杏MAP导航

By Roberto Cetera 

The risk that the 鈥減iecemeal world war鈥� denounced by 杏MAP导航 Francis could evolve into a full-scale global conflict has rarely felt more real. Israel鈥檚 strike on Iran during the night of June 13 marks the most serious escalation in the Middle East since October 7, 2023, and the profound reshaping of the region鈥檚 geopolitical landscape that followed.

It is beyond doubt that Tehran, under the leadership of the Ayatollahs, has long been a source of regional destabilisation and a genuine threat to Israel鈥檚 security. Recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have pointed to increasingly advanced developments in Iran鈥檚 nuclear program. Yet the critical question now is whether Israel鈥檚 military action will contain the threat or dangerously widen the conflict, potentially beyond the region.

This concern is underscored by the ambivalent stance of the United States. Just over two months ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu, during a visit to Washington, proposed a similar operation but was met with resistance from the U.S. administration, which had instead begun diplomatic talks with Tehran. That moment marked a clear divergence between Israeli and American diplomatic strategies. Since then, meetings between former President Trump and moderate Gulf states were received coldly by Israel, as was U.S. encouragement toward Syria鈥檚 new leader, Al Sharaa, even as the IDF continued its strikes on Damascus. Most notably, President Trump has been urging an end to the war in Gaza鈥攈is latest appeal coming just three days ago in a phone call with Netanyahu.

This backdrop has led many analysts to suggest that Netanyahu鈥檚 airstrikes against Iran were designed to force Washington鈥檚 hand by presenting it with a fait accompli. The initial U.S. response has been mixed: Secretary of State Marco Rubio was quick to underline that the operation was unilateral and not coordinated with the U.S., while President Trump later posted full support on X, even threatening a more forceful escalation.

Beyond relations with the U.S., Netanyahu鈥檚 timing was likely influenced by several other considerations. Chief among them is the aim to divert global attention from the ongoing war in Gaza. Continued military operations and civilian casualties in the Strip have triggered international condemnation, isolating Israel even from its traditional allies in a way unseen in the nation鈥檚 nearly 80-year history.

Just three days from now, the United Nations was scheduled to hold a peace conference in New York, sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia, where President Macron was expected to announce the potential recognition of a Palestinian state. Yet following Israel鈥檚 strike, Macron cancelled the summit, indicating that Netanyahu鈥檚 effort to shift the narrative back to Iran鈥攁nd away from Gaza鈥攎ay have succeeded.

This strategy also appears directed at Israel鈥檚 domestic front, where public frustration is growing over the government鈥檚 handling of the war. Under the barrage of rockets falling on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, internal political tensions鈥攊ncluding threats of a coalition crisis from ultra-Orthodox parties and coverage of Netanyahu鈥檚 corruption trial鈥攈ave faded into the background.

Supporters of the military action against Iran defend it as necessary and justified, casting it as a 鈥渏ust war鈥� to ensure Israel鈥檚 survival. But that label has echoed too many times in recent history鈥攊n Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen, where both political and military outcomes have proven disastrous. It seems little has been learned.

This latest escalation once again reveals the failure of leaderships, unable or unwilling to pursue diplomacy. As the Custos of the Holy Land, Father Francesco Patton, warned in his homily yesterday in Jerusalem, such leaders are consumed by a 鈥渂elligerent lust,鈥� incapable of seeking solutions through any means other than war.