Understanding the Recent Attacks on Iran and the Broader Context

Misleading Narratives

I was surprised that some of my European friends speak of the attacks on Iran as though they could be justified, given Iran’s attempt to develop nuclear weapons, just as warmongers’ lobbies usually present it. This narrative, however, reflects a highly selective framing that ignores the broader context and the consequences of unilateral actions.

Iran’s Compliance and the Inevitability of Conflict

Iran was in full compliance with the JCPOA until 2018, a documented fact repeatedly verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and acknowledged by multiple international observers. Yet Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reimposed sanctions. Iran’s subsequent suspension of its obligations was the predictable consequence. Then in February 2026, Israel reportedly launched military actions against Iran while diplomatic negotiations were still ongoing. Even full compliance could not have protected Iran. The attacks would have happened under any pretext. Compliance offered no real safeguard.

Historical Awareness and Rational Decisions

Iranians understand this dynamic well. Many observed what happened to Gaddafi after Libya abandoned its nuclear ambitions, an episode widely interpreted as a cautionary tale. Many also recall the case of Iraq. In 2003, Iraq was invaded under the justification that it possessed weapons of mass destruction, claims that were later proven to be unfounded. The absence of such weapons did not prevent the war; rather, it demonstrated that even without nuclear capabilities, a country could still become a target of military intervention. Iranians are a people who built one of the world’s great civilizations and have survived wars and foreign interventions, including a CIA & MI6-backed coup in 1953. Refusing to play along is not naivety, it is a rational conclusion shaped by historical experience.

The Unequal Nuclear Framework

Under the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, different states operate under fundamentally unequal conditions. The United States maintains a vast nuclear arsenal within this system, while Israel, widely understood to possess nuclear capabilities, remains outside it. In that context, non-proliferation can appear less as a universal principle than as a mechanism of constraint.

Structural Imbalance and the Palestinian Context

The recent attacks make this structural imbalance impossible to ignore. Nuclear concerns alone do not capture the full dynamics at play. At the core is Israel’s long-standing stance toward any regional power that could challenge its military and geopolitical dominance. Efforts at coexistence have historically been undermined. Since 1948, policies and conflicts have created millions of Palestinian refugees, many of whom have lived stateless for more than seventy-eight years. Daily restrictions, harassment, and systemic obstacles shape the lives of countless Palestinians. Some responses took the form of terrorism, but those acts arose from a long history of occupation, displacement, and daily oppression, not in isolation.

Over the course of these seventy-eight years, estimates suggest that well over 130,000 Palestinians have died and hundreds of thousands have been injured, a scale of human loss that far exceeds the casualties on the Israeli side, where deaths and injuries number only in the thousands. This stark disparity in human cost makes it clear, in rational terms, which side has borne the brunt of aggression over the decades. Focusing solely on violent episodes risks losing sight of the broader historical and humanitarian reality that has shaped Palestinian lives.

It is worth noting that this critique is not confined to outside observers. A growing number of Israelis themselves, surveys in 2025 suggest a majority now favors ending the war, and some Jewish organizations openly critical of the Israeli government’s policies demonstrate that these concerns are shared from within.

Reflections on the Use of Force

It is also worth reflecting on how states justify the use of overwhelming force. When a country can employ atomic weapons and continue to defend that decision as legitimate, it becomes easier to understand how similar justifications might be extended elsewhere. For those of us shaped by such histories, particularly in Japan, this is not an abstract moral debate but a lived historical reality. The lessons are clear: power, not principle, often dictates the rules of international order. If these rules are applied selectively, then claims of universal justice ring hollow, and the consequences are measured not just in strategic outcomes, but in human lives and generations shaped by displacement, fear, and systemic inequality.

Global Responsibility

Those who take pleasure in these events, or remain indifferent, must consider the broader consequences. Even powers such as Russia and China have stakes in the region, and countries like Japan, which continues to support the United States uncritically, may fail to notice the dangers emerging at their own doorstep. European nations, directly affected by the ongoing war in Ukraine, also cannot ignore the chain reactions that unchecked aggression can provoke. To remain passive is not neutrality; it is a choice that may contribute to global instability and conflict.