The motives behind the attack on Iran: An offensive tinged with Trump and Netanyahu’s personal political interests

The Rubicon has been crossed. The United States and Israel have once again attacked Iran, in an operation whose full scale will become clear in the coming hours and days, but which, at first glance, appears to be of a magnitude far greater than the episodes of recent months. What are the real objectives of the operation?

In his first statements after the start of the offensive, U.S. President Donald Trump pointed to two levels. One is military, with the aim of annihilating Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities. The other is political — a regime change — with Trump clearly calling on Iranians to seize the moment to oust the regime. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed similar ideas.

But there is a third, unspoken level, at least as relevant as the first two: the personal political interests of the two leaders. Both Netanyahu and Trump facing serious difficulties at home and will be tested at major elections this year.

At the first level, the declared intentions are to deliver a decisive blow to Iran’s military capabilities, both nuclear and conventional, with the destruction of its missile potential. The objective must be understood in a context in which Trump claimed after the U.S. Attack in June that Iran’s nuclear program had been annihilated, and in which negotiations were underway to explore a possible new deal after Trump himself had dismantled the one sealed by former president Barack Obama. The context also includes Iran’s enormous weakness, due to the collapse or weakening of its proxies in the region (Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas) and internal protests.

This is the framework in which Trump and Netanyahu decided it was imperative to launch an attack now. Was it necessary to do it at this moment? Did Iran represent an imminent threat? Could a diplomatic negotiation not have been given a chance?

At the second level, the logic is to take advantage of the Iranian population’s enormous discontent with the notoriously repressive leadership in order to provoke its downfall. Iran has suffered numerous treacherous blows in its recent history — from the coup against prime minister Mosadeq in the 1950s to the war launched by Saddam in the 1980s — which justify much suspicion. But there is no doubt that the Islamic Republic regime is an oppressive disgrace that has fostered a network of actors in the region that are responsible for despicable and criminal initiatives.

The fall of such a regime would be a cause for celebration for any democrat, but neither the use of violence outside the framework of international law is acceptable, nor is it clear that muddy means can achieve a worthy objective. Even a broad and effective decapitation, like that carried out against Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon, does not guarantee the collapse of a system. In a tiny environment with a total imbalance of forces, such as the Gaza Strip, Israel also failed to bring about the collapse of Hamas.

In a country as large as Iran, with a regime firmly entrenched for decades, achieving a collapse is far from certain. Without a doubt, the leaders of the Islamic Republic have developed detailed contingency plans, including multiple succession options in case their chain of command is successfully targeted. Moreover, it is a classic phenomenon that external attacks often lead the population to rally around the ruling power.

At the third level — the personal political interests of Trump and Netanyahu — it is obviously hidden from their public statements but is highly relevant and rests on several pillars. The Trump project is facing serious problems on multiple fronts. The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a huge blow to Trump’s tariff policies, the Epstein scandal remains a very threatening sewer of controversy, the ICE debacle is sinking into ignominy, and a succession of very adverse electoral results and poll numbers continue to mount.

Trump is a master of executing the now‑famous theory of flooding the zone — not with an informational slurry this time, but with bombs — using distraction as a tactic. The international arena is his favorite. Although he has always positioned himself as a leader reluctant to use force and military action except in cases of necessity, political life is pulling him in another direction, and he has already ordered attacks in half a dozen countries. The strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June — which Tehran responded to weakly — and the operation against Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro were successful for him.

Netanyahu is in a similar situation.. He pushed his campaign against Gaza to extremes, clearly aiming to stay in power by leveraging a sense of crisis and national unity. In doing so, he managed to overshadow the failures of his security policies and downplay the serious corruption allegations surrounding him. He isn’t faring as poorly in the polls as Trump, but the electoral campaign will be difficult, and he knows that international successes, nationalism, and a state of crisis are his best guarantees of reelection.

Both leaders face crucial legislative elections toward the end of this year. Neither is known worldwide for hesitating to secure their personal interests, even when doing so comes at a horrific human cost.

The Rubicon has been crossed. The stakes are extremely high. The risks enormous. What remains to be seen in the coming hours and days is how capable the Iranian regime will be of defending itself and counterattacking against two far more powerful enemies.

Retaliation could, this time, target not only U.S. Or Israeli assets in the region, but also those of Gulf countries, with serious consequences —not only for people, but also economically on a global scale, for example through disruption of energy markets. Yet history shows that the balance of such actions cannot be assessed in days, weeks, or even months. It is the passage of years that makes the consequences clear, often accompanied by incredible suffering, fueled by feelings of hatred and a desire for revenge.

We are witnessing a new episode in the acceleration of an era marked by the total trampling of law and the unscrupulous recourse to the law of force. The world has never been an idyllic place, but if anything resembling civilization had been achieved, it is now in retreat. We are seeing the advance of savagery, brutality, and the shameless violation of international law — that only permits the use of force in self-defense or with authorization from the Security Council, conditions that are entirely absent in this case — and the brazen assertion of interests, whether national or personal.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition