Following the US-Israeli attack on Iran which began on 28th February, there has been much speculation as to what the goals of the aggressors really are and the extent to which Iran would retaliate.
Would it be a repeat of the 12 day war in June 2025 which primarily targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities or would it be a much more extensive assault aimed at assassinating the Iranian leadership and the disintegration of the entire Iranian state?
Trump’s changing rationale for attacking Iran
When the U.S. launched its so-called ‘Operation Epic Fury’ on 28th February, the Trump administration needed to explain to the American public, to Congress, and to the world why it had just started a war with Iran.
28th February
Trump announced the war in an eight-minute video posted on Truth Social early on the first day of the war. He described ‘Operation Epic Fury’ as a defensive response to decades of Iranian aggression, as well as a campaign for Iranian liberation.
“We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated”, he proclaimed.
He then invoked the 1979 hostage crisis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iranian-backed militias, and “47 years of Iranian aggression”. He implored Iranians to “seize this moment, to be brave, be bold, be heroic, and take back your country”.
He called it a campaign to “eliminate the imminent nuclear threat”, even though he declared after the 12 day war in June last year that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been “totally obliterated”.
28th February
Also on 28th February, the U.S. mission to the United Nations sought to construct a legal justification. The administration formally invoked article 51 of the UN charter – the self-defense provision – arguing that Iran’s missile arsenal and nuclear ambitions supposedly constituted a direct threat to U.S. forces in the region.
U.S. ambassador, Mike Waltz, told the Security Council:
“The United States has made every effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of this conflict with Iran, but Iran has failed to take that opportunity. So in close coordination with the government of Israel, the United States has taken lawful actions to address these threats, in line with article 51 of the charter of the United Nations.”
The facts, however, contradict Walt’s claims. First, the negotiations with Iran were a calculated ruse to enable the build-up of U.S. naval forces in the region in readiness to attack Iran. Second, Iran posed no credible threat to either U.S. or Israel. So Waltz’s argument is nothing more than a construct to justify the unjustifiable, namely a military assault on Iran in contravention of the UN Charter and international criminal law.
1st March
Pentagon officials reportedly acknowledged to congressional staff on 1st March that Iran was not planning to strike U.S. forces or bases unless Israel attacked Iran first, which directly contradicted the White House’s claim of an “imminent threat”.
2nd March
At the first Pentagon press briefing on 2nd March after the initial strikes had assassinated Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khameinei and many of his family members, Pete Hegseth, U.S. Secretary of Defense, sought to portray the war as both retaliation for decades of Iranian behaviour and a “laser-focused” military operation with clearly defined objectives:
“The mission of Operation Epic Fury is laser-focused. Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure, and they will never have nuclear weapons.”
He also added:
“This is not a so-called regime-change war, but the regime sure did change, and the world is better off for it.”
In addition, Hegseth insisted that the campaign was nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan: “This is not Iraq. This is not endless … This is the opposite … This operation has a clear, devastating, decisive mission.”
He then urged Iranians to “take advantage of this incredible opportunity” – indisputably the language of regime change that Pentagon officials insisted was not a war aim.
Far from clarifying the reasons for attacking Iran, the Trump administration has presented a confusing array of war objectives which all violate the U.N. Charter and international law.
Israel’s rationale for attacking Iran
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s goal of creating a Greater Israel is well known. In order to achieve this goal, Netanyahu has long sought to obtain the support of the U.S. to attack Iran.
Netanyahu’s goal far exceeds the more limited objective of achieving regime change.
Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator, has persuasively argued that Israel’s real goal is “regime and state collapse” creating chaos within Iran and, subsequently, keeping neighbouring Gulf states absorded in having to deal with the spillover of that chaos.
Re-produced below is the transcript of a recent interview that Daniel Levy did with Declassified UK. The video of the interview can be accessed here.
According to Levy, Israel’s goal is not regime change. Rather:
“They want regime and state collapse – chaos.
Israel has been unusually open about this. They are absolutely gunning for an American second round of strikes, a much more extensive round of strikes. We remember June of 2025 – ‘escalate to de-escalate’ at it was then called.
But the crucial thing then was that Israel got an American president to do something that they’ve been trying – Netanyahu in particular – to get them to do for decades.
Trump, it seems, did not have the assets in place, militarily speaking, either to do the kind of attack that some – who want this to be very extensive – would like to see, or to protect Israel, because for all the bravado, Israel is absolutely dependent on American protection. So [the Trump administration] wanted to have those military assets in place.
Israel has a different plan. Their goal is not regime change. They want regime and state collapse. This is the project in the region. It’s a project shared by their Gulf ally, the United Arab Emirates – chaos.
But for Israel, weak states, states absorbed with their own internal chaos, and with that chaos spilling over to other parts of the region – as long as it’s [not effecting Israel]- keeping other regional states absorbed in dealing with that spillover, that’s the project for the region.
And they are probably closer than ever to achieving that.”
The risk of Australian engagement
Immediately following the US-Israeli attack on Iran on 28th February, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared his government’s support in the following terms:
“We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security.”
Apparently, the Albanese government was the very first U.S. ally to declare its support for the illegal attack on Iran.
Given this enthusiastic support for the Trump administration’s war on Iran (the aim of which has yet to be clearly defined), there is a real risk of the Albanese government deploying military assets and personnel to the region in order to demonstrate its loyalty to its belligerent ally, the United States.
Such a possibility needs to be vigorously opposed. The Albanese government should openly reject the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran and demand an immediate ceasefire.