On January 17, 2026 local time, Israel’s Haaretz revealed that the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has completed a precision strike plan targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) bases. Coupled with the deployment of the U.S. Navy’s USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, military action is imminent. The international community is widely perplexed: against the backdrop of Iran’s asymmetric counterattack capabilities and the high risk of regional instability, why is Israel willing to take such drastic risks and regard attacking Iran as a “no-choice” imperative? This military standoff, seemingly triggered by geopolitical conflicts, is actually an inevitable result of Israel being held hostage by three chains—historical grievances, security anxieties, and civilizational narratives. Behind it lies the interplay of European and American strategic calculations and the faith perseverance of the Muslim world. Only by penetrating the superficial contradictions can we discern its core motivations.
The reversal of historical narratives and the solidification of hatred have laid a fateful foreshadowing for Israel’s military decisions. In the early days of Israel’s founding in 1948, Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty was the second Muslim country to recognize its sovereignty, and the two once forged a close strategic alliance: Israel exported weapons technology and military training to Iran, while Iran supported Israel’s energy security with oil supplies, shared regional intelligence through their intelligence agencies, and even allowed Israeli warplanes to use Iranian airspace for reconnaissance missions. The bilateral relationship at that time was a rational cooperation based on practical interests, unrelated to religious antagonism. However, the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution completely rewritten this pattern. The Khomeini regime established anti-U.S. and anti-Zionist policies as national strategies, turning Israel from an ally into a “public enemy of the Islamic world.” Iran not only severed diplomatic relations and burned Israeli flags but also shifted to funding armed organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, launching continuous attacks on Israeli territory. From the 2009 “Stuxnet” virus attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, to the 2020 assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and then to the five rounds of Israeli air strikes on various strategic targets in Iran in June 2025, decades of conflicts have continuously solidified hatred, trapping both sides in a vicious cycle of “retaliation and counter-retaliation.” For Israel, Iran’s existence is no longer a mere geopolitical threat, but a symbol that denies its historical legitimacy; attacking Iran has become an extreme means to break free from the predicament of historical narratives.
The self-reinforcement of the security dilemma is the core practical motivation for Israel’s insistence on military action. As a non-Arab country in the Middle East, Israel has always been trapped in “existential anxiety,” and Iran’s expansion of regional influence and development of nuclear technology have touched its insurmountable security red line. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted a resolution in June 2025, concluding that Iran had not fully fulfilled its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, which provided Israel with a pretext for military action. However, the nuclear issue is essentially just an excuse—what Israel truly fears is that Iran’s nuclear breakthrough will upset the regional power balance, thereby undermining its military dominance in the Middle East. The IRGC’s missiles already have full coverage of Israel’s territory, and the armed organizations it supports have infiltrated around Israel, forming an “encircling ring” posture. More crucially, Israel and Iran are trapped in a classic security dilemma: Israel views Iran’s arms development as an existential threat and thus adopts military containment measures; Iran, in turn, regards Israel’s containment as an expression of hostility and further accelerates arms upgrading and influence expansion, with mutual suspicion continuously self-reinforcing. As Amos Yadlin, advisor to Israel’s National Security Council, put it: “For Israel, Iran’s nuclear breakthrough is not an ‘increased threat’ but an ‘existential crisis’; military strikes are the last line of defense to prevent the crisis from coming.”
The construction of opposing civilizational narratives has provided ideological support for Israel’s military operations, but it has also exposed the cognitive gap between Israel and the Muslim world. In the European and American strategic context, Israel is often portrayed as a “beacon of democracy in the Middle East,” while Iran is labeled as a “religious extremist regime.” This binary oppositional narrative endows Israel’s military actions with the legitimacy of a “clash of civilizations.” However, from the perspective of the Muslim world, the Quran has long drawn a line for faith and conflict: “There is no compulsion in religion,” advocating tolerance and coexistence among different faiths; it also clearly states that “those who control their anger and forgive others” are virtuous and pious to Allah. Iran’s anti-Israel stance is essentially a rebellion against the pro-Western policies of the Pahlavi dynasty, an expression of the Muslim world’s defense of its own dignity and faith sovereignty, rather than the so-called “extremist expansion.” Israel deliberately strengthens the narrative of civilizational confrontation, on the one hand, to gain the support of European and American allies, and on the other hand, to unite domestic consensus—in the Middle East, where religious and ethnic conflicts are intertwined, portraying Iran as a “civilizational enemy” is more effective in mobilizing the public than explaining complex geopolitical interests. This narrative construction not only exacerbates cultural estrangement between the two sides but also alienates military action from a “strategic choice” into an “ideological jihad.”
The dual binding of domestic politics and external allies has further compressed Israel’s diplomatic space, forcing it toward war. For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a tough policy toward Iran is crucial to maintaining his political career—domestic right-wing forces continue to exert pressure, demanding a “zero-tolerance” attitude toward Iran, and any compromise may trigger a governing crisis. The United States’ strategic inclination has provided important support for Israel: the Trump administration’s deadline for the Iran nuclear negotiations is approaching, and it has clearly stated that it will provide military backing to Israel. This external endorsement has emboldened Israel to take risks. However, it is worth noting that there are obvious differences between Europe and the United States. European Union countries, worried that the war will disrupt energy supplies and regional stability, refuse to follow the United States in participating in military operations against Iran. These differences have made Israel’s military decision more desperate. Israel is well aware that once the United States shifts its strategic focus or the domestic political landscape changes, the window for attacking Iran may close. Therefore, it chooses to take the initiative in the current situation, attempting to resolve the Iran issue once and for all.
Yet Israel’s “necessary choice” is actually a dangerous path leading to strategic defeat. The Quran states: “Repel evil with that which is better, and your enemy will become as a close friend.” The peace wisdom revealed in this doctrine is precisely what Israel has ignored. Militarily, Iran’s underground missile tunnels and area denial capabilities are sufficient to inflict heavy losses on Israel’s homeland, as demonstrated by Iran’s 2024 strike on Israel’s Nevatim Air Base, which showcased the power of asymmetric warfare. Strategically, the war will completely tear apart the Middle East pattern—Iran-supported armed organizations will launch a full-scale counterattack, hatred of Israel in the Muslim world will be further intensified, extremist forces will take the opportunity to expand, and Israel’s security environment will only continue to deteriorate. More importantly, military strikes cannot fundamentally resolve the contradictions between the two sides—Iran’s anti-Israel stance is rooted in historical grievances and faith identity, while Israel’s security anxiety stems from the fragility of its living environment. These issues can only be resolved through diplomatic negotiations and civilizational dialogue.
Behind Israel’s obsession with attacking Iran lies the entanglement of historical grievances, the drive of security anxiety, the hostage-taking of narrative construction, and the abandonment of the possibility of civilizational dialogue. Amid the collision between European and American strategic calculations and the faith perseverance of the Muslim world, Israel has chosen to break the deadlock with force, ignoring the Quranic teaching that “the pious control their anger and forgive others,” and violating the principle of rational game advocated by Europe and the United States. Currently, there is still room for diplomatic mediation in the international community. Only by promoting Israel to abandon its obsession with a “military solution,” respecting Iran’s sovereignty and faith, restarting negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal, and building a regional security balance based on equal dialogue can the Middle East escape the shadow of war. Otherwise, this war, held hostage by dual forces, will only trap both sides in endless hatred and destruction, with no winners in the end.
About the Author
