An Unnecessary War?

Israel, the U.S., and Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

It’s been a busy month. President Donald Trump escalated tariff threats on Canadian and European imports and called out the National Guard in California, while European NATO allies and EU member states have accelerated discussions on defense autonomy, driven by Trump’s reduced commitment to NATO and focus on domestic priorities. All important items but they pale in comparison to recent events in the Middle East.

On June 12th Israel launches a preemptive military campaign against Iran, targeting nuclear and military infrastructure with warplanes and drones. Iran responded by launching more than 100 ballistic missiles at Israel injuring dozens and striking Israel’s largest oil refinery. These tit-for-tat attacks continued for the next few days until June 21st when the U.S. directly joined Israel’s campaign, bombing three Iranian nuclear sites, Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, using B-2 stealth bombers.

Not surprisingly this has become the news story of the weekend with politicians, analysts, and twitterati largely dividing along ideological lines. I hate this way of thinking. Actually, it’s not really “thinking,” is it? Let’s see if we can do better.

Was this “necessary?”

The question of whether Israel’s attack on Iran, and the subsequent U.S. involvement, was necessary ultimately hinges on a few critical questions. The challenge is that these answers require intelligence that neither you nor I possess:

1. Is Iran close to developing a nuclear weapon?

2. What would Iran do with a nuclear weapon?

3. How would Iran’s nuclear capability impact the world?

4. Is peaceful coexistence with Iran possible?

5. Will the attack successfully derail Iran’s nuclear program?

Israel’s Rationale: Is Iran on the Nuclear Brink?

No civilian can know with certainty whether Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, assuming Israel’s leaders are rational actors, their decision to strike now suggests they believe Iran is dangerously close. Should we trust their assessment?

Possessing accurate knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program would require exceptional espionage capabilities. Regardless of your position vis-à-vis Israel’s actions over the last few years, it is impossible to argue that Mossad isn’t an effective, if not the most effective, espionage agency in the world. Its track record supports this reputation:

1. Assassination of Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh (July 2024) - Reports indicated that Mossad recruited Iranian nationals to smuggle and plant a high-tech, remotely detonated device in a high-security zone in Tehran. This level of access cannot occur without high-ranking insider cooperation.

2. Targeted Killings of Iranian Nuclear Scientists (Ongoing) - the 2020 assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh reportedly involved the use of a remote-controlled machine gun smuggled into Iran and operated via satellite. This and recent arrests and executions of Iranian nationals for allegedly working with Mossad suggest a network of human intelligence (HUMINT) assets feeding intel and enabling these operations.

3. Operation Rising Lion (June 2025) - The smuggling and positioning of precision drones near Iranian military installations implies access to secure military areas, knowledge of radar gaps or override procedures and implies that Mossad likely had agents or collaborators embedded in the IRGC or Iranian military infrastructure.

Given Mossad’s capabilities, I’m inclined to believe that Iran is close to becoming a nuclear power. The question then becomes: can the world live with a nuclear-armed Iran?

Israel’s Existential Concern

Israel has a right to be concerned. Iran’s official position regarding the existence of Israel is one of fundamental rejection. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian government has refused to recognize Israel as a legitimate state and has consistently called for its dissolution. Noteworthy statements and slogans include:

“Israel is a cancerous tumor that must be removed.” — Ayatollah Khamenei, 2018

“The Zionist regime will cease to exist in the next 25 years.” — Khamenei, 2015

“Death to Israel” is a common chant in state-organized rallies, including Quds Day, an annual anti-Israel event established by Iran.

Iran also funds and arms groups dedicated to Israel’s destruction including Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and Syrian militias. No nations, including Israel, can be expected to tolerate attacks from proxies while ignoring the state that funds them.

It is impossible for civilians such as ourselves (or even military people not in the loop) to know with certainty if Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon or what the chances were that an attack would succeed. Given Iran’s stated goals and actions, Israel’s decision to strike appears not just rational but necessary. There’s a difference between arguing against unnecessary wars and arguing that war itself is unnecessary. As Iran’s aim is Israel’s annihilation, the Israeli attack was justified.

America at war(?)

When I “finished” this Saturday afternoon my final paragraph read as follows:

The obvious next question is, what should America do? I don’t have an answer, but a similar question applies: which is worse, the US getting involved or the US allowing Iran to become a nuclear power? I’ll let you decide for yourselves while I think about it a little more.

Then came this announcement:

My plan to “think about it a little more” is no longer possible and I am instead forced to provide a more immediate analysis. Fortunately, the approach to evaluating America’s attacks isn’t that much different than evaluating Israel’s.

We can safely ignore questions 1 through 4 above as the US is no doubt in possession of the same information as the Israelis and has come to the same conclusion that Iran is close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. This leaves us with three questions:

1. Is the US justified in intervening?

2. Will the attack derail Iran’s nuclear program?

3. Will bombing Iran lead to a broader war in the Middle East?

Justification for U.S. Involvement

While Iran’s goals vis-a-vis Israel are clear, it’s position regarding the US and other Western nations is more complex. Iran has legitimate grievances, including a 1953 coup orchestrated by the US and UK, and the West’s support for the Shah’s authoritarian regime. However, the relevant question is not about past wrongs, but what Iran would do with a nuclear weapon. Germany after all had legitimate grievances prior to WWII and letting them rearm was a mistake.

