On June 20, the mutual airstrikes between Israel and Iran entered their second week, with both sides suffering heavy losses. The confrontation is escalating, and a ceasefire seems unlikely in the short term. Moreover, the U.S. has openly supported Israel\u2019s strikes on Iran, intercepting Iranian missiles and drones, and is preparing to join in the offensive. President Trump has not only threatened Iran to \u201ccompletely surrender\u201d but also sent three aircraft carrier fleets to the Middle East, raising the possibility of a two-against-one situation that could resemble the Yugoslav war\u2014defeating the opponent through prolonged joint airstrikes.<\/p>\n
The Persian Gulf is a vital oil hub, and Iran\u2019s nuclear facilities are a main target, raising the risk of global oil and gas disruptions and possible nuclear leakage or proliferation. This conflict is more concerning than most regional wars and affects global stability. Beyond the military and diplomatic specifics, it\u2019s necessary to assess the rights and wrongs of the Israel-Iran conflict from a grand historical perspective. This marks a final showdown after over forty years of hostility, ending years of mutual insults, threats, and proxy wars. Now both countries are engaging directly in a high-intensity duel.<\/p>\n
Firstly, Israel\u2019s preemptive strike lacks legitimacy and justice, drawing widespread international condemnation. As a UN member, attacking another member without a formal declaration of war\u2014based only on suspicion of nuclear development\u2014violates international law and the UN Charter. It is a blatant infringement of Iran\u2019s sovereignty and civilian rights, and a reckless challenge to modern legal and civilizational norms.<\/p>\n
This is not Israel\u2019s first violation of another nation\u2019s sovereignty. In 1956, Israel joined the UK and France in the Suez Crisis. In 1967, citing the potential threat of an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israel launched a preemptive strike, taking the initiative to destroy the air forces of the three countries. It subsequently occupied Egypt\u2019s Sinai Peninsula, Syria\u2019s Golan Heights, and seized the Palestinian Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem\u2014the holy city\u2014from Egypt and Jordan. In 1981, Israel flagrantly violated the airspace of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, launching a long-range airstrike with a large formation of aircraft to destroy Iraq\u2019s nuclear facility under construction. In 2007, the Israeli Air Force penetrated deep into eastern Syria and bombed a nuclear reactor that was also under construction. Between 2009 and 2012, the Israeli Air Force carried out multiple long-distance strikes over a thousand kilometers away in Sudan, targeting what it claimed were dangerous threats.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, Israel was indeed in a state of hostility or ceasefire with these Arab countries, and the governments of these countries did harbor animosity toward Israel. It is also possible that some of them were preparing for war. However, Israel has consistently invoked its small territorial size, lack of strategic depth, and encirclement by hostile forces as justification for launching preemptive offensives, in order to maintain absolute military superiority and ensure its own security. In reality, since its establishment in 1948, Israel has never fundamentally overcome its strategic predicament. One key reason lies in its excessive reliance on military means and its deep attachment to warfare, leading it to become, in effect, a military force operating under the guise of a state.<\/p>\n
Now possessing nuclear weapons and overwhelming superiority, Israel\u2019s justification for attacking Iran over suspected nuclear ambitions is widely condemned as unjust and hypocritical.<\/p>\n
The confrontation between Israel and Iran is a continuation of the \u201cSixth Middle East War,\u201d which erupted on October 7, 2023. Although the immediate trigger was the offensive launched by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the deeper root lies in Israel\u2019s long-standing illegal occupation, exploitation, and encroachment upon Palestinian territories. It reflects the persistent dynamic of occupation and resistance, plunder and counter-plunder, that has defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over half a century. While this round of war may appear to have resulted in a military victory for Israel\u2014defeating Hamas and its allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian government, and even humiliating Iran for its involvement\u2014the underlying cause of the conflict remains unresolved: Israel\u2019s continued refusal to return the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories it illegally occupies.<\/p>\n
