The June 13, 2025, decision by Tel Aviv to declare war on Iran is a recipe for doom. Such a conflict is expected to cause widespread suffering, with no clear benefits for any party, including the Israeli government. At least 80 individuals have already been murdered in Iran and 10 in Israel as a result of the firefights. Unfortunately, it is quite clear that the region has utterly failed to consider the experience of past failed military adventurism. It is a preemptive war that has been outlined by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons.
In doing so, he has repeated the strategic mistake made by US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who launched a preemptive strike in this region. Previous Israeli leaders have also pursued similar strategies. The globe was instantly made much more hazardous when Israeli jets and missiles flew across the skies of the Middle East, carrying out their lethal attacks against Iranian military targets and military officials. This unilateral attack is likely to further destabilize an already unstable region, much like the US-British invasion of Iraq.
Relationship between Iraq and Israel
There is very little trade between Israel and Iraq. Iraq has not recorded exports to Israel in the past, and what little trade there has been is quite small. For instance, Iraq sold roughly $759,000 worth of nitrogenous fertilizers to Israel in 2008, yet generally, Iraq and Israel do not exchange many goods or services. In contrast, no significant product categories dominated Israel’s 2008 exports to Iraq, which totaled about $1.62 million. Although Israeli exports to Iraq have grown at a yearly pace of almost 29.9% in recent years, the total volume of commerce with Iraq is still quite minor when compared to their other trading partners.
Regional conflicts between Israel, Iran, and the United States have a significant impact on Iraq’s political environment and security issues. The improved relationships between Iraq and Israel may not be probable with the internal security challenges, as witnessed by the fight against ISIS, as well as the existence of other militias. The fact is that the United States maintains a military presence in Iraq as the primary means of ensuring security in the country to eliminate terrorism and protect Iraqis, but this does not directly translate to a relationship between Israel and Iraq.
What impact has the political relationship had on the economic relationship between Iraq and Israel?
Iraq has a political stance that is very anti-Israel, which shows popular political and popular support for the Palestinian issue. In May 2022, a bill criminalizing normalization between Iraq and Israel, such as offering funds or spiritual aid, and carrying life imprisonment or a death sentence, was passed in the Iraqi parliament. This rule essentially forbids any official commercial interaction with Israel and applies to international businesses and persons doing business in Iraq. Even major figures of Iraqi society, such as Muqtada al-Sadr, have supported a prohibition against imports from any country supporting Israel in an attempt to pressure the government to sever economic relations by proxy.
The political war has destabilized the economy of Iraq, interrupted international trade, and reduced foreign direct investment in Iraq. Regional conflicts and trade disturbances also threaten Iraq, especially due to its dependence on oil production. The current hostility with Israel has also led to Iraq being segregated into certain world markets, and has also increased the rejection of foreign investments and broadened the economy. Political tensions are also highlighted in economic reform and maintenance by creating differences and instability within its borders.
Why is Israel planning an attack on Iran?
According to Netanyahu, the attacks were intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear arsenal. Three nuclear facilities, Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, have been struck by the Israeli army thus far, with varying degrees of damage. However, it is unlikely that these strikes will put a stop to the Iranian nuclear program, and the Israeli prime minister knows it. The Natanz location was purposefully constructed underground by the Iranian government to make it resistant to all but the most potent bunker-busting explosives. Because Tel Aviv does not possess the American-made Massive Ordnance Penetrator or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bombs, it is unable to destroy them permanently.
Even under US President Donald Trump’s administration, which has favored Israeli officials and attempted to exempt them from penalties for their war crimes in the Gaza Strip, Washington has long refused to supply these. Recently, Trump’s team once more stated that it would not provide Tel Aviv with these weapons. How much Washington was briefed is unclear from the official US responses to the incident. As a “unilateral” Israeli operation, the US State Department first disassociated the US from the initial attacks. Trump asserted shortly after that he was well-informed.
Why is the US involving itself in this war?
Although the US’s level of consent and involvement in the attack is still up for debate, it put an immediate end to any hopes that the recent weeks of intense diplomacy over Tehran’s nuclear program would lead to a new agreement, which would have benefited Netanyahu in the short term. However, it seems that involving the United States in the dispute is necessary to take additional action against Iran. Given the number of Trump’s key advisors who oppose US interventionism, that is a significant risk for Tel Aviv. One of the main goals of the US president’s legacy has been to reverse US interventionism.
Trump’s other interests are already being harmed by Israel’s actions, which are raising oil prices globally and straining his ties with the Gulf states, who stand to lose greatly if the confrontation stops commerce through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump will surely declare victory for himself if Israel appears to be winning. He might, however, strike back at Netanyahu if his policy becomes more and more reliant on attempting to ensnare Washington in another conflict in the Middle East. As it stands, the US would be responsible for any future strategic successes in Iran unless Israel chose to violate international law and use a nuclear weapon.
A microcosm of the challenge
Another instance of how difficult it is to achieve substantial military achievements against unpredictable, versatile opponents is portrayed by the long-lasting military conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The Israeli Defense Forces left no trail of peace but an endless cycle of violence by causing destruction and leaving the discrimination issue unresolved. This so-called mowing-the-grass move highlights the risk of repeat military actions that tune out basic problems and the dangers of violence over politicking.
The post-Iraq War can be seen as a certain warning of the effects that disregarding negotiated relations, along with the underestimation of the complexity of regional relations, can lead to. The above lessons seem to have been ignored by Israel, which instead focused on the tactical benefits of short-term policies over long-term stability, as it has done recently. Unless it encompasses more adept, politically conscious measures in its activities, Israel risks leaving the region in an even bigger mess and misery.
Israel has little hope of establishing a peaceful transition to a more compliant government in Tehran. Since the two nations do not share a border, occupying Iran in an attempt to do so is not an option. Under the Trump administration, it is also difficult to envision US assistance for such an endeavor, as it would undoubtedly raise the likelihood of attacks against the US.
To put it another way, Netanyahu’s attacks promise a long-term strategic catastrophe even while they may provide Israel with short-term tactical benefits by postponing Iran’s nuclear aspirations and obstructing negotiations with the US.
End up
Although Israel was not an official member of the US-led coalition that invaded Iraq, there is good indication that Israeli leaders encouraged and sponsored the war since they considered the government of Saddam Hussein a threat to the security of the region. How much Israel affects US policy is still arguable; however, some American officials downplay the Israeli input and give more weight to other strategic reasons behind the invasion.
Though it was not critically involved in the invasion, Israel was involved in the Iraq War through its contribution to the war in terms of sharing its intelligence and politically. It was not an outright effort to initiate the war, but was supported by security concerns by Israel concerning the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
