Published in Donya-e-Eqtesad Newspaper
Dated June 24, 2025
Israel's Attack on Iran Led to a War with Similar and Distinct Characteristics Compared to the Iran-Iraq War
The most significant similarities between these two wars are their imposed nature, suddenness, the aggressor's pretext, and, most importantly, substantial support for the aggressor.
Comparative Analysis of the Two Imposed Wars
Just as in the first week of October 1980, we witnessed delays in convening an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, and after a few days, a session was held issuing Resolution 479, merely calling on the parties to refrain from using force. Similarly, despite the Security Council meeting this time, no resolution has been issued. Furthermore, given the unconditional support of the United States and Europe for Israel, expecting even a response akin to the aforementioned case seems far-fetched. It is abundantly clear that Israel’s role as the initiator, without any provocative action from Iran, must be emphasized.
The imposed nature of this war and the aggressor’s pretext of Iran’s “provocative stance or actions” constitute another similarity between the two conflicts. In both cases, the aggressor claims to have launched a preemptive attack due to Iran’s “provocative behavior,” which is demonstrably false in two ways: neither the cause of these attacks originated in Tehran, nor were the attacks preemptive. Additionally, in both instances, the aggressor, relying on unwavering support from permanent Security Council members, attempts to portray itself not as the aggressor but as the defender—a claim that borders on irony.
In the current case, the world witnessed that Iran and the United States were on the verge of the sixth round of nuclear negotiations, indicating that Iran was pursuing a conciliatory approach in its foreign policy. These talks were scheduled through an agreement between Iran, the United States, and the Sultanate of Oman, and were not merely a formality or a stalling tactic by Iran. Clearly, Netanyahu, in his most immediate objective, seized the initiative on Iran from Trump and, in particular, Vance, forcing them to react.
However, given the shift in the international order compared to the bipolar world of the 1980s and the vastly different status of the Israeli regime today compared to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the support—particularly from Trump’s America—will be far greater, encompassing physical, logistical, and military aid, as well as political and legal support within the Security Council and bilateral diplomacy.
Key differences between the two wars include Iran’s distance from the early days of the Islamic Revolution, the sanctions of the past two decades, and the possible lack of strengthening of its air force, contrasted with the greater experience of its officials and populace in dealing with war, as well as Iran’s unexpected and indigenous advancements in defense equipment and technologies, particularly in the missile domain.
What occurred on June 13 was a surprise attack based on the element of shock, not military superiority. The primary cause (whether communication technologies, system hacks, or human infiltration) will be subject to further investigation.
Another distinguishing factor is the direct involvement of a third party. In the Iran-Iraq War, except for the tanker war and the downing of the Airbus, there was no direct intervention by superpowers as a third party. However, in the past week of this new war, we have witnessed the powers’ support for the aggressor, and ultimately, the United States directly attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities containing fissile material, in violation of international law.
Furthermore, unlike the Sacred Defense (Iran-Iraq War), this war is not about territory, nor is it between neighbors. It is more technological and aerial than ground-based or reliant on manpower. Had it been otherwise, Iran’s incomparable superiority over the Israeli regime would have created a far different balance. The core issue of this war is the confrontation and balance of power, including geopolitical and geostrategic dimensions, between Iran and Israel (backed by its constant supporters), initiated under the pretext of threat elimination by Israel and Iran’s response.
Given the intensity of the conflict, the multifaceted equations surrounding the war, and the comparison of costs incurred by the offensive and defensive operations of the parties involved, as predicted, we have reached a critical juncture in the near future:
Military pressure on the Israeli regime, which it appears to be leveraging for victimhood and rallying traditional allies.
Iran’s position to resolve the issue and consolidate its stance from a position of strength.
Imposing war or peace is inherently unjust, and Iran, historically and in modern times, has never sought war. Thus, as the second path, seizing the initiative in war and peace from a position of strength, supported by applied power and timely diplomatic advances, is the option that can compensate for losses, capitalize on strengths, and leverage capabilities. In every crisis, especially at the height of power, one must focus on consolidating and securing their position.
Another point in enhancing power is, given the events of the past week, mobilizing ordinary people and forming social cores to foster public convergence across diverse inclinations, utilizing all capacities to restore normal life with utmost strength.
Finally, narrative-building in domestic and global arenas, given the Western and Jewish media hegemony in mainstream outlets, is one of the critical bottlenecks that must be addressed.
Ultimately, with the clear revelation of the real balance of power between Iran and Israel, Iran’s demonstrated ability to deliver a decisive second strike, and the direct entry of the United States into the conflict—despite claims by Trump and his administration, which Iranian authorities have deemed superficial—the following points merit attention:
What is the reason or calculation behind Iran’s reduction in firepower?
Given all considerations and in line with Iran’s national will and interests, what should be the nature and framework of Iran’s response to the United States?
Beyond defending the country and establishing a new regional order aligned with Iran’s consolidated power, what is the objective of this war for us?
What scenarios exist for concluding this crisis in Iran’s favor?
Let us remember that, like it or not, when a balance is established, diplomacy will end the war. Therefore, whenever the country determines that its military position is at its peak, that is the optimal moment. Delay may sometimes lead to uneven development.
