At its root, the assault on Iran is inseparable from
the question of Palestine
Yakov
M. Rabkin / March 6, 2026 / 8 min rea
Much of the discussion surrounding the current war on
Iran focuses on its potential outcome for the United States. One of the most
frequently asked questions is whether Washington will suffer yet another loss
of face in the Middle East. But this is the wrong question. Even if the war
produces chaos and ultimately harms the US and Europe—as earlier interventions
in Iraq, Libya and Syria did—the more important issue is what benefit Israel,
the war’s proponent and initiator, stands to gain. After all, Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu has said he had been planning this war for 40 years.
The reason for this is Iran’s principled stance on
justice for the Palestinians. That commitment transcends religious divisions:
Iran is predominantly Shia, while Palestinians are predominantly Sunni.
Iranians and their allies in Lebanon and Yemen are prepared to die as martyrs,
and many have already been killed by joint Israeli and American strikes. Yet
the yearning for justice has proven to be both profound and resilient.
Iran remains the principal stronghold of resistance to
Israel. It not only decries Israel’s apartheid regime and genocide in Gaza but
also supports armed resistance groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. By contrast,
almost all governments in the region are only opposed to Israel’s occupation
and oppression of Palestine in principle, while cooperating with Israel in
practice.
Turkey is an important transit point for oil and gas
supplied to Israel. Egypt has helped Israel isolate Gaza and starve its
inhabitants. During the last act of Israeli aggression against Iran in 2025,
Jordanian and Saudi air defences protected Israel from incoming Iranian
missiles. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan formalized
relations with Israeli through the 2020 Abraham Accords. Elbit Systems, an
Israeli defence contractor, accounts for 12 percent of Morocco’s total arms imports, and
other Arab regimes openly or tacitly purchase Israeli weapons and surveillance
equipment. This pattern is exhibited by many other countries, particularly in
the West.
Without mentioning its own nuclear arsenal, Israel has
been sounding the alarm about the imminent threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Brandishing diagrams, Netanyahu has argued for decades that Iran is just weeks
away from manufacturing the bomb. These repeated claims have only served to
confirm the conclusions of US and other intelligence professionals that Tehran
was not seeking such weapons. Nevertheless, these baseless accusations have
been invoked by Donald Trump and others, such as Canadian Prime Minister Mark
Carney, who have expressed support for war with Iran. This symptom of the
West’s political demodernization—the retreat from evidence-based debate towards
visceral assertion—is also evident in the current militarization campaign based
on alleged threats from China and Russia.
Israel’s concern for the human rights of Iranians is
equally hollow. In reality, Israel seeks to fragment, debilitate, and disarm
Iran, thereby eliminating the Islamic Republic as the last major state to
oppose Israel in the region. Israel wants Iran to accept
Israeli and Western tutelage in the form of
Reza Pahlavi, the eldest son of the last Shah of Iran, or another collaborator.
But the main objective is to remove the last defence of Palestinian rights and
to render the Iranian state dysfunctional.
The root cause of the military assault on Iran is
therefore the question of Palestine. All of Israel’s wars have been fought to
perpetuate the Zionist nature of the state—that is, to resist the idea of
equality for all inhabitants of the land between the Jordan River and the
Mediterranean Sea. In other words, Zionism is the main cause of violence in the
region.
The ideology of Zionism is enshrined in one of Israel’s Basic Laws,
which function as its constitution. It is officially a Zionist state and
describes itself as “the nation-state of the Jewish people.” This includes Jews
living outside Israel, regardless of their attitude to the Zionist
state—whether they are enthusiastic supporters, opponents, or indifferent. This
effectively takes Jews around the world hostage, making them vulnerable to
opprobrium and even violence from those appalled by Israeli actions.
A growing number of Israelis believe that
Palestinians, including those who avoided expulsion in 1948 and are now Israeli
citizens, have no place in the country. Several ministers in the current
government are actively pursuing ethnic cleansing through hardship, forced
exile, or genocide. The tragedy of Gaza is the most convincing embodiment of
Zionist ideology.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has admitted that
his country’s strike was triggered by Israel’s planned attack on Iran.
Washington believed that the Israeli attack would prompt retaliation against
American assets in the region, so it launched its own “pre-emptive operation.”
This explanation is significant. It suggests that Israel was given the green
light to begin bombing Iran at the time of its choosing. This may seem
surprising, given that much of Israel’s advanced weaponry is US-made and
deploying it on such a large scale would require coordination with Washington.
Rubio’s admission has revived the long-standing argument among critics on the
political right and left that US actions in the Middle East have been largely
driven by Israeli, rather than American, strategic priorities.
It therefore matters little whether American wars in
the region benefit the US economically, militarily, or politically. Nor does
the price Americans have paid in blood and money. The real question is whether
Israel has profited from them.
