US-Israel attack on Iran: Do they have any moral authority?
The US–Israel joint military operation against Iran—launched on February 28, 2026, as Operation Epic Fury (US) and Operation Roaring Lion (Israel)—has entered its fourth day as of March 3, 2026.
The strikes have killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with dozens of senior officials, military commanders, and other key figures. Targets have included missile sites, naval assets, military infrastructure, and leadership compounds. More than 1,000–2,000 strikes were reported in the first few days, with some assessments claiming air superiority over Tehran.
Iran has retaliated with missile and drone barrages against Israel, US bases, and several Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Oman. Casualties have mounted, with at least 555 reported deaths in Iran (including civilians, according to the Iranian Red Crescent), 10–11 in Israel, four US service members killed (with more possible), and additional casualties across the region. Hezbollah has joined the confrontation with rocket attacks on Israel, prompting Israeli strikes in Lebanon, where at least 31 people have been killed. Incidents have also included Kuwait downing US jets, the killing of innocent schoolchildren, the bombing of hospitals in Iran, and attacks on other civilian facilities.
What is striking is that the US–Israel joint attack took place at a time when negotiations with Iran had reportedly reached a breakthrough rather than a deadlock. If this is not hypocrisy, what is it? Is it not a textbook case of regime change? Does it not remind us of the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 on a similar pretext? Who legitimises Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu—both facing domestic controversies, to orchestrate such intervention in sovereign countries?
Whenever conflict erupts in the Middle East involving Israel, the West—particularly the governments of the US and the UK—consistently sides with Israel. This pattern is not accidental. Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, Western powers, mainly the US and UK, have leveraged the country for their strategic and commercial interests. Here, “Western countries” refers to their governments and elites, not their diverse publics, who hold varied opinions across social strata.
Strategic and commercial motives are intertwined, embodied in what is often called the military-industrial complex (MIC). The term was coined by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, warning of the “unwarranted influence” of a large military establishment and powerful arms industry on public policy.
The paradox is stark: a peaceful world would bankrupt arms companies, yet weapons are marketed as tools for deterrence and stability. In reality, global disturbances sustain demand for sophisticated arms. In the US—and to a lesser extent in the UK—these firms spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on lobbying, employ revolving-door personnel (former officials joining industry), and influence defence and foreign policy. A disturbed world—and especially a turbulent Middle East—serves their interests the most.
The US provides Israel with massive defence aid—about $3.8 billion annually (roughly Rs 32,000–35,000 crore, including supplements)—conditional on spending most of these funds on weapons from select US companies such as Lockheed Martin (F-35s), RTX (missiles and Iron Dome components), Boeing (F-15s and helicopters), General Dynamics (munitions), and Northrop Grumman (electronics). This creates a direct profit loop for the MIC.
The UK and other Western countries may not extend direct aid but permit their arms firms to supply Israel via export licences. Companies such as BAE Systems (F-35 components), Leonardo (targeting systems), L3Harris (electronics), Rolls-Royce (propulsion), and QinetiQ (training and equipment) are key players. Partial UK suspensions since 2024 have excluded critical items such as F-35 components. In effect, this amounts to indirect support aligned with the same commercial ecosystem.
Israel has become a hub for arms dealing and weapons testing, having been involved in numerous conflicts over its 78-year history. It maintains that such actions are for defence. Yet many view its conduct as offensive in nature. The recent devastation in Gaza exemplifies the human cost. It is seen by many as nothing short of cold-blooded genocide.
Immediately after Israel’s declaration of statehood in 1948, it was invaded by Egypt, Transjordan (Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, which perceived it as a potential threat. Israel prevailed, aided by crucial arms supplies from Czechoslovakia—Soviet-influenced and approved by Stalin to counter British influence—and immense private support from the global Jewish community, especially in the US. Large funds were raised to procure weapons, both legally and illegally, despite UN and Western embargoes on all parties. Arab states, lacking comparable networks, could not sustain their war effort. This victory reshaped the region and bolstered Israel’s morale.
Over time, geopolitical alignments shifted. For strategic and commercial reasons, the US and UK deepened their involvement, further embedding Israel within Middle Eastern power dynamics.
Israel’s frequent conflicts and Western alignment perpetuate instability that benefits the MIC. Arms sales thrive amid tension. Policies toward Israel and the region often reflect this alignment, sustaining a cycle of disturbance.
Another layer complicates the picture. Many Arab and Middle Eastern countries inherit rich civilisational legacies but lack modern democratic systems, often being ruled by monarchies, religious authorities, or autocracies. Large segments of their populations aspire democratic freedoms and remain discontented. This dynamic was evident in the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction, and appears to echo now with Iran, where nuclear facilities are cited as justification. The design seems consistent: regime change.
Who are Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu—leaders grappling with their own domestic crises and questions of legitimacy—to impose regime change in the Middle East? How fair is it for their governments to dictate terms to others?
One thing is clear: the Iran of 2026 is not the Iraq of 2003.
Some claim this attack on Iran is also a ploy to divert attention from the Epstein files. That remains speculative.
India’s role in this war is also noteworthy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel just two days before the attack. India has called for de-escalation but has not condemned the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader. Has India already taken a side? If India aligns openly with Trump and Netanyahu, it would mark a significant shift in its Middle East policy—with serious repercussions.
We still do not know which direction this war will take. But the sooner it ends, the better for the world.