Opinion
The Real Reason Israel Attacked Iran
There was nothing preemptive about the Israeli assault on Iranian military and civilian infrastructure and officials.
As the Israeli-Iranian confrontation enters its third day, casualties on both sides are mounting. At least 80 people have been killed in Iran and at least 10 in Israel. Despite the deadly response from Iran, Israeli officials have continued to insist that attacks on various Iranian nuclear and military facilities were necessary.
A number of justifications have been broadcast to the Israeli public, but none explains the true reasons why the Israeli government decided to carry out the unilateral, unprovoked assault.
The Israeli government claims that the strike was a “preventive” one, meant to address an immediate, inevitable threat on Iran’s part to construct a nuclear bomb. There appears to be no evidence for this claim. Israel’s strike was undoubtedly meticulously planned over a long period of time. A preventive attack must carry an element of self-defence, which, in turn, is generated by an emergency. No such emergency appears to have occurred.
Additionally, Israel has suggested that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released on June 12 that condemned Iran for material violations of its Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commitments until the early 2000s constitutes such an emergency. But even the IAEA seems to reject that claim. There was nothing in the report that was not already known to the relevant parties.
The Israeli government has also suggested, in direct relation to the notion of a “preventive” strike, that it aimed to “decapitate” Iran’s nuclear programme. It is generally agreed by scholars and policymakers that Israel lacks the ability to destroy the programme, especially if it attempts to carry out such a strike on its own.
The nature of the campaign as it unfolds also seems to indicate that Israel never meant to wipe out Iranian nuclear activities. The Israeli army has been bombing various military and governmental targets, from missile bases to a gasfield and an oil depot. It has also carried out a string of assassinations against senior Iranian military leaders. Ali Shamkhani, a former defence minister and a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was among those targeted and is reported to have been killed, though Iranian state media and government are yet to officially confirm his death. Shamkhani is believed to have been a leading figure in the talks with the United States over the past months.
His assassination, alongside others’, reflects a favourite Israeli modus operandi. Israel often attempts to “eliminate” specific people in the hope that their deaths would bring about the unravelling of the systems and institutions they lead. The death of Shamkhani can be construed as an attempt to sabotage talks between Iran and the US. In any case, assassinations also seem to indicate the existence of a thorough plan to demonstrate Israel’s might at all levels of Iranian official life and practices. This is not a “decapitation” of the Iranian nuclear programme.
A third suggestion is that Israel has its heart set on jumpstarting “regime change” in Tehran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this overtly when he called on the “proud people of Iran” to stand up for their “freedom from an evil and repressive regime”.
The assumption that Iranians would simply do Israel’s bidding as it bombs them relentlessly and unilaterally seems akin to the notion that if Israel starves and exterminates the Palestinians in Gaza to the required extent, they would rise against Hamas and remove it from power.
Even if that were the case, presuming that all the Iranians are waiting for is an Israeli strike to move against the regime demonstrates a profound lack of understanding with regard to the forces driving Iranian politics. While many Iranians undoubtedly oppose the Islamic Republic, Iranians of all political persuasions are consistently “patriotic”, committed to supporting Iranian sovereignty and independence from any attempts by external elements to impose their agendas on their country.
In fact, just as numerous Israelis who would consider themselves uncompromising critics of Netanyahu jumped to attention when the Israeli attack began and are now vocally supporting the government – most egregiously, members of the parliamentary “opposition” – so are numerous opponents of the Islamic Republic now rallying behind the flag in support of Iran’s violated sovereignty. Claiming that Israel is merely “laying the groundwork” for a popular Iranian rebellion by striking is, at best, a cynical manipulation.
Israel has not struck Iran for all these reasons. So, what drove the attack? Amid the genocidal campaign in Gaza, Netanyahu is very much aware that his government is running out of options. The international community, as well as regional allies, have started to criticise Israel vocally. Some have also been preparing to carry out unilateral measures, like the mass recognition of a Palestinian state.
The International Criminal Court’s warrant of arrest for Netanyahu is looming, and the decision of the International Court of Justice about the legality of Israel’s occupation is waiting to be fulfilled. Israel and its military have continuously carried out massacres, denied them, and have been found to be lying.
