A satellite image sourced from Planet Labs PBC dates March 19, 2025, revealing Iran’s covert nuclear enrichment site at Fordow. Recent correspondence from Brian Escobar and John (Jack) Miller, displayed notable reinterpretations of historical events and strong anti-Israel sentiment. Despite their concerns over a potential U.S.-Israel-led conflict against Iran, such fears have not materialized. Prior to America’s B-2 bombers decimating three subterranean nuclear facilities, Israel had already significantly quelled Iran’s aggression. Iranian retaliation was conspicuously restrained by design.
The notion that Iran posed zero threat to either Israel or the United States is a simplistic outlook that ignores four decades of aggressive posturing by Iran’s ruling regime. Since the commencement of this regime, Iran acquired the epithets ‘Little Satan’ and ‘Great Satan,’ intended to provoke the United States and Israel. The regime’s audacity was arrayed for all to witness with the illegal seizure of the U.S. Embassy based in Tehran, and subsequent detainment of diplomats for over a year.
Dating back to 1983, Iran, through its proxy Hezbollah, orchestrated chilling attacks on the U.S. Marines stationed in Beirut, resulting in 241 deaths. They indiscriminately claimed the lives of several diplomats and staff at the Lebanon Embassy. More recently, Iran-backed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have inflicted mortal and debilitating injuries on thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In global terms, Iran has gained notoriety as a prime sponsor of terrorism, its reach extending to sleeper cells and assassination teams positioned globally. Key American officials, both in active duty and retired, have been explicitly targeted. The oblivion towards the substantiated accusation of Iran’s nuclear weaponry agenda is equally baffling. Persistent noncompliance, evasion, and deceit have featured in reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The agreed-upon limits for uranium enrichment within the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) sit at 3.67%, specific to civilian reactors. However, Iran’s blatant disregard for the rules has seen this figure rise to 60% and above, perilously close to the 90% indicative of weapons-grade. Approximately 20,000 centrifuges are tirelessly working to produce this, particularly beneath the formidable mountainous region of Fordow. Overwhelming evidence suggested an imminent nuclear threat.
Despite the initial lack of global recognition, both the U.S. and Israel emerged as saviors. They diffused Iran’s destabilizing agenda, which could have had catastrophic global implications. The military prowess exhibited by Israel, coupled with unfathomable intelligence capabilities, worked synchronously with the U.S, which successfully debunked its image as a ‘falling empire’.
Both Escobar and Miller overlook Israel’s persistently defensive position throughout 77 years of conflict, during which Israel never initiated any ‘preemptive’ assault. Escobar voiced concerns over recent Israeli acts of retaliation against neighboring nations harboring Iran’s multi-directional ‘Ring of Fire’ threat. Included in this threatening faction are Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad based in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, various militias in Iraq and Syria, terror groups in the West Bank, and Iran itself.
Israel, while embroiled in 1948’s constant irregular conflict and bracing for impending battles with six Arab armies, employed ‘Plan Dalet’. This aimed to consolidate control over areas designated as part of the Hebrew state by the United Nations’ Partition Plan. Its only intent was to remain within these agreed boundaries, contrary to any counterclaims.
Farmers in Israel bore witness to deadly invasions by Egyptian fedayeen from Gaza in 1956. Later, in 1967, ‘rising tensions’ included Egypt’s strategic blockade of the Strait of Tiran, a crucial waterway for Israel, in addition to Arab armies gathering strength on their borders. Contrary to allegations of a harsh aftermath, Israel’s eventual triumph resulted in significant advancements within Palestinian territories.
These included public health improvements, population growth, the commencement of Palestinian educational institutions, and a subsequent rise in various societal indicators. Moving on, Miller expressed his scorn for American public policies advocating for Israel. The ‘Israel lobby’ includes Americans from diverse backgrounds, who respect Israel for its resilience in the face of unrelenting disdain and false allegations.
Paradoxically, it seems the enemies Israel has made only endears it further to its American supporters. Miller’s dismissal of American political leaders as puppets of AIPAC is a gross understatement. Given that Israel’s foes are typically opponents of America as well, it appears so purely because their national interests commonly intertwine.
In most cases, the alignment of these national interests is glaringly obvious, a fact underpinned by the recent ’12 Day War.’ In conclusion, historical analysis should be devoid of prejudice. Indeed, to comprehend the basic dynamics of international politics, it is essential to navigate with clarity through the complex web spun by competing interests, interpretation of historical narratives, and the evaluations of risks and threats.