According to international law, peoples under occupation have the right to armed resistance, and states subjected to aggression have the right to self-defense. This is the crux of the Middle East dispute and the reason why Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and lacking in international support.<\/p>\n
That said, Iran cannot be regarded as entirely innocent in the face of Israeli attacks. Israel\u2019s illegal occupation of Arab territories is fundamentally a dispute between Israel and Arab states, and international opinion has largely sided with the Arab position, consistently condemning Israel\u2019s occupation practices. However, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and has maintained a hostile stance toward a country with which it neither shares a border nor has any territorial disputes. Moreover, Iran has continuously supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and hardline Palestinian factions in their military struggle against Israel, thereby constituting a substantive challenge to Israel\u2019s national security and regional stability.<\/p>\n
In recent years, Iran has used its involvement in the international war on terror and its nuclear deal with the Obama administration to secure tacit recognition of its regional sphere of influence. It successfully established the “Shia Crescent” from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, forming a Tehran\u2013Baghdad\u2013Damascus\u2013Beirut\u2013Sana’a axis. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and large numbers of Shia militias have infiltrated Syria and set up numerous military bases, posing a direct threat to Israel. This in turn has prompted Israel to repeatedly bomb Syria\u2014who has the will but not the ability to retaliate\u2014ultimately leading to the collapse of the Assad regime that ruled Syria for decades.<\/p>\n
Iran\u2019s deep involvement in Middle East conflicts\u2014especially the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts\u2014is not based on international legal norms, but rather on pan-Islamist ideology. This ideology holds that Muslim countries have a duty to liberate occupied Islamic lands and oppressed Muslim brothers. However, traditional religious law cannot replace modern international law, and sympathy for Palestinians, Lebanese, or Syrians cannot justify proxy warfare. Over time, Iran has become not just the base and backer of Israel’s enemies but has also brought war and disaster upon itself. From the perspective of international law and international relations, it is not excessive to say Iran “brought the attack upon itself.”<\/p>\n
In essence, is Iran really aiming to solve the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts? If it were, Iran would support peaceful negotiations based on UN resolutions, and at least acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state, even if not normalize relations. Iran would align with the collective stance of Arab nations, advocating “land for peace,” and recognize Israel\u2019s sovereignty contingent on withdrawal from occupied Arab lands. Instead, Iran has pursued a path that overrides Arab nations\u2019 consensus, attempting to dominate Arab-Israeli territorial disputes like an impatient outsider. Iran’s Middle East policy is fundamentally driven by Persian nationalism\u2014under the guise of reclaiming Arab lands, it seeks to increase regional influence while avoiding the disadvantages of being an ethnic and sectarian minority in the Arab-dominated Middle East.<\/p>\n
Third, the pain and historical choice facing the peoples of Israel and Iran. When war breaks out, it is the ordinary people of both nations who suffer most. But the greatest value of this war may be whether it awakens public opinion in both countries\u2014enough to reshape national policy and eliminate the cycle of hostility.<\/p>\n
Both Israel and Iran, to varying degrees, are democratic nations\u2014at least in law, with separation of powers and regular leadership changes. While their systems differ\u2014Israel as a Western-style multiparty democracy and Iran as a theocratic authoritarian Islamic republic\u2014both countries\u2019 political structures ultimately reflect the will of their people. The enduring policies that brought today\u2019s conflict cannot be blamed solely on governments; the people share responsibility.<\/p>\n
Israel\u2019s aggressive and expansionist policies are deeply tied to the worldview, security mindset, and sense of justice of its Jewish majority. Centuries of exile and suffering\u2014culminating in near extinction\u2014have become a cultural gene that prioritizes survival and security over neighborly rights. This has prevented strong public pressure to return occupied lands for peace, and instead enabled far-right forces to drive policy toward militarism, giving the government unchecked power and exposing Israelis to endless danger.<\/p>\n
