By Abdulahmeed Abdulrozaq Bilal | Fact Frontier.
Click here to read more about the reporter.
In the wake of coordinated U.S.-Israeli military strikes against Iranian targets, a fundamental question is being asked by international law experts and diplomatic observers: Was Iran truly the aggressor in this conflict, or has the narrative been inverted?
To understand the current crisis, one must first examine the stated intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Despite being characterized by Western leaders as a primary source of instability, a review of Iran’s official doctrine and recent actions suggests a nation primarily concerned with sovereignty and self-preservation, rather than expansionist aggression.
The "Imminent Threat" That Wasn’t
The justification for the recent large-scale strikes, dubbed "Operation Epic Fury" by the Pentagon, rested on the claim that Iran was planning an imminent attack on U.S. assets. However, this justification has unraveled under scrutiny. Immediately following the strikes, U.S. officials walked back the rhetoric. Citing direct sources within the intelligence community, The New York Times reported that "Mr. Trump exaggerated the immediacy of the threat posed to the United States" and that officials admitted there was no specific evidence of an intended initial attack on American forces.
Read also:
• Iran raised the red flag of revenge following Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's death.
This admission is critical. If the primary justification for striking another nation is proven to be unsubstantiated, the military action risks being classified under international law as an act of aggression rather than self-defense.
Iran’s Nuclear and Regional Ambitions: A Defensive Doctrine
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes, a stance it has held since the signing of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. While Israel and the U.S. point to Iran’s uranium enrichment as a cover for weaponization, experts in arms control suggest the data is less clear-cut. Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, has written that "There is no imminent threat" from Iran's nuclear program that would necessitate a pre-emptive military strike.
Furthermore, Iran frames its support for regional proxies—often cited by the U.S. and Israel as proof of its aggressive intentions—as a necessary deterrent against encirclement. Surrounded by U.S. military bases and facing a nuclear-armed neighbor in Israel, Tehran views its ballistic missile program and regional alliances as tools to prevent the kind of regime-change warfare it believes the U.S. has attempted for decades.
The Cost of Unilateral Action
The recent strikes have not only degraded infrastructure but have also solidified hardline positions within Tehran. By attacking Iranian territory directly, analysts argue that the U.S. and Israel have validated the regime’s primary argument to its people: that foreign powers seek to dominate and dismantle the nation.
Commentator Fareed Zakaria noted on a recent broadcast that by engaging in this conflict, the U.S. has "managed to unite the country behind the regime, proving the hardliners' point that America is an existential threat."
A Pattern of Pre-emption
This leads to a persistent and troubling observation regarding the cycle of violence in the region. While Iran is frequently labeled as the primary threat, it is often Israel that initiates military action inside Iranian territory or against Iranian assets. From cyber-attacks like Stuxnet to the assassination of nuclear scientists and now coordinated military strikes, the kinetic action usually originates from Tel Aviv or Washington, with Tehran responding reactively.
If Iran is the expansionist threat it is portrayed to be, why is it consistently on its back foot, defending its infrastructure and sovereignty?
If Tehran is the "threat" it is portrayed to be, why is it consistently the nation defending its soil, its scientists, and its sovereignty, rather than initiating conflict beyond its borders?
