This is the first of two articles by the DFLP’s Fouad Baker that have been republished in Challenge
Amid Israel’s continued aggression against the Gaza Strip, accompanied by a campaign of
genocide against civilians, Israel has expanded the scope of its attacks—targeting Lebanon and occupying more of its territory, and continuing repeated airstrikes on Syria. However, a significant development occurred when Israel decided to take the confrontation directly to the Islamic Republic of Iran by assassinating several of its prominent leaders.
This was not the first such act since October 7, 2023. It had been preceded by a deadly strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, followed by a mysterious incident that brought down the plane carrying Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian—amid unofficial accusations of Israeli involvement—and, most recently, the assassination of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran.
Despite all these provocations, Tehran exercised restraint and responded in phases to avoid dragging the region into a full-scale war. But its patience ran out after Israel obstructed ceasefire negotiations in Gaza. Iran then launched a series of strategic operations under the titles “Rising Promise 1” and “True Promise 2”, culminating in a third operation in response to the assassinations of Iranian leaders, Israel’s persistent warnings about Iran’s nuclear program, and its open threats to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
Israel’s aggression against Iran was dubbed “The Rising Lion”—a title carefully chosen to combine religious-national symbolism from Zionist ideology with the lion emblem historically associated with pre-revolutionary Iran. The name carries strategic implications: disabling Iran’s nuclear program, removing Iran from the resistance equation in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, cutting off the lifeline to liberation movements, and even paving the way for a potential regime change in Iran itself.
Initially, Israel appeared dominant. It launched swift strikes that temporarily crippled Iran’s command networks, assassinated key leaders, and hampered Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. Even Israeli media expressed admiration for the military performance, yet simultaneously warned of the absence of an exit strategy and the catastrophic consequences should Hezbollah or other resistance factions enter the confrontation.
What Israel did not expect was that Iran—long accustomed to absorbing shocks—had been concealing an undeclared strategic capability. The effectiveness of Israeli airstrikes began to wane, failing to destroy deeply buried nuclear facilities like the Fordow reactor. Meanwhile, Israel’s home front started to suffer from ongoing rocket fire and mounting economic losses. As tensions escalated, it became clear that a strategic Israeli victory was impossible without direct American involvement—especially given that the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would require heavy bombers, which Tel Aviv does not possess.
This is where U.S. President Donald Trump enters the equation. He faces two choices: escalation and open confrontation, or the pursuit of a new, more politically palatable nuclear agreement. Despite pressure from Republican “hawks,” Trump remains hesitant, aware that entering a war with Iran would carry heavy political and electoral costs.
It is no secret that Israel’s decision to go to war was not the result of deep strategic deliberation. Rather, it appeared as an attempt by Netanyahu’s government to escape its internal crisis, exploiting the state of emergency to reshuffle the political deck. The decision has faced internal criticism for lacking democratic oversight and for sidelining decision-making institutions at a moment of extreme national danger.
While Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz issued fiery statements threatening Tehran, the military command tried to maintain a degree of “target selectivity”—but found itself up against a changing battlefield reality, a furious Iranian society, and risks that were no longer containable.
A battered economy, losses in the billions, casualties, unfit shelters, and crises on the home front—all of this reflects Israel’s declining position despite delivering the first strike. Many blame Netanyahu’s government—which failed to prevent the October 7 attack—for leading Israel into an ill-calculated adventure, with neither adequate preparedness nor sufficient public support.
For 46 years, Israel and the United States have repeatedly threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear program, yet have never done so. Why? Because the real danger is not Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb per se—but the shift in regional power dynamics that would follow. Even a primitive nuclear capability would not alter the direct military balance with Israel, which already possesses a vast nuclear arsenal. However, it would grant Iran considerable political and economic leverage in the Gulf, making it a formidable player in matters of oil, gas, trade, and regional sovereignty— something Washington and Tel Aviv are unwilling to tolerate.
