for Wunderwaffen – echoing the dying spasms of a regime running out of cards. Like Hitler’s late-war superweapon fantasies, Tehran’s nuclear ambitions may be less about strategy and more about psychological survival: if we can’t reform or rule effectively, perhaps we can terrify our way to stability.

The IAEA continues to play the role of bemused referee, reporting no hard evidence of a bomb. Whether Israel knows something they don’t or is simply engaging in particularly aggressive preventive housekeeping, the attack may have achieved the opposite of its intent – pushing Iran closer to the nuclear threshold while offering its missile teams a welcome live-fire exercise.

Geopolitical chess: Decapitating the “axis of resistance”

Iran isn’t just Israel’s nuclear bogeyman – it’s the ringleader of a regional network of proxies that now resembles a crumbling theatre troupe, underfunded and overacted. Israel’s strikes eliminated key figures like IRGC commander Hossein Salami and nuclear scientist Fereydoon Abbasi, because nothing disrupts an axis of resistance quite like removing its axis.

But it’s more than a defensive posture – this is Netanyahu playing Middle East Jenga, removing pieces from Iran’s regional influence while hoping the whole structure collapses inward. Frankly, it’s already tottering. Hamas is a shell of its former self post-October. Hezbollah is stretched thin. The Houthis are wobbling in Yemen. Iran’s allies in Iraq and Syria are otherwise occupied or existentially bruised. What remains of the axis looks increasingly performative – like a band still touring despite most of its members quitting years ago.

The Iranian regime: faltering foundations and forward flight

This is the missing puzzle piece in many analyses: Iran’s theocracy isn’t striking from a position of strength. It’s exhausted. Domestically, the regime is economically kneecapped, politically brittle, and ideologically bankrupt. The population is more than restless – it’s seething. Internally, the Islamic Republic has the structural rigidity of a cracked teacup – too brittle to evolve, too scared to yield.

This makes the nuclear gambit even more dangerous. For Tehran’s hardliners, it may be less about achieving deterrence than about clinging to perceived legitimacy. “Flight forward” is the only manoeuvre left. As with other authoritarian regimes facing decline, bluff becomes strategy, and threats of “horrific retaliation” are less a warning than a stage cue. The leadership may not even believe their own rhetoric anymore – but they know the audience does.

Netanyahu’s political survival: Wagging the dog with explosives

Let’s address the elephant in the room – or rather, the politician in the bunker. Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving PM, clinging to power with the tenacity of a limpet and facing more legal challenges than a law student’s final exams. The horrible October 2023 Hamas attacks rather spoiled his carefully cultivated “security strongman” image, leaving him in need of a dramatic reset – enter Operation Rising Lion.

By framing the strikes as essential self-defence, Netanyahu achieves two goals: distracting from his domestic troubles and uniting a fractious public against an external threat. It’s the political equivalent of setting your own house on fire to distract from unpaid bills – dramatic, certainly effective in the short term, but with obvious long-term drawbacks.

And let’s be clear: had any other Israeli leader been in power, the same strike likely would have occurred. This was a window of opportunity: weakened Iran, fractured proxies, a dithering UN, and a US president operating on what might generously be called “fool’s logic.” Not irrational – just not analytically predictable. Netanyahu thrives in such ambiguity, but plans only for today. Tomorrow? That’s someone else’s mess.

Regional and global fallout: Oil, alliances, and the spectre of war

The strikes have sent shockwaves through global markets and alliances, proving once again that the Middle East excels at turning localised disputes into everyone’s problem.

Oil markets in turmoil: From price spike to economic cardiac arrest

The immediate 7–9% surge in oil prices provided traders with their daily adrenaline rush, with Brent crude hitting highs not seen since March 2022. The Strait of Hormuz – that vital artery through which 20% of global oil flows – now sits in the crosshairs, though Iran faces the classic villain’s dilemma: blockading it would annoy both the Americans and their Chinese business partners.

For now, Tehran seems content with missile strikes rather than economic suicide, but the situation remains as stable as a house of cards in a breeze. Should Saudi Arabia and the UAE get dragged in, we may see OPEC+ attempting to stabilise markets while quietly wishing everyone would just calm down.

Alliances shift: The diplomatic equivalent of musical chairs

The US finds itself in the awkward position of having to support Israel while pretending it wasn’t consulted about the strikes – a diplomatic tightrope walk made more precarious by an election looming like an awkward family gathering. President Trump must balance backing Netanyahu against avoiding petrol price spikes that could make voters as cheerful as a British summer.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are exploiting the situation with the subtlety of a sledgehammer at a tea party. Moscow reaffirms support for Tehran while Beijing carefully calculates how much chaos benefits its position. Gulf states publicly condemn Israel while continuing intelligence sharing – the international relations equivalent of complaining about your neighbour while still borrowing their lawnmower.

The spectre of war: From bad to catastrophic

Iran’s initial missile retaliation achieved little beyond giving Israel’s missile defence systems some target practice, but the regime has promised a “painful and bitter” response – which could mean anything from proxy attacks to nuclear brinkmanship.

Potential escalation paths include:

  • Hezbollah and the Houthis launching symbolic retaliations with dwindling resources
  • Iran deciding that if everyone thinks they want a bomb, they might as well build one properly
  • Economic collapse within Iran destabilising the regime, or radicalising it further

But a full nuclear conflagration? Highly unlikely. Iran was close to the bomb, but “close” isn’t “capable,” and they’ve now been knocked several steps back. More plausibly, we may be watching the slow disintegration of the Islamic Republic – not unlike Syria or Libya, though with key differences. Iran is more politically mature and culturally cohesive. A fall could still be catastrophic, but not necessarily chaotic in the same mould.

And let’s not ignore Israel’s own trajectory – increasingly authoritarian, internally divided, and morally compromised. If Iran’s reckoning is nigh, Israel’s own day of judgement may follow sooner than its leaders imagine.

A high-stakes gamble with no winners

Israel’s attack combines genuine security concerns with strategic opportunism and political theatre – the Middle Eastern equivalent of juggling chainsaws while riding a unicycle. Whether it delays Iran’s nuclear ambitions or accelerates them remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the region just became even more volatile, proving that when it comes to Middle Eastern geopolitics, things can always get worse.

We are watching a grand performance unfold on an increasingly fragile stage. The audience is global. The script is unwritten. And the curtain hasn’t fallen yet.

For now, the world watches with the nervous anticipation of spectators at a fireworks factory fire – hoping for containment but preparing for spectacular disaster. The next moves by all parties will determine whether this becomes another managed crisis or the spark that ignites something far worse.

Resources