Afrasianet - Ibrahim Alloush - It is no coincidence that the date of the large "Israeli" response, which was prepared at length before, of course, came immediately after the Netanyahu government survived a confidence session in the Knesset, that is, after the installation of the guard instead of changing it. 

It cannot be said that the major blow launched by the Zionist entity on Iran at dawn on Friday was unexpected, not because of the constant intimidation and threat, as these two could have been discharged in the context of pressure on Iran to acquiesce to the demand that uranium never be enriched in the nuclear negotiations, but because two Iranian strikes, the second of which came on the eve of the night of April 1314 last year, changed the rules of engagement and established new deterrence rules that moved the regional balance of power to the level of strategic balance.

In the context of the general attack on the axis of resistance and its pillars in the region, from Gaza to Lebanon to Syria, to the ongoing aggression against Yemen, the Zionist entity had to follow a strategy of "erasing the effects of aggression", so to speak, even though it was the initiator of it historically, and in the context of the current event, as in the targeting of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, to which the second Iranian strike, for example, came.  

But the Zionist enemy, which embraces the doctrine of the superior and closed minority in the "ghetto" zodiac thought it was strong, in a huge Arab and Muslim environment, and could not maintain its existence, according to that logic, unless it subjugated its surroundings, its voluntariness and its programming to accept its "inferiority" with submission.  

This includes, inter alia, establishing the "right"  of the Zionist enemy to target whomever or whatever it wants, whenever it wants, however it wants, and wherever it wants, in the context of what it sees as a struggle for survival in order to maintain its strategic superiority, because the loss of that superiority represents, in its view, the beginning of the end and the herald of the great massacre.

This means that the national security strategy of the Zionist entity cannot leave room for the principle of strategic balance, whether it is related to the principle of strategic deterrence proven by the Iranian strikes, regardless of what is rumored in the media about their lack of military effectiveness, or related to the shock and terror caused by the glorious "Al-Aqsa Flood" operation, or the possession of qualitative military capabilities by neighboring countries, even if they are printed, hence the tension that filters in the media of the Zionist enemy regarding the Egyptian army's possession of technologically advanced weapons, and from here also Insist on disarming the resistance in Lebanon and on canceling Iran's nuclear program.

Therefore, I repeatedly warned last year that the major Israeli strike, in response to the Iranian response to the targeting of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, is necessarily coming, and that the same dialogue in the Zionist entity is moving towards a response, as stated in the following articles:

A- Article "Is the Israeli response limited to 3 small marches in Isfahan?", on 22/4/2024, in which it was literally stated that the file of the big strike on Iran has not yet been closed, but has been postponed, and that the message of the three marches is that "the rest will come, and will necessarily come, and the axis must remain prepared."

B- Article "What is strategic patience?  Has Iran really come out of his mantle?", on 3/5/2024, in which it was indicated that the American-Zionist side will not easily accept the change of the rules of engagement and the shift in the balance of power, and that "the file of the Iranian strike has not yet been closed for it. Therefore, it must try to hollow out that development with strikes that shake Iran's image near or far."

C- Article "Scenarios for the escalation and containment of the regional war", on 4/8/2024, which dealt with the efforts of Hezbollah and Iran at the time, after the assassination of leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Fouad Shukr, to respond in a way that enshrines the deterrence equation and does not lead to a slide into a comprehensive war, and that, if they succeed in doing so, they will put the Zionist entity in a position that makes it feel more strategically threatened. Then, either the Zionist entity will change the Guard, i.e. Netanyahu's government, or it will start a war, "and if they do not succeed, it will consolidate Netanyahu's government and push it to fight a war. If they succeed, the risk of war can be averted by 50 percent, and if they do not succeed, the danger of war expands."

The lesson is clear, which is that failure to respond in an escalatory and firm manner to the Israeli strikes leads to their recurrence and expansion, and that the balance of terror will necessarily be tilted against the party that does not maintain it, and that the Zionist entity tends towards igniting a war, and that not igniting it by the Netanyahu government may push the Zionist entity to change the guard in order to circumvent Iran by other means, and we have a return to this point.  

It is no coincidence that the date of the great "Israeli"  response, which was prepared for it at length before, of course, came immediately after the Netanyahu government survived a confidence session in the Knesset, that is, after the installation of the guard instead of changing it.    

There is no bidding or arrogance here, and there is no fatwa for a mujahid, but it is one of the laws of the jungle conflict, and a Sunnah of the universe in the face of the oppressor arrogant: kill or subjugate.  

 D – Article "Yemen and Gaza are on fire, and the eye of Trump and Netanyahu on Iran", on 23/3/2025, and the title itself says a lot here, and the article concludes that all that is happening in Syria and Lebanon of calm, and in Yemen of escalation (and then calm), prepares for a major strike on Iran, and that the interest of the axis of resistance lies in igniting the fronts with force proactively.

