Israel's War on Iran: US and Europe’s ‘Dirty Work’

On Friday night, the 13th of June, Israel attacked Iran with tens of bombs, initiating a war that was expected or likely to happen for years.

With the recurring excuse of pre-emptive attack, Israel said its goal is to eliminate the Iranian nuclear project and stop Iran from having nuclear weapons soon, as stated in the Israeli narrative. Although the US intelligence reported in March 2025 that Iran was not actively pushing for acquiring nuclear weapons, and if so, it was at least three years away from producing one, the narrative, that the US and some European countries joined, seems to get the spot, as a legitimate excuse for anything to happen soon.

Israel started its full-scale war just less than 48 hours before the sixth planned round of negotiations between the US and Iran on the latter’s nuclear program. On Thursday, one day before the attack, the International Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran breached its non-proliferation obligations, showing failures in providing complete answers on its nuclear activities, an accusation denied later by Iran. On the other hand, the nuclear weapons of Israel, the only state in the Middle East that owns them, remain unquestioned, unknown, or denied. Not even one discussion approaches this topic, especially since Israel is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

After the 7th of October 2023, Israel expects a threat coming from all countries or groups from the ‘Axis of Resistance’, even if its intelligence departments confirm the opposite. However, its expansionist approach is always present, thus creating a threat or amplifying it. Hence, the notion of a 'pre-emptive' war becomes the trump card in its public discourse, aimed both at its own citizens and the international community.

Though Israel is still bombing Lebanon almost every day since the start of the cease-fire with Lebanon in late November 2024, the potential war on Hezbollah and Lebanon (and especially after weakening Iran) is not an impossible option; still, many factors need to be determined. Israel is not satisfied with the ‘slow’

Process of Hezbollah disarmament by the Lebanese authority, and may feel it is easier to add more pressure, militarily.

If the genocide in Gaza and the recent daily killing of Palestinians trying to get a bag of flour from the American-supported ‘Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’ with an Israeli distribution plan did not bring condemnation from the major Western European countries, not a war on Iran would bring it.

The Israeli narrative of Iran's nuclear weapons, a bit similar to the American narrative of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before its invasion in 2003, seems to be well digested. The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, quickly condemned the launch of drones from Iran in response to the Israeli attack, showing unconditional support to Israel. In an interview this week, Merz described the attacks on Iran as ‘the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us’ (probably referring to the G7 countries)1, and threatened Iran that dealing with its nuclear weapons is on Germany’s agenda. The UK followed the same pattern, announcing that its military assets had begun to reach the Middle East. The war on Iran, different from Israel’s other wars, is of European and US interest that targeted Iran, its regime, and its uranium enrichment for years.

The US did not clarify its role in the steps before the attack on Friday, while planning to have its negotiation session with Iran in Oman. It did not participate directly in the attack, though it supported intercepting some Iranian missiles launched at Israel. Nevertheless, the OK was given to Israel to start the attack, as concluded from the American president, Trump’s comments.

The US and Israel know that the latter is not capable of ending the Iranian nuclear program on its own, even if it targeted uranium enrichment facilities. For the destruction of the Fordow enrichment facility buried under a mountain in Iran, Israel needs the US B-52 bombers and their bunker-buster bombs.

It is clear, hence, how Netanyahu is trying to push Trump to join in and hit the last nail in the coffin of the Iranian nuclear program; meanwhile, diplomacy is not an option, even. Trump could be fascinated with being the man who destroyed the Iranian nuclear threat, freeing the world from a long-standing threat and regime.

Other countries from the G7 would feel the urge to participate in this victory.
During the first few days of the attack, the goal of turning down the Iranian regime was not determined on the Israeli and American agendas. Not until Trump publicly threatened Khamenei in a post on X-Platform, following several similar Israeli comments.

That's why the Israeli prime minister spoke to the Iranian people in a speech, one day after the attack, asking them to take advantage of the situation and rise against the regime. Israel drives the narrative further, portraying itself as the one who will free the Iranian people from the dictatorship.

Many people in Iran and outside stand against the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the authority of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, with all its repression, discrimination against women, and destruction of any opposition movement. Nevertheless, many of the opposition activists, whether inside the country or outside it, are publicly denouncing the Israeli war on Iran not because they will support the regime they firmly stand against, but because they are, as people, attacked. The scenario of toppling down the regime would not likely happen before a major attack on Iran that could require the US and other allies to join, while the Iranian people would be suffering the aftermath of a devastating and destructive war.

Iran is still getting heavy Israeli strikes on military and residential areas while launching some missile and drone attacks on Israel, but not publicly and formally reporting the damages they cause after some penetrate the defence system.

However, the US participation would take the war to an unknown place, knowing that all parties involved are raising the bar of attack and defense.

If the war leads to the collapse of the Iranian nuclear program and eventually its regime, the future of the region would be easily shaped by the expansionist interests of imperialism, and automatically, colonialism. Gaza’s fate, along with that of the entire Palestinian population, remains in jeopardy, as Netanyahu maintains that he can secure peace agreements with Arab nations without addressing the Palestinian question, one he believes he knows how to handle.

In the broader picture, the urgency of what comes next will only intensify.

With Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran under direct attacks with other neighboring countries having their peace treaties with Israel, and the remaining major countries in the regions, Turkey for example, will feel the urge to acquire their weapons, probably nuclear, fearing of a similar scenario that could happen now to Iran.

When leftist resistance or anti-imperialist movements left the scene, especially with the collapse of the Soviet Union, political Islamic movements proliferated in the region and secured their position until recent years. The complete demise of Islamic movements, if it happens now, will raise the questions of who will inherit the idea of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, and how it will be employed and manifested this time. But the answer to the first part is clear, at least: as long as there is occupation, resistance movements will emerge.

• 1

   The G7 (Group of Seven) is an intergovernmental organization consisting of seven of the world’s largest advanced economies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.