Iranian rhetoric which includes calling the US “the Great Satan” and the UK “the Little Satan” raise concerns about its intentions. Even if one didn’t believe Iran would detonate a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv, there is a good argument to be made that allowing it to obtain nuclear weapons would threaten the region in two ways:

• Nuclear Proliferation: A nuclear Iran could trigger an arms race, with adversaries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and the UAE seeking their own nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Second World War, there has never been a decade of uninterrupted peace in the region. Adding more nuclear powers in a volatile region is a recipe for disaster.

• Regional Destabilization: A nuclear-armed Iran would likely feel emboldened to escalate its destabilizing activities, including ballistic missile development, support for militant groups (e.g., Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militias), and interventions in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon.

Israel’s apparent failure to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities left the Trump administration with a difficult dilemma: finish the job for them or allow Iran to continue its weapons development. Whether or not the US succeeds remains to be seen but doing nothing was not an option.

Risk of a Broader War

The most pressing question is whether bombing Iran will escalate into a wider Middle East conflict. To assess this, we must consider regional and global actors as well as actions that have been taken in other conflicts.

The Middle East

Israel has effectively been at war with Iran and its proxies for years. This conflict will likely intensify for at least the next few weeks or months. A broadening of the conflict though would require the involvement of other nations. America’s bombing of Iran has already broadened it on one side. Are any other nations likely to join?

While many Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and Qatar, have publicly condemned the Israeli and U.S. actions against Iran’s nuclear facilities, their actions tell a different story:

• Rather than threatening to enter the conflict, all are warning against incitement of broader war.

• Qatar and Oman are actively seeking to prevent all-out war and are offering channels between Iran, Israel, and the U.S.

• Saudi Arabia and the UAE reportedly shared defensive intelligence with Israel

• Jordan openly shot down Iranian drones entering its airspace in defense of Israel.

These actions suggest that none of the other Middle Eastern nations is likely to join the conflict on the side of Iran.

The “Axis of Authoritarians”

Some Western analysts describe an emerging alliance between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea as the “Axis of Authoritarians.” Could these powers be drawn in?

Russia

Iran signed a 20-Year Strategic Pact with Russia in January of this year which expanded nuclear cooperation, defense logistics, and counter-sanctions mechanisms. Prior to this Iran has sent Shahed drones and missile tech to Russia to aid in its conflict with Ukraine, receiving defense tech and diplomatic cover at UN in return. While this demonstrates a desire to cooperate at some level, direct Russian involvement in the current conflict against Israel and the US seems unlikely. The Russo-Ukrainian War, which Russia was predicted to win in months if not weeks, is now into it’s third year. Given its difficulties in Ukraine, Russia hardly seems in a position to provide equipment or troops to Iran.

China

Iran signed a 25-Year Strategic Partnership with China in 2021 covering oil, infrastructure, telecom, and military cooperation. China’s military assistance to Iran has largely been focused on missile technologies. China has provided Iran with sodium perchlorate to enable mass production of solid-fuel missiles, steel, electronics, technical know-how, and blueprints so that Iran may upgrade its missile systems and develop cruise missiles. While this assistance is likely to continue, it’s effectiveness given the recent bombing campaign remains to be seen.

Would China do more? Overt Chinese assistance in the form of troops or fighter aircraft is not impossible but begs the question, what would China get out of it? While China would no doubt love to see the US drawn into another Middle East fiasco similar to Iraq, it is difficult to see what China would gain from getting directly involved in the conflict. It is much more likely that it will limit its involvement to equipment and funds.

History is rife with examples of wars which have spiraled out of control including World War I, Vietnam, and The Soviet-Afghan War. However, barring some unforeseen circumstances it seems unlikely that the conflict will expand beyond its current parameters.

The Case Against Bombing

The fact that I support the Israeli action and reluctantly support the American ones does not mean there isn’t a legitimate case that bombing the Iranians was a mistake. Listing the arguments from least convincing to most:

• Israel is an illegitimate colonialist power, and its actions are inherently racist. This ideological stance is rooted in rhetoric rather than evidence and can simply be dismissed.

• War is unnecessary. This naive view ignores the realities of geopolitics and Iran’s stated intentions.

• This war is unnecessary because:

  • Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon. This argument hinges on distrusting Israeli and U.S. intelligence. Advocates often cite the 2003 Iraq WMD debacle. However, Mossad’s proven capabilities lend credibility to claims about Iran’s program.

  • The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) was sufficient. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) initially limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Iran did significantly scale back its nuclear program in accordance with the agreement, at least initially. However, evidence and developments since then show that Iran did not fully abandon the capacity or potential to pursue nuclear weapons, resumed enrichment after the U.S. unilaterally withdrew in 2018. What’s more, the existence of sunset clauses, expiration dates on key restrictions, did present potential problems with critics fearing Iran could legally resume weapons-level nuclear activity in the 2030s.

Conclusion

Someday historians will look back on the current bombing campaign, highlighting its causes, misunderstandings, and consequences. What they won’t be able to do is provide us with any certainty regarding counterfactuals, what would have happened had the strikes never occurred? Debates will persist, but one point is undeniable: allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is unacceptable.

Thank you for reading Hoist the Black Flag

If you enjoyed this article please consider sharing your thoughts in the comments, subscribing, or even buying me a coffee if you’re feeling generous and felt that this was a particularly enjoyable article. Your attention, participation, and support really make a difference to me.

Also, a ‘like’ really helps the Substack algorithm find me. And I’d be most grateful if you would share this piece to help Hoist the Black Flag grow.