The Tangwall Campagin. On Saturday morning, Israel and the United States announced “preventive strikes”. Some people were surprised by this name. Are you one of them?
Pierre Lellouche. The United Nations Charter recognizes only two exceptions to the prohibition of the use of force: self-defense or authorization by the Security Council. The concept of “preventive war” is only acceptable in international law if the threat is imminent. Which is not the case for the United States. Trump, however, justified his strikes by emphasizing the (real) danger of the Iranian atomic bomb and Iranian missiles which, today, threaten the entire region, are even approaching Europe and could reach the United States itself tomorrow.
Trump is referring to Iranian space launchers which foreshadow the intercontinental rockets of tomorrow. For the Israelis, the threat is immediate: they received some 500 Iranian missiles (medium range, 2,000 kilometers) during the Twelve Day War, and 35 of them apparently penetrated anti-aircraft defenses. However, since June 2025, Iran has reconstituted a good part of its missile stock. It also has numerous shorter-range missiles, sufficient to reach all their Arab neighbors. That being said, Trump also clearly mentioned another objective: the end of the mullahs’ regime and the liberation of the Iranian people whom he called to rise up…
And yet, negotiations were still taking place this week…
On Thursday, in Geneva, the Iranians had indeed very cleverly proposed a package “Venezuelan style”. That’s to say : “You leave the regime in power, in exchange for which we dilute, under international control, our 450 kilos of uranium enriched to 60%. » They proposed reducing their enrichment capacity to a very low level (1.5%) for medical purposes exclusively, they said, but while retaining the right to enrich uranium, a right according to them guaranteed by the non-proliferation treaty. They also accepted the return of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But above all, they offered the Americans the opportunity to make a lot of money in Iran on oil, gas, and the purchase of dozens of Boeings… All without war! On the other hand, they gave nothing away on the missiles, excluded from the discussion, nor on their support for the “proxies” of the region (Hamas or Hezbollah, Yemen, Iraq), and even less on their appalling internal repression. In the end, Trump did not “dealed”not wanting a compromise similar to the 2015 JCPOA agreement – which he himself denounced in 2018. He demanded a total elimination of both missiles and bombs, the equivalent of a capitulation for the Iranian regime. He thought he was buying time: clearly, the Iranians made a calculation error.
To what extent could these strikes strengthen a link believed to be weakened between the United States and Israel?
It is certain that Israel is increasingly attacked in the United States and that Trump does not want to give the impression of being in its service. This is also the reason why he insisted, in his speech, on the Iranian threat to American territory itself. But to carry out its current operation, the United States needs Israeli intelligence.
Isn’t this an extremely risky business for Donald Trump?
Yes. And this is true on both sides. Trump has no right to fail, nor does the Iranian regime. Both parties are playing their part in this affair, and this is the reason why we can speak of total war: it is a war to the death between the two regimes.
That’s to say ?
The Iranian regime is at stake for its survival. The mullahs and their security apparatus control the entire economy and earn a lot of money. Losing power means losing all of this, and even their lives. Because today, they find themselves with massive internal protest, their defense has been very weakened by the twelve-day war, and their allies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza have been hit hard, even eliminated. Faced with the American-Israeli attack, they are going all out and will use all the means remaining to them to directly strike American soldiers and bases or ships (Trump’s point of vulnerability), the Israeli population, and bring war to all their Arab neighbors, not to mention the possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
“ Trump didn’t
no choice:
he has to come out
winner »
This is why the moment is historic. The defeat and disappearance of the mullahs’ regime would be an immense relief for the entire Middle East and for the world. But conversely, the moment is just as crucial for Trump.
Because of his past promises?
The war comes at a time when Trump is already weakened domestically (a slap from the Supreme Court on customs duties, poor polls, rising inflation, etc.), a few months before the mid-term elections which he cannot lose without compromising all of his actions. But Trump embarked on this matter alone, without any consultation, either with allies or with Congress. If this war is prolonged, with American losses, he will struggle to build a consensus on Iran. Including in his own camp, he who was elected on the refusal of “endless wars” and who is on the eighth use of force in just over a year in power… He too has no choice: he must emerge victorious. And it is not won.
Especially since he also calls for a change of regime…
In history, there is no precedent for regime change achieved by aerial bombardment alone. We obtain a change of regime when we put forces on the ground. However, it is unthinkable for him: no boots on the ground. So he is probably gambling his mandate on this, and his career too.
Moreover, he puts the responsibility on the Iranians. What do you understand about this strategy?
This is already what he said two months ago, and that is why the bet is risky, and the company fragile. For the moment, he is still supported by his Maga base, but criticism has already started in Congress or in the press, who accuse him of confusing objectives and an illegible strategy. That said, if the strikes result in fracturing the regime, and the Iranians take the opportunity to overthrow it – this can only come from them since there are no foreign soldiers on the ground – it will be a huge victory for Trump. And for the West with him, moreover.
The Iranian regime is certainly Islamist, but also nationalist. Can’t he benefit from it?
One of the fears, in the event of bombings, is the flag effect in a very patriotic and nationalist people. But this regime is so bloody that the break seems real. Today, we saw Iranians dancing in the streets, literally, under bombardment! The Iranians I speak to, here and there, talk about liberation, which they sometimes compare to the American bombings in Normandy!
Is it possible to analyze, already, the reaction of the Iranian regime?
They have what it takes to ignite the entire region, but that would not necessarily be positive for them. Because it would push the Arabs into the Abrahamic camp – in the sense of the Abraham Accords. For the moment, their reactions are more in the direction of criticism of Iranian strikes on their soil, rather than denunciation of American-Israeli strikes.
What fundamentally distinguishes the Iranian regime from other governments in the region?
They have a real mutual contempt. And the Arab countries do not appreciate the role of leader of the Muslim world acquired by Iran from the Arab street – in particular by encircling Israel by its “axis of resistance” stretching from Yemen to Lebanon, via Iraq and Syria. In truth, the Gulf Arab countries are all weak. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, these are very small populations. What they want is to continue to sell oil and carry out their development projects. They have no desire for war. If the mullahs’ regime is overthrown, it will be the triumph of the Abraham process.
There will always be the risk of Sunni terrorism…
Yes. In Syria, the question is what will become of the new regime; some fear that its president has remained a terrorist leader. For the rest, the Sunni terrorist threat is unfortunately not over, but has moved towards the Sahel, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan…
“The EU wants it
de-escalation,
risk of strengthening
the diet »
So it’s not a solved problem, but if the Iranian regime is eliminated, it will still be a proud service to the region.
Should we fear, given the number of actors already involved willingly or by force, a general conflagration? Involvement of China or Russia?
What interests China is Iranian oil, and so their only concern is the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz at present. The Russians have neither the intention nor the means to get involved. Nobody’s going to get involved. It was in 2022 that the real shift took place.
At the time of the war in Ukraine?
Yes. The 2015 nuclear deal was possible because everyone was aligned to put pressure on Iran: Europeans, Americans, Chinese and Russians. But Trump broke it in 2018… In 2022, we lost Russians and Chinese with the war in Ukraine. Instead of helping us control Iranian military power, they supported it – Russia is sending planes of hardware (including short-range anti-aircraft missiles) in exchange for the Shahed drones used in Ukraine; China is willing to sell much more dangerous anti-ship missiles… But apart from the delivery of equipment, there is no Russian or Chinese intervention to fear.
Does the European Union have a role to play?
No, as usual unfortunately. We issue wordy press releases, we challenge the Iranian regime while calling for calm. We want de-escalation, at the risk of strengthening the regime… Europe could be within range of Iranian missiles, but we don’t have much to say. It’s saddening.
