The new war, now between Israel and Iran, which has far-reaching consequences, not only for the volatile Middle East, confirms at least three observations.
First, that we could wake up every morning to the news of the start of a new war.
Secondly, that is why Pope Francis was quite right when he announced, in prophetic style, a few years ago that a “Third World War in pieces” (“a pezzi”) was underway.
And third, perhaps most devastatingly - that we live in an era in which international rules are not only being circumvented, but such norms are no longer even mentioned in the context of such severe and dramatic crises. The impression is created that in this sense the world has been turned back because its geopolitical dynamics are carried out exclusively according to the law, some would say the law of the jungle, of the strongest.
It is true that rules have never completely won, because the concept of the balance of power has remained important in international life, but agreed norms, mechanisms of multilateralism, and even international law have had their own development, conquering a certain space for regulating relations in the world community for the common good.
An explanation of this regression in international relations would require a lot of space, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that this trend of international lawlessness did not begin yesterday. Paradoxically, in recent history it began when least expected. Somewhere with the end of the Cold War, which was accompanied by the triumphalism of the victors, explanations of great historical victories, democratic conquests, new rules, all of which was even seen as "the end of history" - as the title of a best-selling book from that period read.
During the Israeli-Iranian war, there is no warning mechanism for violations of international rules that would lead to accountability and a solution. It is as if the powerlessness is being compensated for by frequent phone calls between the “big guys”. We know something about the content of these conversations, they are asking for “de-escalation”, we don’t know everything, and there are those who hope that this will bring some results.
The world is witnessing blatant, and not so much hidden, forms of hypocrisy, when certain countries, from official positions, strongly condemn the brutality of the Israeli bombing of civilians in Gaza, calling it a crime, while continuing to send economic and military aid to the Israeli government.
We know that in the Israeli-Iranian conflict, two regional powers are at war, and they are not neighbors. Two states are at war - one that possesses an atomic bomb and the other that would like to possess one. Two nations are at war, with great historical traditions and distant memories.
What are the goals, besides the proclaimed ones, of this war? Reshaping the Middle East according to one's own interests and desires?
Such goals and actions have existed before. There were more, perhaps too many, actors, including non-regional ones. Nobel Peace Prizes were awarded on this occasion. But there was no peace.
In short, the results so far are visible: the production of instability, wars, chaos, tragedies and suffering of the population, especially civilians.
What is the lion hiding in the title of the Israeli military operation?
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called the military operation against Iran "The Rise of the Lion," which could have several meanings.
The lion and its mythologizing are present in many cultures. In all three monotheistic religions, it is a symbol of strength, power, and the dignity of victory. After all, the lion is the official symbol of Jerusalem, the holy city of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Among the Jews, this cult is somewhat larger. In the holy books, the lion is also the leader of the Jewish tribe. Also, in the Bible, which components of the contemporary political elite in Israel take as a kind of geopolitical manual, Ariel is spoken of in several places as the “lion of God”, the “altar” with the meaning of “the hearth of God”.
Moving on to the earthly mission of constituting Israel as a state 77 years ago, we should also remember its founder and first prime minister, Ben Gurion (“lion cub” - the translation of that name into Hebrew.)
More than two thousand years have passed since the existence, and even the end of the old Jewish state community, then the centuries-old existence of that people “without a state, but with a consciousness of itself”, when on May 14, 1948, Ben Gurion proclaimed the creation of the new state of Israel. Only a few hours had passed since Ben Gurion’s solemn proclamation when six Arab states - Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia - jointly started a war against Israel. The goal was - to immediately destroy the new state. Or “to throw Israel into the sea”, as the formulation and doctrine of certain political forces in the Arab and Muslim world read, not all of them rejected to this day.
The world was amazed by the courage and military-strategic abilities of the young inhabitants of the newly formed Israeli state to resist the attack of Arab countries and to win the war by July 1949.
Since then, much, probably too much, history has been produced, difficult to predict at the very beginning. This is shown by the data from our days, that is, the year 2025. Namely, Israel has now opened many war fronts, with attacks on Palestine (Gaza permanently, the West Bank occasionally), parts of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, and Iraq.
