Why does the United States see Iran as a threat? Because Israel does. Let us unpack this a little more carefully.
The Iran threat theory refers to the perception and portrayal of Iran as a significant threat, particularly by countries like Israel and the United States. This narrative, or theory, has been shaped by various factors, including historical events, political strategies, and national narratives. Let us look at both the United States and Israel in this context.
President Trump’s stance on Iran, particularly his warning of “bad things” happening if Iran does not agree to a nuclear deal, is highly misinformed and ultimately dangerous; that is, if he actually means what he says, since bluffing is part of his rhetoric.
Trump’s warnings are based on the assumption that Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, which Iran denies. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publicly expressed opposition to nuclear weapons, framing such weapons as morally and religiously forbidden, in that no nation has the right to destroy all of mankind. There is also a fatwa against having nuclear weapons, and recent reports indicate that some Iranian military leaders are urging Khamenei to revoke the fatwa, citing existential threats and the need for nuclear deterrence. The existence and implications of the fatwa have been used by Iran to assure the international community of its non-proliferation commitments. But Trump chooses not to recognize this fact at all. Instead, he prefers his narrative of the “Iran threat..” Why?
As well, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has noted that even though Iran has enriched uranium beyond the limits set by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but there is no conclusive evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. But Trump chooses to ignore this evidence as well.
Next, Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, which includes severe sanctions, has not led to Iran agreeing to new talks. Instead, it has hardened Iran’s stance against direct negotiations under such conditions. Iran has consistently stated that it will not engage in direct talks while under military threats and sanctions.
Trump’s foreign policy is monotonous—bullying: “If you don’t do as I say, I will bomb you.” The world does not work this way. Trump’s approach is not based in reality at all. It is the imposition of theory upon reality, followed by bullying and outrage when that theory is rejected or refuted. This is typical of how the West operates in our time, where narrative is truth.
Iran’s reluctance to engage in direct talks stems from a lack of trust in the US, following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. Iran very rightly feels that the U.S. has not honored its commitments, making it difficult for Tehran to believe that any new agreement would be upheld.
The US has a long history of backing out of deals at the drop of a hat, and instantly turning former friends into enemies (people like Saddam Hussein and Moamar Gaddafi come to mind, and now the enmity with Canada, Greenland and even the EU).
In fact, threats of military action, such as bombing, increase the risk of a wider conflict in the region. This could involve other countries, including Israel, and could have unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences.
A more effective approach would involve diplomatic efforts to rebuild trust and engage in meaningful negotiations, possibly through indirect channels or with international mediation, rather than relying solely on threats and sanctions.
But Trump has always been very weak when it comes to diplomacy—it is as if for him diplomacy does not even exist. Why talk when you can bomb, seems to be his approach.
Then, there is Israel.
Israel’s perception of Iran has undergone significant shifts over time, influenced by historical events, political ideologies, and strategic considerations.
Before the Iranian Revolution, inn 1979, Israel and Iran enjoyed close relations under the “periphery doctrine,” which aimed to create alliances with non-Arab states in the Middle East to counterbalance Arab hostility. This cooperation included official diplomatic relations and robust trade, particularly in oil, which was crucial for Israel during the Arab boycott.
The Periphery Doctrine was a strategic foreign policy concept developed by Israel in the 1950s, primarily under the leadership of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.
It aimed to counter the diplomatic and economic isolation imposed by Arab states by forming alliances with non-Arab countries and minorities in the Middle East.
The periphery doctrine was designed to offset Arab hostility and pan-Arabism, by creating strategic partnerships with pro-Western states and communities that were geographically peripheral to the Arab world.
The doctrine initially involved alliances with countries like Turkey, Iran (under the Shah), and Ethiopia. These non-Arab nations had conflicts with Arab states and maintained ties with Western powers, making them natural allies for Israel.
Besides countries, the doctrine also aimed to build relationships with ethnic and religious minorities, such as the Kurds, Druze, Copts, and Middle Eastern Christians, who were seen as potential allies against Arab nationalism.
The primary goals of the doctrine were to counter Arab hostility, maintain a balance of power, and ensure Israel’s security by leveraging these alliances.
According to the periphery doctrine, therefore both Iran and Israel shared common enemies, such as Arab states, and saw each other as strategic partners in the region. Israeli leaders always viewed the Periphery Doctrine as a temporary measure, until peace could be achieved with Arab neighbors.
The doctrine’s effectiveness waned, because of significant political changes in partner countries, such as the American-induced fall of the Shah in Iran in 1979, and geopolitical shifts in Turkey’s stance.
In recent years, Israel has pursued a “reverse periphery doctrine,” focusing on alliances with Arab states that share common adversaries, such as Iran.
The greatest promoter of this new reverse periphery doctrine is Benjamin Netanyahu. He has played a pivotal role in shaping and promoting the Iran threat theory, both domestically and internationally. This is how he does it.
First, there is Fear-Mongering for domestic Israeli politics. Netanyahu has consistently used the Iranian threat as a central theme in his election campaigns. By portraying himself as the only leader capable of protecting Israel from Iran, he has leveraged fear to garner support and maintain power. Netanyahu has used the Iran threat to divert public attention from internal issues, such as economic challenges and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This strategy has allowed him to maintain a strong political stance, while sidestepping domestic crises, especially very significant charges against for corruption.
Second, Netanyahu needs the Iran threat theory as a tool for International Diplomacy and bring about Escalation, because wars and politicians go together, like fish to water. He has actively sought to influence U.S. policy towards Iran, advocating for a tougher stance and even calling for military action against Iran’s nuclear program. His efforts have contributed to needless heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran, so that instead of engaging in constructive dialogue and diplomacy with Iran, the United States resorts to threats and bullying.
Netanyahu’s actions, such as the recent assassinations of high-ranking figures in Hezbollah and Hamas, are attempts to maximize escalation, and reinforce his narrative of Iran as a major threat. It is the hope of Netanyahu that a broader regional conflict will save him politically and legally. And it seems that the Trump administration has signed on to saving Netanyahu’s political career, by threatening, and perhaps even going to war against, Iran. This is why the Houthis have been targeted, because through them Trump hopes to try and create a situation where an attack on Iran will be justified.
Third, there are Netanyahu’s relentless rhetorical campaigns. Netanyahu has been vocal about Iran’s supposed nuclear ambitions and its support for anti-Israel groups, framing these as existential threats to Israel. Netanyahu’s speeches always emphasize the dangers posed by Iran. Never mind that Iran has denied having an interest in developing nuclear weapons, and its leaders have declared nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic.
Netanyahu has used international platforms, such as the Munich Security Conference, to highlight his perception of Iran’s threat, and in this way to rally support against it. His message is simple—Iran is deceitful and not to be trusted, while he and Israel stand for everything that the West stands. Such rhetoric has helped maintain Iran as a central issue in global security discussions—merely on Netanyahu’s say-so.
Thus, Netanyahu’s role in shaping and promoting the Iran threat theory has been instrumental in maintaining a high level of tension, and in influencing both domestic Israeli politics and the international relations posture of the United States in the Middle East.
Netanyahu cleverly entraps the United States by appealing to the narrative of American exceptionalism, and the American missionary zeal for spreading democracy and freedom.
Thus, for example, in his first term, under the influence of Netanyahu, Trump tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. This deal was a landmark agreement, signed on July 14, 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) along with the European Union.
The primary purpose of the deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from economic sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations.
The deal marked a significant diplomatic achievement, involving direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S. for the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. No one really knows why Trump just tore it up, other than to satisfy Netanyahu, who wanted more sanctions placed on Iran, which Trump promptly placed.
And so, the current air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen are likely another one Netanyahu’s schemes, to somehow goad the United States into a full-scale war with Iran, from which Netanyahu will profit.
Because Netanyahu knows that such a full-scale war will certainly save his political career, and will keep him out of prison for corruption. So, far Trump has been happily taking Netanyahu’s bait.
But will Trump actually start a war with Iran? That question remains to be seen. But history tells us that the bloodiest and costliest wars started by America are the ones based entirely on lies.