In the context of the preparation for the strike on Iran, a procedural issue arises, related to what has been reported in the media, especially the Gulf ones, about an illusory dispute between Netanyahu and Trump over how to handle:

(a) The Gaza file, and the wisdom of escalating it when it is required to mobilize Arab and Islamic (official) support against Iran.

(b) The file of the nuclear negotiations with Iran, and what has been promoted regarding Trump's tendency to negotiate and Netanyahu to war, in dealing with that file.

It is a line that has been heavily promoted to whitewash Trump's page. See, for example, Yedioth Ahronoth's report on 10/6/2025 on the phone conversation between Trump and Netanyahu in which they claimed that Trump asked Netanyahu:

Remove the military option from the table in light of the ongoing negotiations between Tehran and Washington, and inform Netanyahu that he does not have a "green light" from Trump to strike Iran. 

(b) End the military campaign on Gaza, telling him: "Conclude it. Don't let the war go on," the report read.

In addition, of course, Trump did not stop in the Zionist entity on his way to billions of the Gulf, back and forth, as if he had turned his back on Netanyahu or abandoned him. 

Many quickly forget that it was Trump who threatened to unleash hell on Gaza if the Zionist prisoners there were not released unconditionally, and that he gave the green light to stop the delivery of aid to Gaza.  

The most important point is that the Israeli strike on Iran could not have happened if Netanyahu had actually faced a red light. The reason is simple: countering Iran's response to the Zionist entity cannot be done without the air defenses of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) that rely on the United States and its Western allies and the Arabs, otherwise Israel will be fully exposed.  

It is true that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the United States did not participate in the strike, and that Trump confirmed it, but the United States, on the other hand, committed to defending the Zionist entity after the strike, not to mention the American arms and ammunition shipments with which the strike was launched.

Trump also tried to exploit the strike politically, saying, according to Reuters on 13/6/2025, that Iran brought the Israeli attack on itself by resisting US demands to restrict its nuclear program, and calling on Iran, according to the same Reuters report, to make a deal because "the next planned attacks will already be more brutal." When Trump waves forward strikes and tries to use this to try to blackmail Iran, it means that he is an accomplice, not a "witness what is needed"!

Therefore, regarding the strike on Iran, and on Gaza, we conclude that Netanyahu and Trump are playing the "bad cop, the worst cop" game consumed by Hollywood movies, which some of us have not yet grasped.  

First, it is a game of two partners who understand each other and know how to pass the ball between them in the regional court, not giving Iran a direct pretext to target American and Western bases in the Gulf countries, while employing these bases to repel any Iranian response to Zionist aggression in a "defensive" manner.

Secondly, it is a game of two partners who lead a group of tools and followers "Arab" and "Muslim" who need to keep a distance, ostensibly, between them and the strike on Iran, in order to make countering any Iranian response to the Zionist enemy "in defense of their regional airspace", which demobilizes and frolics in its skies Western and sometimes "Israeli" interceptor planes and missiles without being considered a violation.

Thirdly, it is a game of two partners cooperating in carrying out a war of extermination and displacement in Gaza, in cooperation with their "Arab", "Muslim" and even "Palestinian" tools, so there is nothing wrong with some statements and statements of condemnation and condemnation, as long as the land (sea and air) bridge to the Zionist entity is open, and the siege on Gaza and on the Arab street is in place.

The Zionist strategy against Iran, with the exception of direct strikes, is based on:

(a) Mobilizing an "Arab" and "Muslim" bloc against Iran normalized with the Zionist enemy.

(b) Involving the United States and the West in direct military conflict with Iran.

If this bloc is armed with sectarian pretexts, some of it, such as the regime in Azerbaijan, are "Shiite" armed with Turkish nationalist pretexts.     

 
The question now is: How will Iran respond? And when? Will the strikes and the response to them develop into all-out war?

As for the manner and time of the response, that must necessarily be left to the owners of the field. However, from an analytical perspective, not just principled, it is our right and duty to say that failure to respond, or procrastinate indefinitely, will mean the complete erosion of the axis of resistance. It is necessary to respond even if it leads to all-out war, whatever its cost, because the cost of silence is much greater.

A final word: Anyone who fights the Zionist enemy must support him without hesitation and on his own terms.  

Those who raise sectarian "reservations" about Iran at these moments  have become exposed after we have seen their readiness for normalization, understanding and alliance even with the extreme religious right in the Zionist entity.  

As for those who base their reservations on a false Arab discourse, they are exposed to the true Arab nationalists first, because fighting the Zionist enemy is supposed to be the task of the Arabs first, and whoever does not want to fight, let him say good or be completely silent.