A few days ago, Israel attacked Iran.
Although Israel is considered militarily stronger, Iran is fighting back with its own forces. A new, dangerous chapter in history has opened, one that, as we have seen, is rapidly changing course.
The official Israeli explanation for this war is based on the goal of destroying nuclear facilities in Iran. However, according to many indications, especially the results of the physical elimination of the military-political leadership of the Iranian state, this is also an operation regime change, hence the change of government in Tehran.
This can, in a way, be revealed by the message in the title of the Israeli military operation about the rise of the lion, or rather its return.
The lion was featured in the coat of arms and flag of Iran before the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Then it disappeared from the symbols of the new Iran.
Is Israel now waging war by exporting democracy, perhaps with the goal of returning to power the profile of the former Iran?
Iran with and without the lion - from the Shah to the Ayatollah
One of the most controversial revolutions of the 20th century, called the Islamic Revolution, took place in Iran in 1979. To paraphrase the famous American journalist John Reed, who covered the October Revolution of 1917, we could say that the February days in Tehran in 1979 shook, if not the entire world, then certainly the Middle and Near East.
It should be recalled that Iran is not a colonial creation, drawn on the tables of the great powers that geopolitically shaped the Middle East in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is an old state, with a strong historical identity, great dynasties, court traditions, national aristocracy, military elite, and long institutional continuity, comparable in the Muslim world only to Egypt and the Turkish state from the time of the Ottoman Empire.
The Islamic or Khomeini Revolution, as it is also called, was sparked by the departure of the Iranian sovereign Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi from the country and immediately afterwards by the triumphant return of the Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris to Tehran. And here arises the first controversy of a revolution in which Shah Pahlavi, a "modernizer" and a great friend of the West, especially America, was forced by the will of the people to leave the country ingloriously, only to be taken over by the ayatollah with euphoric national enthusiasm, beginning a period of theocratic rule in Iran.
No matter how historically anachronistic such a change of power may seem, those who are somewhat more familiar with the history and reality of Iran recall that the large protests in Tehran in 1979 were also inspired by strong patriotic impulses. It is an indisputable fact that Shah Reza Pahlavi, although from a historical family, was installed in power in a coup d'état in 1953, organized by two major Western countries. Pahlavi was America's largest satellite in the region, and oil profits were shared by international companies, in fact joint owners of facilities in Iran.
Shah Pahvali wanted to be a reformer in the style of Ataturk, while not having even close to the format of a Turkish reformer and father of the nation. He created huge contrasts in Iran - wealth and poverty, a repressive regime for political dissenters, corruption. Over time, different parts of society unite against his regime - the poor classes, the class of traditional bazaar merchants and entrepreneurs, intellectuals, political dissidents, the Islamic clergy. When the unrest began, the revolution did not yet have its own ideology or leader. The politically, socially, and ideologically very heterogeneous opposition was united by a figure of broad authority, Ayatollah Khomeini, who upon returning to the country spontaneously became the leader of the revolution, which determined the further fate of the country.
One of the constants of the decades-long Islamic rule was a strong anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment. Upon his return to the country, Ayatollah Khomeini called America the “great Satan,” adding that “Moscow is like that,” while the formula “little Satan” was reserved for Israel.
Although there are many who believe that the country has been returned to the Middle Ages in some aspects after the Islamic Revolution, on the other hand, it is impossible to deny the existence of another face of Iran. Namely, parallel to the theocratic character of the country, there are elements of a specific democracy in Iran, including the vitality of the civil sector of society.
Thus, Iranian lawyer Sirin Ebadi won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, just when the world expected it to go to Pope Wojtyla or Czech writer and president Havel. Ebadi is not a dissident, but a committed human rights activist and is very close to Ayatollah Khatami, the former Iranian president who was also seen by many in the world as a reformist.
A multiple winner at world film festivals, including two Oscars, is the great Iranian film director and screenwriter Asghar Fahdi. One metaphor for the contradictions of Iran is the women who wear veils and practice kickboxing, one of whom was also a national champion in car rallying.
A unique political system has been built to such an extent, completely unknown in theory and practice in other countries, that, among other things, it causes many headaches for foreign analysts, especially when it comes to the basic question - "Who is actually in command in Iran"?
Namely, in the Iranian institutional labyrinth there are: the parliament (290 delegates), the president of the state (with 5 vice presidents and 20 ministers), the Revolutionary Guards Council (12 members, which reminds some of the Politburo of the central committee of former communist countries), the Council of Experts (86 members) and finally the supreme religious leader, the ayatollah, the successor to the father of the revolution, Khomeini.
Despite the constant strained relations with Western countries, over time, periods of a somewhat more pragmatic Iranian foreign policy have been observed, opening up to the world, including Washington itself. And vice versa.
Iran between the "axis of evil" and an international partner
While Bush Jr. and his administration defined Iran, and treated it as such, as one of the three countries of the "axis of evil" on this planet, during the Obama administration, dialogue and the beginning of some cooperation took place. Then and now, Iran's claim to possess nuclear capabilities was the main topic of discussion between Iran and its Western allies. On this issue, it should be said that Iran cooperated with the Atomic Energy Agency, albeit with periodic distrust on both sides.
One of the many mysteries about this war and its causes is related to the fact that it began two days before the official and new meeting of the American and Iranian delegations on the topic of controlling Iranian nuclear weapons.
From all of this, it follows that one should be cautious before passing judgment on the Israeli-Iranian war, its enigmas surrounding its goals, course of the war, methods, and outcome.
Some Western journalists, well-versed in the Middle East, are also asking this question, which implies many others imbued with various suspicions: how did the Israeli secret services so successfully liquidate a large part of the top Iranian military, political, and even scientific elite on the first day of the war, while operating on Iranian territory, without the same service failing to discover Hamas' intentions and terrorist actions against the residents of an Israeli kibbutz on October 7, 2023?
There are many conundrums in discovering contemporary Iran and its dogmatic rule. In any case, before judging anything, it is necessary to know this great country well.
Israel's many military victories politically defeated
We know quite a bit about Israel, including that it is a democratic country, which does not “democratize” or diminish the destructive power of the bombs it lavishly directs at many targets. One part of the population openly opposes the government's policies, another seeks to leave the country.
On the first anniversary of Hamas's terrorist act on October 7, the famous Israeli general Udi Dekel publicly assessed the country's leadership with these words: "It is obvious that Israeli leaders see only permanent war on their horizon." (U. Dekel, “The Risk of Sliding into a Perpetual Multi-Arena War - It Can Still Be Blocked”, Institute for National Security Studies, n. 1898, 10/10/2024.)
Israeli writer Asaf Gavron said in an interview with the Roman "Repubblica" yesterday: "We attacked suddenly, the initial successes should not be misleading, the price is high, and criticism is also starting. The real question is - should this have even started?"
Speaking publicly like this in times of war is the hallmark of a free and democratic country. But, despite everything, the government survives, which may indicate the existence of some consensus in the country, at least among the political forces. Regular political elections are scheduled for next year, which suggests that the much-criticized Netanyahu could complete his planned mandate.
Meanwhile, it remains uncertain who will face the obvious fact that military victories by Israeli forces on various fronts do not necessarily translate into political victories. On the contrary, in many cases, military victories have left the situation on the ground even more difficult, even for Israel itself.
Certainly, some of Israel's recent military victories have not brought international prestige to the state of a historical people. Quite the contrary.
Especially after the crimes, which unfortunately continue, in Gaza.
It is unlikely that the operation of exporting democracy with bombs will succeed. These models have brought disastrous results in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria... True, the "exporters" of democracy were others.
That is why a boomerang is possible in Iran, in fact the homogenization of the Iranian people around an undemocratic government.
By all accounts, the resurrection of the lion in Tehran is unlikely to happen.
The war is just beginning.
Bonus video:
