WBy Dan Steinbock   

Israel’s strikes against vital targets in Iran is morphing into yet another misguided proxy war, which relies heavily on intelligence, arms and financing by the US and its allies. The timing couldn’t be worse.

Not so long ago, Iran-US negotiations still appeared to be promising. So, why the seemingly sudden escalation?

Last Thursday, the board of governors of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said that Iran wasn’t complying with its nuclear obligations. That set in motion an effort to restore the UN sanctions on Tehran later this year. Yet, this is a diplomatic track that should not have military reverberations.

So, what changed?

Weaponizing regional diplomacy                     

Since the possible costs of any major attack are likely to prove extraordinarily high – as I argue in my The Fall of Israel (2005) – Israel will strike Iran only with the tacit greenlight by the US administration.

Presumably, the sixth round of talks was to take place on the weekend in Oman. President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was due to travel there to meet with his Iranian counterpart. When Trump was asked what could reduce tensions in the region, he said Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

Nonetheless, the US – from the Biden administration to the Trump team – has acknowledged it has no evidence Iran was building a nuclear weapon. Moreover, in early May, the IAEA did not say Iran was close to a nuclear weapon; only that it was on the verge of a nuclear weapon.

In critics’ view, the misrepresentation of the cause of Israel’s pre-emptive strike is reminiscent of the misrepresentation of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as a trigger for the 2003 Iraq War.

Yet, such scenarios are very much in line with President Trump’s penchant for fostering “strategic tension,” which is then exploited as a pretext for military solutions in the name of the West’s ” rules-based order.”

Diverting attention away from Gaza

On June 12, Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear program and its political and military, to “degrade, destroy, and threat” of Iranian weaponization of its nuclear program.

Subsequently, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu – an alleged war criminal according to the International Criminal Court (ICC), who is amid a lingering corruption trial and needs immunity to stay out of prison – announced that the June 12-13 strikes were just “an opening volley in a weeks-long air campaign.”

His rhetoric was seconded by Defense Minister Israel Katz: If Iran continues firing missiles, he warned, “Tehran will burn.” Like Netanyahu, Katz has a personal stake in the deflection. After October 7, he was the Israeli energy minister who subjected Gaza to a devastating blockade and the subsequent famines – and who hopes to avoid targeting by the ICC as a war criminal.

Targeting not only multiple Iranian military targets and prominent members of Iranian nuclear research cluster, Israel focused on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure hoping to cripple Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities. Hence, the strikes against enrichment capabilities at Natanz, nuclear facilities in Esfahan and reported attacks near Fordow, possibly targeting air defense systems.

These strikes are taking place at a historical moment when Israel has effectively demolished Gaza, committed genocidal atrocities against its Palestinian residents and is conducting ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.  

Like in Gaza, Israel pulled the trigger in Iran, but only with the intelligence, arms and financing by the United States and its allies – thanks to the effective impotence of the international community.

A simulated Israel-Iran confrontation 

That all begs the question: how would Israel respond to a conventional “existential crisis” with Iran? That is an issue I addressed in detail in my The Fall of Israel (2025), based on research over a year ago.

In late 2023, such military scenarios of “existential crisis” were tested in a high-level U.S. war game in which participants included members of U.S. executive branch, Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, leading academics, think-tank experts and Pentagon officials.

The game starts in 2027 with Israeli intelligence reports that Iran is mating nuclear warheads to its long-range missiles. Consequently, Israel targets Iran’s key nuclear and missile sites with U.S. standoff hypersonic missiles. That is followed by devastating conventional missile strikes against Israel with thousands of casualties, to which, in this projected 2027 scenario, Israel retaliates with aerial strikes.

Iran responds by striking key Israeli nuclear and government buildings and withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), thereby signaling its readiness to deploy nuclear weapons. Washington urges Israel to stop escalation. But in an emergency that is perceived as existential for national survival, Israelis have little interest in US concerns.

Isolated and unable to halt Iran’s possible nuclear strike, the Israeli PM greenlights a non-lethal nuclear demonstration detonation over a remote location in Iran, coupled with conventional strikes and cyber-attacks against the main Iranian nuclear facilities and military sites.

Instead of overwhelming Iran, these assaults strengthen resolve in Tehran, which begins preparing a new response. Then, Israel launches a nuclear strike of 50 weapons against 25 major Iranian military targets.

A joint-regime change operation?

Intriguingly, initially the U.S. participants presumed that self-restraint would prevail in this high-level war game. Yet, the simulation’s cold logic compelled them into a sequence of steps that quickly went nuclear.

What’s immediately needed is forceful de-escalation to preempt the massive, unwarranted human and economic costs that now loom ahead in the region and that have potential to cause great human costs in the region and further downgrade global economic prospects.

Instead, so it appears, the Trump administration and the Netanyahu cabinet are jointly engaged in a massive, pre-calculated regime change operation that seeks to eliminate entire Iranian political, economic and military capabilities – irrespective of the devastating net effects in the region and worldwide.

And like with Gaza, the world is watching, in real time.

About the Author

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally-renowned visionary of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net

By Dan Steinbock           

As the West Bank is being annexed to Israel through blood and violence, many Israeli and international businesses and financials are tacitly supporting the ethnic cleansing with their business operations in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

Recently, The Norwegian parliament rejected efforts to tighten rules on its huge sovereign wealth fund investing in companies operating in the West Bank. Despite Norway’s central role in the initiation of the two-state peace process in the 1990s, the Norwegians lawmakers voted by 88 to 16 against a proposal that would have ordered the fund to withdraw from companies “that contribute to Israel’s war crimes and the illegal occupation” of the West Bank.