As millions of Gazans live in what\u2019s called \u201cthe world\u2019s largest prison,\u201d as over 50,000 Palestinians have died in the past year and continue to bleed and starve, the Israeli public remains numb. Watching their government seize neighboring land and fuel national prosperity while ignoring the lasting hatred this creates, Israelis drink poison as if it were wine. When current far-right leaders drag the country into war with Iran to save their political careers, the response is panic and calls for harsher retaliation\u2014not reflection on the nation\u2019s course.<\/p>\n
Iran, meanwhile, regularly changes leadership but maintains its confrontational foreign policy\u2014with the consent or apathy of its people. Over 40 years ago, Iranians overthrew the corrupt and brutal Pahlavi monarchy in a revolution led by clerics. The new Islamic Republic soon plunged into an eight-year war with Iraq, costing nearly a million lives. Yet these painful lessons did not shift public will toward focusing on internal development. Instead, Persians embraced a mix of nationalist nostalgia, martyrdom in holy wars, and emotionalism\u2014fueling continued confrontation with Arab neighbors and the outside world.<\/p>\n
Over the past few decades, the Arab-Israeli conflict has undergone a major transformation. Starting with peace between Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO with Israel, and progressing to the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, the political landscape of the Middle East has shifted significantly. The region’s political main theme has turned toward peace, reconciliation, cooperation, and development. However, the Iranian people continue to blindly follow their government’s outdated and rigid policies, enduring hardship and political repression, sacrificing economic development and national progress, while stubbornly clinging to anti-Israel rhetoric and ambitions to eliminate Israel. They persist in claiming the mission of reclaiming Arab lands, even at the cost of engaging in a prolonged struggle with the U.S. and the West, dragging their country into isolation and turning their capital into a city that people flee.<\/p>\n
2,500 years ago, the ancestors of the Iranian people established the first empire spanning Asia, Africa, and Europe\u2014the Persian Empire. The Achaemenid dynasty ruled with an inclusive and open approach. It was this dynasty that generously freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity after 70 years of enslavement. The Jews were so moved that they revered the Persian king Cyrus the Great as a savior. The Jewish princess Esther, concealing her identity, became queen and won the favor of King Xerxes. Together with her powerful uncle Mordecai, they used their influence to eliminate their enemies, the Amalekites, and protect the Jewish people. These legendary stories represent a historical peak of Jewish-Iranian coexistence and harmony.<\/p>\n
Yet in the modern age, Israel and Iran have become bitter enemies for nearly half a century due to diverging national policies. This is a tragic irony, a misfortune for both nations and their people, and a betrayal of the shared legacy of Jewish and Persian civilizations. The ongoing and escalating indirect war between Israel and Iran will have no winners regardless of the outcome. Hopefully, the decision-makers and voting citizens of both nations will awaken from the flames of war, shift their policies, abandon mutual hostility, and join Arab states in upholding the principle of “land for peace.”<\/p>\n
They should work to resolve the Palestinian issue based on the two-state solution, expand the Abraham Accords by supporting the return of Lebanese and Syrian territories through negotiations, and build mutual understanding, acceptance, and respect. Only then can the long-standing conflict between Israel and Iran come to an end. Together, they can help the Middle East break free from cycles of war and chaos, and move toward peace and development like other regions that have already put large-scale violence behind them\u2014making up for lost time and missed opportunities for prosperity.<\/p>\n
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On June 20, the mutual airstrikes between Israel and Iran entered their second week, with both sides suffering heavy losses. The confrontation is escalating, and a ceasefire seems unlikely in the short term. Moreover, the U.S. has openly supported Israel\u2019s strikes on Iran, intercepting Iranian missiles and drones, and is preparing to join in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":10139,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[1334,1823,288,812,10665,1586,4461,1587,826],"class_list":["post-10138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-gaza","tag-genocide","tag-iran","tag-israel","tag-israel-iran-conflict","tag-israel-palestine-conflict","tag-middle-east-war","tag-two-state-solution","tag-war"],"yoast_head":"\n