Iran, Israel and the West’s dangerous habit of looking away |
The current US–Israel confrontation with Iran did not arise from a vacuum, nor should it be treated as a sudden rupture in an otherwise stable region.
Listen to this article
It is the latest phase of a conflict that has run, with varying intensity, since 1979.
Iranian intent has been repeatedly and openly declared; violence has been systematically outsourced to proxies; and the consequences have been deferred by a West that has too often preferred avoidance to clarity.
Much of the legal discussion has focused on whether recent actions fall under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the inherent right of self-defence, or constitute a Chapter VII enforcement issue requiring broader international authorisation. That debate is important, but it risks obscuring a more fundamental point.
This is not a pre-emptive war against a speculative threat. It is a continuation of an ongoing conflict in which Iran has consistently articulated its desire for Israel’s destruction and acted upon it through funding, training and directing armed groups across the region.
Since the Islamic Revolution, chants of “death to Israel” and “death to America” have not been rhetorical excesses but guiding principles.
Iran’s hostility has never been confined to words. It has embedded itself in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank.
From the intifadas to decades of rocket fire, kidnappings and suicide bombings, and culminating in the atrocities of 7 October, a common thread runs through the violence: Iranian patronage.
The blood may not always be Iranian, but the strategic fingerprints frequently are.
Western reluctance to confront this reality has an uncomfortable precedent.
For years, Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine was minimised, rationalised or compartmentalised. Red lines were drawn, then quietly erased.
When full-scale invasion came in 2022, the shock lay not in the act itself but in the collective pretence that it would not happen.
The lesson should have been clear: ideological regimes that announce their intentions and advance incrementally should be taken at their word.
In this context, Israel and the United States have concluded that diplomacy and soft power have failed, and that deterrence now requires force.
Radical Islamist terrorism has not receded; it has metastasised. Alongside it, antisemitic rhetoric and violence have risen, not only in the Middle East but across Europe and North America.
This is not an abstract clash of narratives. Jewish communities are attacked, intimidated and told explicitly that violence against Israelis is justified.
Murder is reframed as resistance, and incitement is sanitised as protest. The West has been uncomfortably complicit in allowing that reframing to take hold.
Any serious analysis must also acknowledge the Sunni–Shia divide and Iran’s regional ambitions.
Tehran’s use of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is less about Palestinian welfare than about hegemony and rivalry, particularly with Saudi Arabia.
Many Iranians also view themselves as historical victims: heirs to a great Persian civilisation denied recognition, followers of leaders they believe were cheated of early Islamic authority, and a state they see as encircled by Western power.
One need not accept this narrative to recognise that the West has often failed to understand how Tehran interprets its own position and its relationships regionally and globally.
None of this requires hostility towards Islam or Muslims. On the contrary, it demands moral precision.
The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving and are among the primary victims of Islamist extremism. They deserve solidarity and partnership.
What must be rejected is the deliberate conflation of Islam with Islamist movements that sanctify violence and reject pluralism.
Israel has confronted that ideology since its founding and demonstrated that a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society can function within a democratic framework. A point all-too often avoided, or glossed over by the sceptics.
Iran’s strategy has long been to wage war indirectly while avoiding direct accountability.
When that shield is pierced, warnings of escalation suddenly abound, as though escalation had not been the objective all along.
Peace will not emerge from slogans or from chants that deny Israel’s right to exist. Those are not negotiating positions; they are declarations of permanent war.
There is also a strategic question the West cannot evade. Military action must serve realistic political objectives.
Weakening Iran’s leadership and capabilities may be achievable; transforming the regime is far less certain.
If internal repression crushes any uprising, the moral and political consequences will be grave.
Peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians remains both necessary and possible. But it requires legitimate leadership, accountable governance and the removal of actors whose power depends on perpetual conflict.
As long as Iran remains the principal sponsor of anti-Israeli terrorism, it has every incentive to ensure that no settlement endures.
History offers one final irony. Before 1979, Iran and Israel were not enemies. Regimes change, and ideologies collapse.
The choice facing the West is not between war and peace in the abstract, but between confronting a declared, ongoing threat now or paying a far higher price later.
Phil Lester is a Former RAF two-star officer with extensive experience of the Middle East, including Israel and the Palestinian Territories. He served operationally in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Cyprus, Bosnia and Northern Ireland.
LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.
To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk