From Baghdad to Tehran: Manufactured Threats and Israel’s War-First Doctrine

In the early 2000s, a web of exaggerated intelligence, fear-based narratives, and ideological agendas led to the invasion of Iraq. The justification was built around the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein’s threat to global security – especially U.S. interests. More than two decades later, we find ourselves watching a similar narrative arc – only now, the supposed existential threat is Iran.

Today, Israeli officials and their allies in Washington promote Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities as urgent global dangers. The familiar formula is repeated: identify a national interest (in this case, primarily U.S. and Israeli security), define a threat to that interest, and call for intervention in the name of peace. It is a rhetorical framework with devastating consequences, from Baghdad to Gaza – and now potentially, Tehran.

The Politics of “Global Interest”

One of the most effective mechanisms used by interventionist lobbies has been the conflation of Israel’s security with America’s strategic interests. This alignment is neither organic nor universal; it is constructed and heavily reinforced by political, financial, and ideological partnerships. U.S. taxpayers fund billions in military aid to Israel annually, often with little public debate. Meanwhile, Israel’s security policies – including settlements, blockades, and military actions – frequently contradict broader global goals like stability, de-escalation, and diplomacy.

Recent actions by Israel’s far-right government, particularly during the war in Gaza, have sparked deep political divides not only internationally but also within the United States. Prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson and even members of the MAGA movement have begun questioning the “Israel First” alignment. The narrative that once united bipartisan support is now fragmenting under scrutiny from both left and right.

As Israel frames a potential conflict with Iran as a global concern, it is worth asking: who truly benefits from such framing? And who pays the price?

Iran as a Manufactured Threat

Unlike many aggressors in modern history, Iran has not initiated a war in decades. It was a signatory to the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA), which international inspectors confirmed it was complying with – until the U.S. unilaterally withdrew under President Trump. Ironically, that withdrawal and the reimposition of sanctions only accelerated the very behavior the deal was meant to prevent.

Israeli officials now point to Iran’s enrichment levels as proof of intent, while ignoring the diplomatic sabotage that led us here. This is not just flawed logic—it’s dangerous circular reasoning. The threat is defined by the reaction to external pressure, and the pressure is justified by the threat.

It is also important to consider the ideological underpinnings. Members of Israel’s ruling coalition have openly advocated for regional dominance and perpetual conflict as a means of survival. In this context, peace is not a goal – it is a threat to the status quo. As some analysts have observed, Israel’s current security doctrine seems less concerned with peace and more aligned with ensuring its primacy through continuous tension.

Toward a Clearer Dialogue

In the U.S., both conservatives and progressives have reason to be skeptical of another Middle Eastern intervention. MAGA conservatives can point to broken promises about avoiding foreign entanglements and restoring national focus. Progressives can highlight the moral and strategic failures of perpetual war. Both can question the wisdom of enabling a partner whose policies consistently destabilize the region.

Iran’s actions should be scrutinized, like any state. But scrutiny must be based on facts, not fear; diplomacy, not demonization. If we truly value peace, then we must be honest about how war narratives are built, who builds them, and who profits.

Israel’s war-first approach may serve short-term political agendas, but its long-term cost – in lives, credibility, and stability – must be part of the conversation. Peace requires more than silence from those who know better. It requires truth-telling, especially when the cost of a lie is war.

Link : https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2025/06/20/from-baghdad-to-tehran-manufactured-threats-and-israels-war-first-doctrine/