The hype around the “Iranian threat” is not aimed solely at Israel—it is also directed at the Gulf regimes, which sit on astronomical wealth. This fear-mongering gives Washington the perfect excuse to blackmail the Gulf, sell weapons, and siphon off investments—all under the pretext of “protection from Iran.” It is a systematic looting operation disguised as “investment” and security against a supposedly existential threat—especially in light of Saudi Arabia’s demand, as a condition for normalization with Israel, to obtain a peaceful nuclear program.
As for Russia—which has called for de-escalation—it is Iran’s closest neighbor and fears not an Iranian nuclear weapon, but a potential environmental disaster akin to Chernobyl. Nevertheless, Moscow would be the only beneficiary of the partial destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in environmental terms. However, it would also be the biggest loser if it left Iran to face Israel alone, particularly if the United States joins the war on Israel’s side. Such a scenario would further drain Russian resources in Ukraine and undermine the ambitions of countries seeking to reshape the global order, which is currently in flux, by creating a new bi- or multi-polar world to challenge American unipolar dominance.
The great irony is that Israel—after committing massacres against hospitals in Gaza—is now lamenting the injury of a hospital near a military facility hit by an Iranian missile that was not intended to target it. Meanwhile, the international community turns a blind eye to Israel’s crimes, revealing the fragility of international law and its subjugation to political hegemony. Tragically, international law has become easy to bypass under catastrophic justifications. If such violations go unchallenged, the targeting of hospitals and breaches of the laws of war will become a historical precedent that the entire world will suffer from.
Some European countries, once again, are repeating the same mistakes they made following the events of October 7, 2023. At that time, they declared that Israel had the right to defend itself, ignoring the fact that Israel is an occupying power and that those under occupation have the right to resist. Rather than supporting the oppressed, these countries sided with the occupier. Now, when Israel attacks Iran and assassinates its leaders, they echo the same rhetoric, failing once again to restrain or hold Israel accountable for its acts of aggression.
Israel tried to isolate the resistance fronts declared by forces in Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. After inflicting significant damage and attrition upon them, it turned to strike the vital artery sustaining them: the Islamic Republic of Iran—especially after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. From here, the United States seeks—through Israel’s experience—to divide the fronts that had united against it, just as it aims to dismantle the coalition of major regional powers that have come together to challenge American dominance: China, Russia, and Iran.
The U.S. may choose to engage either directly or indirectly, isolating and draining each of these countries individually—just as it did with the resistance forces opposing Israel. If Israel somehow succeeds in its war on Iran—still an unlikely outcome—then Russia, already bogged down in a prolonged war in Ukraine, will be next, followed by China, likely to be entangled in a conflict with Taiwan. One must not forget Turkey either, where tensions with Israel are growing, particularly over Syria.
We must recall the events of June 1967, when six Arab armies collapsed in just a few days. At that moment, Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced his resignation, but the Egyptian people refused, chanting: “Stay, for you are the beloved of the people.” Similarly, in today’s context, the attempt to overthrow Iran’s regime will change nothing, for it enjoys broad popular support. Even banned Iranian opposition parties stood with the state in its response to Israel and condemned the Israeli attacks on Iran.
Netanyahu has lost all his objectives from this war. He has not restored Israel’s image, shattered on October 7, 2023. He has not retrieved the Israeli hostages in Gaza. He has failed to defeat the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. And now, in the face of painful Iranian strikes, his illusions of a “New Middle East” are vanishing. He will lose this war unless the United States steps in to rescue him.
The Israeli strike on Iran is not a victory—it is the beginning of a real test. Israel, which believed that power alone was enough, is discovering that it now needs a savior from a strategic crisis. As for Palestine, it remains the witness and the martyr, the issue that continues to trouble the world’s conscience. Despite all attempts at erasure, despite deliberate marginalization, Palestine remains the moral and political compass.
Any “New Middle East” project that does not begin with justice for Palestine is doomed to fail. Gaza is burning, the West Bank is being slaughtered, the prisoners are forgotten, and the region’s maps are being redrawn over the ruins of justice. Any settlement that does not deliver justice to Palestine will remain false, unable to withstand even the first tremor of popular unrest.
The time has come to understand: there will be no stable Middle East without Palestine, and no security without justice. It is either a just regional order that honors the rights of the peoples—or an unending series of wars.
Fouad Baker is a member of the DFLP