Fueled by vast revenue from Norway’s abundant oil and gas exports, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the biggest in the world and has some $1.8 trillion invested around the globe. Its precedence-setting example matters, especially as it prides itself over the fact that many companies are excluded from its portfolios “on ethical grounds.”

Why then the vote for continued war crimes, illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing?

Double standards

According to its ethical guidelines, the Fund cannot invest money in companies that directly or indirectly contribute to killing, torture, deprivation of freedom or other violations of human rights in conflict situations or wars. But in practice, the fund is allowed to invest in a number of arms-producing companies, as only some kind of weapons, such as nuclear arms, are banned by the ethical guidelines as investment objects.

In the past two decades, the Fund has excluded some Israeli companies, but in a highly restrictive manner, including Elbit Systems (Sep. 2009), due to supply of surveillance systems for the Israeli West Bank barrier; Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus (Aug. 2010), and Shikun Uvinui (Jun. 2012), due to violation of international humanitarian law in occupied Palestinian territory by being involved in developing settlements.

Such exclusions create an impression of token concern because there are dozens and dozens of both Israeli and international companies operating in the West Bank, even as its Palestinian residents are under constant threat of violence and ethnic cleansing.

In Norway, the government was under pressure to use its financial clout to influence Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank, where its settlement policy has long been deemed illegal under international law. Some 50 Norwegian NGOs, spearheaded by the country’s main union, called on the Labor government to ensure that the fund’s investments were in line with the country’s legal obligations.

Meanwhile, UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, urged Oslo to “fully and unconditionally divest from all entities linked to Israel’s unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.” In his reply of May 30, Norway’s finance minister Jens Stoltenberg said the Norwegian government was deeply concerned by developments in Palestine, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. Then he proceeded to defend the “legality” of the Fund’s controversial investments in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Stoltenberg is the former chief of NATO.

Business operations in the West Bank

Since the late 2010s, the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) has used independent international fact-finding missions to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. These reports do not cover all companies operating in the occupied territories. However, they do include the major ones that play the most critical roles (see Table).

Table: Israeli and International Companies in the Occupied Territories

The overwhelming majority of these firms are headquartered in Israel. There are more than 110 such companies. Since the first OHCHR report in 2020, some are no longer involved in the listed activities, such as General Mills and its Israeli subsidiary, which likely divested following a campaign to get the company to stop manufacturing its Pillsbury products on stolen Palestinian land. In addition to a broad variety of Israeli companies making money on the illicit territories, several international companies prevail in these areas, including Airbnb and Expedia (U.S.), Booking.com and Tahal Group (Netherlands), J.C. Bamford Excavators and Opodo (UK).

Still others operate through their parent organizations, including Motorola and Booking Holdings (U.S.), Egis (France), and Altice (Luxembourg), and licensors or franchisors, such as Greenkote (UK).

European financial institutions behind settler expansion

According to Don’t Buy into Occupation (DBIO), a coalition of 25 Palestinian, regional and European organizations, in the early 2020s almost 800 European financial institutions, including banks, asset managers, insurance companies, and pension funds, had financial relationships with more than 50 businesses that were actively involved with Israeli settlements.

All of these companies were involved in activities that raise particular human rights concerns, which constitute the basis for inclusion in the UN database of business enterprises.

The list had almost 40 major European creditors, including BNP Paribas, HSCBC and Barclays, and 50 European investors, including Crédit Agricole, Deutsche Bank and Allianz.

In addition to Israeli companies, defense contractors, financial institutions and universities that have been targeted in boycott and sanction campaigns for years, recent boycott efforts have increasingly centered on companies that play a critical role in the occupied territories, especially in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Under international law, Israeli settlements, their maintenance and expansion are illegal activities, which give rise to individual criminal liability as war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Israeli, European, and international business enterprises, operating with or providing services to Israeli settlements, play a critical role in the functioning, sustainability and expansion of illegal settlements.

Israelis for boycotts

In the past decade, the Israeli government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in PR struggles against the international boycott movement. Though controversial, the latter has attracted some Israeli Jews. Despite different political motivations, they are united by the quest for peace and the view that international pressure is necessary to achieve change in Israel.

In 2012, Avraham Burg, the former chair of the Knesset and interim president of Israel, endorsed a boycott of Israeli settlement products. Personally, he boycotted all products produced in the settlements, refusing to cross the Green Line; that is, the pre-1967 borders. Such products were not “made in Israel” and should not be mislabeled that way. Colonizing Palestinian lands has made Israel “the last colonial occupier in the Western world.”

Burg’s views were echoed by Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy, who also supported boycotting Israel, stressing that it was “the Israeli patriot’s final refuge.” As far he was concerned, “the change won’t come from within.”

International boycotts are painful, but they cost less than human massacres and economic expenditures associated with forever wars. They are neither antisemitic nor anti-Israel. They target the occupation, the settlers and their allies in Israel and elsewhere, and their violence.

Yet, the likelihood that most Israelis would adopt Gideon Levy’s view of Israeli boycotts is currently minimal, thanks to the parallel universe created by decades of massive U.S. military aid and money flows by American Jewry to Israel.

If the status quo is untenable and change won’t come from within, then change can only come from without.

The original version was released by Informed Comment on June 11, 2025.

About the Author

The author of The Fall of Israel (2025), Dr. Dan Steinbock is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/