(48) hours before the return to the US-Iranian negotiations in the Omani capital, Muscat, Israeli forces launched the largest and most violent military attack on nuclear facilities and command and control centers. The attack targeted prominent military leaders, including the Chief of Staff, the Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, and senior scientists supervising the nuclear program. That attack in itself was not surprising, as Israel has been inciting against the Iranian nuclear project for many years, so that it alone can monopolize nuclear power in the Middle East.
In 1991, American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh first lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding Israel's nuclear arsenal in his book The Samson Option. When Iraq appeared to be taking broad preliminary steps in its nuclear project, it was bombed on June (7) 1981. At the same time, before and after the bombing, Israel assassinated a large number of Arab scientists, the most famous of whom was the Egyptian scientist Dr. Yahya al-Mashad. In both the Iraqi and Iranian cases, the United States was careful to deny involvement in Israeli military operations. Hersh followed up on the same file in investigations published by the American New York Times and The New Yorker.
His most important publication was the CIA's secret plan to attack Iran. In February 2007, he addressed US Vice President Dick Cheney's plan to"cut Iran's throat." He estimated in a lecture he gave at the American University at the invitation of the Heikal Foundation for Arab Journalism that an imminent aggression against Iran might occur within the next few months, revealing that (9) billion dollars of Iraqi funds had disappeared from an American bank to finance the imminent military operation. However, that did not happen and events took a different direction.
An agreement was signed between Iran and the United States in 2015, which included measures to prevent the nuclear project from deviating from its peaceful nature. However, Donald Trump, during his first term, canceled it shortly after entering the White House in response to Israeli pressure and at the same time getting rid of the legacy of his predecessor, Barack Obama.
From a historical perspective, the Israeli attack is a return to the Samson Option: monopolizing nuclear weapons and preventing any other country by force from possessing them, so that it can monopolize regional leadership and reengineer the Middle East. From a strategic perspective, Israel would not have been able to take this dangerous step without an American green light, providing the intelligence, weapons, and ammunition necessary to penetrate the fortifications and achieve its primary goal of undermining the Iranian nuclear project. Most importantly, it would protect Israeli airspace from any expected Iranian response with drones or ballistic missiles. Any talk denying an American role is pure propaganda.
Trump helped deceive the Iranians so that the surprise would be complete. Just the day before, he said at a White House press conference,"I'm not saying an Israeli attack is imminent, but it is strong and likely." He neither confirmed nor denied it. I strongly want to avoid war with Iran, but it must show flexibility in negotiations.
He seemed open to negotiations, asserting that we were close to a good agreement, even though he knew for certain that an Israeli attack would be launched within hours. He began to hint at the potential benefits of building trade relations with Tehran if it showed a willingness to accept his conditions for banning nuclear enrichment. This seemed like a carrot and stick gesture before resuming negotiations.
At the same time, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency accused Iran of failing to comply with its obligations under the 2015 agreement, from which all parties had withdrawn. The US administration asked its citizens and some diplomats in Iraq to leave. All of this appeared to be a prelude to military action. Despite the declared tensions between Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, both are in desperate need of each other.
First, he seeks renewed confidence from Jewish lobbies and the restoration of his image as a strongman in the face of growing protests against his policies in American society. His failures on numerous issues that are at the heart of American citizens' concerns are almost undermining his popularity and image, particularly regarding tariffs and the clashes in the streets of Los Angeles and other cities resulting from his harsh anti-immigrant policies.
The second is to avoid the overthrow of his government, given the ongoing war on Gaza without any political prospects for military action against Iran, which traditionally enjoys the support of Israeli opponents, or for this particular war to be the image of victory he has been searching for in vain in Gaza.
After the Israeli attack, Trump denied any involvement, but he did not hesitate to emphasize his original position: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
On the morning of the attack, he literally said:"We will not allow Iran to possess a nuclear bomb, and we hope that it will return to negotiations on the scheduled date!" What does that statement mean in context and timing? It's a request to sign a surrender agreement.
It is almost impossible for Tehran to fulfill his request, which would mean the collapse of the regime's legitimacy and the detonation of the internal situation. The Iranians have no choice but to respond with the utmost force within their capabilities. This is a matter of the existence, prestige, and survival of the regime. How extensive will the Israeli attack be? And what is the magnitude of the Iranian response? These are two fundamental questions in the struggle over the region and its future. If Iran is undermined, the Israeli era will immediately begin, with the Arab world the biggest loser.