It could be argued that Israel has been the sole
beneficiary of America’s misadventures in the Middle East. The 2003 invasion of
Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath Party, thereby removing Iraq as a
major regional military power. The Syrian civil war, which was fuelled and
prolonged by the involvement of the CIA and its European counterparts, has
severely weakened another long-standing adversary of Israel. Meanwhile, NATO’s
intervention in Libya led to the collapse of a government that had long supported
Palestinian resistance. In each case, states that had opposed Israel’s
dispossession of the Palestinians, and which had the power to act
independently, emerged far weaker than before.
These US-led actions implement ideas set out in a 1996
policy paper titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. This
paper was prepared for the incoming Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu by
a study group led by the American neoconservative strategist Richard Perle, who
later became chairman of the Defense Policy Board. Other members of the group
included Douglas Feith, who would later become the US undersecretary of defense
and is often considered the architect of the 2003 Iraq War, as well as David
Wurmser, who would go on to serve as Middle East adviser to Dick Cheney and
John Bolton. The report proposed a new, far more ambitious regional strategy
for Israel. This document, produced by Washington insiders often called
‘Israel-firsters,’ was publicly released, meaning that its ideas are a matter
of record rather than conjecture.
Israel has been both focused and flexible in rallying
support from great powers. At the beginning of the state’s existence, it relied
on Soviet political backing and weapons. Stalin sought to weaken Britain in
West Asia and hoped, albeit in vain, that Israel’s socialist rhetoric would
make it an ally of the USSR in the region. Israel later embraced Britain and
France when they were clinging desperately to their colonial empires. However,
it found its most enduring support in Washington.
This support has been mobilized and organized by a
powerful lobby consisting of Christian and Jewish Zionists. This is well-known
and documented in various sources, including John Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt’s 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
During the current war, it has been reported that Christian Zionists have been
indoctrinating deployed US troops by presenting the attack on Iran as a holy war and a
means of bringing about the second coming. Commanders have invoked extremist
Christian rhetoric about the biblical ‘end times’ to justify their involvement
in the war with Iran. One commander said that “President
Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause
Armageddon and mark His return to Earth.” While Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
has not explicitly endorsed this kind of propaganda, his views—and those of
many other members of the Trump administration—broadly align with it.
However, cracks are appearing in the formerly solid
support for Israel in the US. The genocide in Gaza has alienated many American
Jews and Christians. For the first time in the history of US-Israel relations, more Americans expressed support for the Palestinians than
for the Israelis in 2026.
Sensing that this disaffection might eventually loosen
Israel’s grip on American foreign policy, Netanyahu acted quickly, visiting Trump seven times in
less than a year. Trump, succumbing to this pressure, had no time to waste.
With the World Cup set to be hosted in North America in the summer—and, more
importantly, the midterm elections in November—he ordered US forces to join
Israel in attacking Iran on February 28, regardless of the advice of his
intelligence and military advisers.
Israel has long openly disdained international law,
brazenly using its military and technological superiority against its
neighbours. The US, on the other hand, used to at least pay lip service to
international law. Now, however, Trump openly states that he does not need it,
instead relying on his “own morality.” His deputy
chief of staff, Stephen Miller, explained, “We live in a world in which you can
talk all you want about international niceties and everything else.” He added
that the world is “governed by strength, by force, by power. These are the iron
laws of the world.”
Many experts, including retired American and British
senior officers, doubt that the US will prevail in Iran and anticipate another
debacle. They may or may not be right. However, what matters to Netanyahu is
not the success of the American military, but the idea that Iran is likely to
be weakened, whatever the outcome. If this does not materialize and Israel’s
apartheid regime faces an existential threat, it has nuclear weapons to use as
a last resort. All the talk about “Iran’s nuclear threat”
should not obscure the fact that two nuclear powers have jointly attacked a
non-nuclear country.
If Israel’s gamble fails, its cynical and self-centred
political culture suggests it would use nuclear weapons rather than abandon
Zionism and negotiate a political transformation of the current regime into a
more inclusive system. Israel would rather obliterate Iran, a country of 93
million people, than accept equality with the Palestinians it now controls in
Gaza and the West Bank.
While it is important to assess America’s chances of
retaining world hegemony in the wake of this war, it is imperative to pay
attention to the possible outcomes for Israel, the war’s initiator. The Zionist
state—“super-Sparta,” as Netanyahu
characterized Israel a few months ago—is capable of unleashing an unprecedented
catastrophe that would make the genocide in Gaza seem insignificant by
comparison. As the ongoing genocide in Gaza has shown, nobody dares to stop
Israel.
Yakov M. Rabkin is Professor Emeritus of History at
the Université de Montréal and scholar at the Montréal Centre for International
Studies (CERIUM). He is the author, most recently, of Israel
in Palestine and Zionism Decoded in 101 Quotes.
