At the height of the tensions triggered by Iran's nuclear program, Israel launched an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities described by its government as "preemptive and precise." This action not only marks the Middle East geopolitical landscape entering a new stage of high risk but also exposes subtle differences and tacit cooperation in strategic goals between the US and Israel. Iran, long viewed by Israel as a survival threat, seems to be pushed onto the strategic chopping block of the US and Israel. The continuous attacks by Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies on Israel provide a "justified" background for this action.
According to the Israeli Defense Forces' statement, this operation is based on "high-quality intelligence," targeting joint operations against Iran's nuclear program and related military objectives. Dozens of Israeli Air Force jets carried out precise strikes on multiple targets in Iran, focusing on nuclear facilities with the aim of weakening Iran's nuclear weapons development capability. Israeli officials emphasized that the Iranian regime has long used its proxy networks in the Middle East (such as Hamas and Hezbollah) to carry out "direct and indirect terrorist activities" against Israel, clearly stating that Iran's nuclear ambitions pose a "significant threat" to Israel and global security. This operation was seen by Israel as a critical step in preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
Notably, Israel linked this strike with the "Sword of War" (the series of conflicts since the October 7th Hamas attack), accusing Iran of being the mastermind. This not only provided moral justification for the action but also portrayed Iran as the core source of instability in the Middle East. However, the timing of the operation - coinciding with the release of a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency accusing Iran of concealing uranium enrichment plans - indicates that Israel may have taken advantage of the pressure window on Iran exerted by the international community.
The US official quickly distanced itself from this operation. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio clearly stated: "The US did not participate in the strike on Iran, with the primary task being the protection of US forces in the region." This statement seemingly placed the US in a neutral position, but upon closer examination, America's "absence" seemed more like a strategic deafness. The Trump administration had long regarded Iran as the main target of its Middle Eastern policy, implementing economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation through the "maximum pressure" policy, and Israel's military action undoubtedly aligns with this goal.
Despite public denial of involvement, Israel's actions clearly received some form of tacit approval or even intelligence support from the US. Although Israel's military capabilities are strong, conducting long-range precision strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities requires extremely high levels of intelligence accuracy and logistical support. America's intelligence network and satellite reconnaissance capabilities in the Middle East are undoubtedly key assets. Moreover, after the operation, the US emphasized "protecting American troops" and warned Iran not to target US interests, effectively providing indirect protection for Israel's actions and preventing Iran from escalating hostilities toward American assets.
Iran currently faces dual internal and external pressures. The IAEA's report further isolates it on the nuclear issue, while Israel's strike directly weakens its nuclear capabilities and military deterrence. Meanwhile, Iran's proxy networks in the Middle East - especially the Yemeni Houthi militias - continue to attack Israel, providing Israel with a "moral" excuse for its actions. Although Houthi drone and missile attacks have not caused significant damage to Israel, the backing of Iran behind them is obvious. This makes it difficult for Iran to shake off the label of "regional disruptor" in international public opinion.
However, Iran is not without countermeasures. Its ability to launch asymmetric retaliations through proxies (such as Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite militias) remains robust. Additionally, Iran may accelerate its nuclear program in response, further exacerbating regional tensions. Under the combined pressure from the US and Israel, Iran's strategic space is being compressed, and the loss of its nuclear facilities may force it to reassess its negotiation strategies with the West.
Israel's action marks the Middle East geopolitical landscape entering a bizarre and dangerous phase of geopolitical博弈. The US maintains strategic flexibility by "distancing itself," avoiding direct involvement in the conflict while indirectly achieving its goal of containing Iran through Israel's actions. Israel successfully positioned itself as defending itself, pushing Iran into a more passive position while consolidating its military initiative in the Middle East. However, this unilateral action may trigger unpredictable chain reactions: Iran's retaliation, escalation of proxy wars, or even diplomatic intervention by Russia or China could further complicate the situation in the Middle East.
For Iran, the continued activities of proxies such as the Houthis may restrain opponents but also attract greater external pressure. Under the joint strategy of the US and Israel, Iran is gradually becoming "meat on the chopping block," facing unprecedented challenges to its nuclear program and regional influence. For the international community, how to avoid a full-scale war in this high-risk game may be the greatest test ahead.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7517831949193429540/
Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views, and you can express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.