There is no doubt that Netanyahu planned the strike on Iran for years, waiting for just the right time. This time came on Friday. It is a desperate attempt to rally the world behind Israel, just as preparations are made to deny it the absolute impunity it has enjoyed since its creation.
Iran is still considered a potential threat by many leading powers of the Global North. By invoking the known tropes associated with unilateral lethal Israeli action – from divine promises to the Holocaust – Netanyahu hoped to re-establish the status quo; Israel can still do whatever it wants.
This is Israel’s current definition of “security”, the most hallowed principle at its core. It is the seemingly apolitical genesis of Israeliness, the site devoted wholly to Jewish supremacy, which is the only “real” way to ensure the integrity of Jewish lives. “Security” means that Israel can kill whoever it wants for as long as it wants and wherever and whenever it wants without paying any sort of price for its actions.
This “security” is what has motivated Israel’s actions from Gaza to Yemen to Lebanon and Syria, and now in Iran. Such a “security regime” must expand continuously, of course. It can never stop. By striking Iran, Netanyahu has gone for broke, staking a claim for complete and absolute impunity for Israel as well as for himself, in The Hague as well as in domestic courts.
Will this be Netanyahu’s salvation? Will the Israeli public forgive him for his abject failures at home and horrid transgressions in Gaza? When observing the current sense of jubilation in public Israeli discourse, this may very well be the case.
The long lines stretching from every open store, hardware to food, demonstrate that Israelis have entered blank survival mode. A docile citizenry may be good for Netanyahu, but it portends ill for any attempt to build and defend a robust Israeli society.
Aljazeera.com
Opinion
“Let President Muhammadu Buhari Rest in Peace” – By Nasir El-Rufai
The recent launch of a book on the life and legacy of our late leader, President Muhammadu Buhari, has stirred deep emotions and renewed divisions among those who once formed his inner circle. Having followed the headlines and images from the event, I felt compelled to make a simple but urgent appeal: let us allow President Buhari to rest in peace.
A careful look at those who dominated the book launch revealed the same factional lines that existed during Buhari’s lifetime. One camp was prominently represented, while others—equally close to the late president—were excluded. This selective engagement compounded by the choice of location of the event were red flags, and raises concerns about whether Buhari’s legacy is now being shaped to serve narrow interests rather than historical truth.
More troubling was the presence of long-time critics of Buhari, some of whom now hold high office, delivering glowing, but clearly faked tributes. These are individuals who once blamed his administration for nearly every challenge facing Nigeria, but who now appear eager to revise history—perhaps to deflect responsibility for present failures.
It was also unsettling to see individuals celebrating Buhari in death who had neither his trust nor his respect in life. President Buhari was a principled man who did not easily forget personal or political disrespect, and he made his preferences clear to those around him.
I have not yet read the book, Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari, and it is possible that some media reports lack context. However, many of the so-called revelations attributed to the late president appear one-sided and unfair, especially as he is no longer alive to respond. Explaining the thoughts and motivations of a complex leader through selective anecdotes risks distorting, rather than preserving, his legacy.
President Buhari was far from perfect. Many of us who supported him expected much more from his civilian presidency. However, as someone who worked closely with him in opposition political, and governance roles for over a decade, I believe much of his administration’s shortcomings stemmed from the actions and failures of a powerful inner circle—relatives, advisers, and officials who did not always share his commitment to integrity and public service.
Buhari himself remained, to the end, a man of deep faith, personal discipline, and unquestioned patriotism. Those now invoking his name for self-justification should reflect on whether they can claim the same standards.
My appeal here is simple: to all Nigerians: admirers and critics alike—let President Muhammadu Buhari rest in peace. Let history judge him fairly, without opportunism or revisionism. The truest way to honour him is not through selective storytelling, or attempting to exhibit new-found love, but by upholding the values he embodied: simplicity, integrity, humility, and service to Nigeria with all he had.
May Allah grant him eternal rest.
Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai
Cairo, Egypt
17th December, 2025
Opinion
Ogun 2027: Kings Have Spoken, Yayi Belongs, Let the Campaign Begin
Opinion
Has the South-East Traded Kanu and Obi for Political Access? By Mohammed Bello Doka
When Nnamdi Kanu was handed a life sentence, expectations were clear and historic. Across Nigeria, many anticipated a decisive political reaction from the South-East: emergency meetings, coordinated resistance, forceful statements from governors, and a re-assertion of the region’s long-held grievance narrative.
What followed instead was something far more revealing — a loud, deliberate silence.
No collective pushback by South-East governors.
No political reprisal.
No price imposed on the centre.
And in that silence lies a deeper story — one that goes beyond Nnamdi Kanu alone.
For the first time in Nigeria’s political history, all five South-East governors are aligned — directly or indirectly — with President Bola Tinubu and his re-election project. This is not speculation. Public statements and political signaling from the zone confirm that the governors have closed ranks around Abuja. Some openly endorse Tinubu; others maintain strategic silence while cooperating fully with the centre. Either way, the outcome is the same: regional power has moved away from confrontation to accommodation.
This alignment explains much more than the silence after Kanu’s sentence. It also explains the quiet abandonment of Peter Obi’s presidential ambition by the same elite class that once benefited from his momentum.
For years, the South-East sustained a dual political narrative:
Nnamdi Kanu represented resistance — a symbolic struggle against marginalisation.
Peter Obi represented reform — a constitutional path back to relevance at the centre.
Today, both pillars have been set aside.
Unlike previous moments in history when South-East elites distanced themselves from regional causes out of weakness or isolation, this time is different. This retreat did not happen in defeat. It happened from a position of leverage:
The region had unprecedented national sympathy after 2023.
It commanded a powerful youth-driven political movement.
It had emotional capital across Nigeria and the diaspora.
Yet, despite this strength, the elite chose survival.
South-East governors — the true controllers of the political system — have clearly decided that confrontation carries higher costs than alignment. Federal access, security cooperation, budgetary relevance, and political protection now outweigh symbolic struggles. In plain terms, Kanu became a political risk, Obi an electoral uncertainty.
This raises unavoidable rhetorical questions.
If the South-East remains as marginalised as long argued, why was Kanu’s life sentence not treated as a regional emergency?
If injustice still defines the regional condition, why has no political consequence followed?
Or has political access softened the meaning of marginalisation itself?
Even more unsettling is what this silence suggests about the future.
Will there be consequences from the people?
Governors may control the machinery, but history shows that South-East grassroots sentiment does not always move in sync with elite calculations. Suppressed anger, when ignored, rarely disappears — it mutates.
Has the South-East finally been subdued?
Or is this only a strategic pause — a recalibration before another political rupture?
And perhaps the most dangerous question of all:
What becomes of the Biafra agitation in a post-elite world?
If the political class no longer carries the banner — and the state believes resistance has been neutralised — the struggle may not end. It may simply lose its intermediaries and become harder to predict, harder to control, and more radical in form.
For now, the facts are clear.
South-East elites have chosen power over protest.
Access over agitation.
Survival over symbolism.
Whether the people follow — or resist — that choice will define the region’s political future far more than any endorsement ever could.
And until then, the silence after Kanu’s sentence remains the loudest statement the South-East political class has ever made.
-
Business13 hours agoBREAKING: Petrol Depot Owners Crash Prices To Cheapest; Details Emerge
-
News2 days agoIs It True That Court Is Set To Revisit Kanu’s Case After Pressure From Israel, US? Facts Emerge
-
News2 days agoBuhari’s Ex-Minister Pantami Breaks Silence Over Alleged Wedding Plan With Aisha Buhari
-
Lifestyle1 day agoChimamanda: Heartbreaking Details About What Killed Author’s Late Son Emerge
-
News23 hours ago“Do Not Test Trump’s Resolve”: US Issues Fresh Threat To Nigeria
-
Sports1 day agoAFCON: Nigerian Billionaire Splashes Dollars On Super Eagles
-
Entertainment18 hours agoSO SAD: Actress and Content Creator Sunshine D!es After Surgery; Details of Last Moment Trends
-
Politics44 minutes agoFCT Minister Wike Reacts To Call For Tinubu To Sack Him
