I want to start this short blog with the obvious: the unilateral attack Israel’s against Iran is a gross violation of international law. Unfortunately the present Israeli government is generally not very keen on respecting international and international humanitarian law as we can see also by the way the government is reacting to the vicious attack of Hamas. And Israel’s government is joined by the Trump government, which is no human rights fan either. And unfortunately, many Western comments disregard the question of the - legal - legitimacy of the Israeli attack as well.
Why now?
Coming back to Israel’s bombing of Iran, we have to recognize, that especially Prime Minister Netanyahu for years defined Iran and its nuclear program as the main target of his foreign and security policy. But why did he act just now? There are several reasons which led to the Israeli decision. First of all, they feared a possible deal by Donald Trump with the Iranians. It could have not been a deal satisfying the Israeli hardliners. Secondly, Iran was weakened because of defeats in Syria, but also due to Israel’s arrack on the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran was supposed to surrender soon to the military attack by Israel.
Thirdly, for Netanyahu and his extremist government, it was a good opportunity to divert public attraction away from Gaza. It is much easier to get sympathies by attacking a strange and rogue regime like that in Teheran than by killing and starving women and children in Gaza. If one analyzes the different public comments expressed by Western media, one can clearly recognize the new sympathy for the Israeli government. And indeed it is difficult to have sympathy for the Iranian regime which is violating human rights including wide use of the death penalty, is discriminating against women and suppressing free speech etc. But all this does not justify unilateral aggression.
Finally, with all the military successes in Gaza, in Lebanon but also by occupying additional land in Syria, Netanyahu and his crew intend to position Israel once and for all as the strong and uncontested power in the region - a regional hegemon. And they want to be sure, that Israel and Israel alone is a nuclear power in the region. Well, some doubt, that the Israeli hegemony can be achieved as Israel is still strongly dependent on US support as we saw again recently. And the U.S., especially Donald Trump, while supporting Israel against the Palestinians and Iran, has also other interests in mind. Let’s not forget his business interests in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries.
In addition, Stephan Walt from Harvard University argues, that “durable regional hegemony requires the neighboring countries to accept (and in some cases welcome) the hegemon’s dominant position. Otherwise, the hegemon will constantly worry about renewed opposition and be forced to take repeated actions to prevent it from emerging.” (“Israel Can’t be a Hegemon” Foreign Policy, 16.06.2025) That means, that Israel would have to continuously fighting to stabilize its predominant position in the region. No optimistic outlook for the region, but also for the citizens of Israel itself. It would lead to a region, which would permanently characterized by wars, wars in which Israelis would always be involved.
And what about Iran?
There can be no doubt that the regime in Iran has totally miscalculated the situation. Iran is - similar to Israel - interested in changing the regional order, but it neither has the military power nor the backing of a big power like Israel. In addition, the stubborn leadership relying on a mixture of religious ideology and extreme nationalism did not see the signs of its weakened regional position.
They were and still are characterized by a “revolutionary hubris” as Afshon Ostovar wrote recently in Foreign Affairs: “By mid-2024, Iran and its proxies were seriously testing the US- led regional order. Yet within a few short months, Iran’s regional framework all but collapsed…. In the face of these setbacks, Iran could have opted to regroup. Instead, it opted to escalate the conflict….” (“How Iran Lost” Foreign Affairs, June 18th, 2025) Definitely Iran was overstretching its regional engagements and overestimating its political and military capacities. And it’s allies - primarily Russia - are engaged in resource consuming wars or are - like China - far away and have more prominent concerns.
Now, the number of alternatives for Ali Khamenei are very limited. The renewed talks with the Europeans would have given the Iranian leadership a chance to survive and to stop the war. But it would not have been able to continue in any way the course they took since the revolution in 1990. As Afshon Ostovar ends his evaluation: “Ali Khamenei and the IRGC have lost; the regional status quo they established is finished. But of course they might not give up and decide to continue the war.” And it could drag on as long as the citizens can be brought to support or at least accept the regime. A regime who let them down, also military, not least by forgetting to organize an efficient air defense system, while they shouted propaganda slogans against Israel.
And the U.S.?
How the war will develop depends very much on the decision of Donald Trump. He had difficulties to find a compromise between the opinion of many voters who are against any kind of military intervention in foreign regions and his ego, which tells him he should not let the Israeli win that war alone. Anyway, Israel’s government was soon after starting the attack asking the US to come to its rescue.
In the U.S. including the Trump environment, you could recognize a fierce debate. The different US position could also be seen by the different comments in the New York Times. Bret Stephens speaks about “the courage to do what was to be done,” “Israel’s strike is a display of clarity and courage for which we may all one day be grateful.” On the other hand, the opinion of the Editorial Board is headlined: “America must not rush into an attack on Iran”. Finally, Trump rushed into the attack. His Ego told him, that he must be one of the winners, the decisive one.
What will the future bring?
After the Syrian President Assad had to leave the country and a new, until now moderate regime came into power, many hoped for a more stable region. But the Israeli government is not interested in stability, but in winning wars and restructuring the region to their benefit. But whatever happens inside Iran may not bring the result wished by Israel. A new chaos of different forces - and some of them even more radical than the present Iranian government - may create more uncertainties and regional disturbances. Of course also a regime change in the direction of a more democratic and inclusive regime is possible. But we should not forget all those forces and groups who are highly benefitting from the present corruptive regime, especially the different paramilitary groups and military guards like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Cops/ Iranian Revolutionary Guards.
In addition, we do not know how the Arab countries will react. They were not very pleased with Iran’s policy in the last years. On the other hand, they started to realign with Iran in the past month. This may have been another reason for the timing of Israel’s attack. Probably, Arab countries are not very happy about Israel’s intention to be the clear Number 1 in the region with the US in its back. The question is if they can find a common position in answering to Israel’s intentions.
For peace in the region and worldwide it would be good to have an international community able and willing to engage itself in the Middle East. But with Trump in the White House and Russia continuing the war against Ukraine there is no international community to organize the peaceful restructuring of the region. This would have to recognize Israel’s security concerns - as of all countries of the region - based on cooperation and not on trying to be a hegemon.
The European Union would be ready and the different opinions in different member countries could even be an asset for talking to all sides. But without the US as a partner, there is no chance for Europe to play a decisive role. It is not by chance that Israel is demonizing Europe as anti-Semitic (with the exception of leaders like a staunched anti-Semitic Orbán, who is a right wing friend of Netanyahu). Neither he nor Donald Trump are eager to have Europe involved in restructuring the Middle East.
The most important issue is how the nuclear world in the Middle East will develop. Will countries accept Israel’s singularity in possessing nuclear weapons, or will countries try to develop nuclear capabilities - but with less publicity than Iran? What is sad is, that today we are even farther away from the aim to have a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East. An agreement to construct such a zone would not guarantee peace but reduce the risk of devastating wars.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.