SAEDNEWS: From Israeli perspective, real threat does not come from the nuclear arms per se but it is from its possessor. The reality is that the Zionist regime cannot stand any nuclear knowledge or technology possessed Islamic states.
Anyone who imagines that recent events in the West Asia (especially the Israeli attack on Iran, which has reverberated throughout the world) are simply a struggle for regional influence, a fear of nuclear technology, or an attempt to overthrow a political Establishment is making a major strategic mistake. US President Donald Trump may have been right to recognize that regime change could be one of the outcomes of these conflicts, but what is wrong is surveying the roots of the story.
The minds of Trump and his longtime ally Netanyahu turned to a war with clear and declared goals, from destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities to eliminating what they called the “Iranian missile threat.” But neither the tactical goals were realized nor the strategic dreams materialized. Trump’s contradictory statements at various times were evidence of a failure that was not only military but also deep rooted on a deeper, civilizational level; a conflict that has been going on between civilizations since the dawn of history.
But is this the end of a four-decade confrontation shaped by equipment, training, proxy conflicts, threats, and sanctions? Or does it merely reveal the surface of a deeper crisis?
In a world where power is no longer defined by missile arsenals alone but by the logic of “superpowers,” security artificial intelligence, and technological warfare, battles cannot be measured by classical standards. Today’s war is more about “civilizational centrality” than about resources or technology, a concept that Fukuyama wrote about in detail in 1992 and Huntington in 1996. In this sense, the Iran-Israel-US war should be considered as a crystallization of the clash of two civilizational projects: the emerging Islamic project that claims to offer an alternative model, and the established civilizational projects that have lined up with all their might against it.
Iran, the axis of the Islamic Revolution and its civilizational embodiment in geopolitical dimensions, is trying to redefine its historical position; a position beyond the role that the West, since the era of colonialism and then industrialization, had assigned to it: the “gendarme of the Gulf” or a subordinate actor in the global order. Today, Iran seeks to become a civilizational model that balances advanced technology and value sovereignty. A model that is considered a full-fledged challenge to the liberal capitalist world and the Israeli security order.
From Israel's perspective, the real threat does not lie in the nature of the weapon, but in the nature of its owner. The danger begins when the weapon falls into the hands of an ideological mindset that does not tolerate the existing order. For this reason, Zionist doctrine does not tolerate any nuclear knowledge or technology in the possession of Islamic countries.
As Iran moves from a defensive phase to an innovative phase, civilizational components have assumed a decisive role in regional politics and security. By investing in indigenous capabilities in production, exports, technological independence, and economic resilience, Iran has not only overcome sanctions but has also turned them into a tool for internal reinforcement; as we have practically witnessed in the new round of sanctions - called the toughest in American history - their failure.
From the perspective of Western theorists such as Huntington, Islamic civilization is a double threat because of its ideological inclusiveness, its transnationality, and its reliance on divine authority: not only does it not want to be a subordinate member of the world order, but it also has the ability to mobilize people across borders. Iran’s regional behavior from the perspective of the “Axis of Resistance” is also a reflection of this view: exporting a model, not in a prescriptive manner, but through inspiration. Contrary to what Iran’s enemies claim, this is not an exported revolution, but a revolution that nations themselves have imported it.
In Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine, the currents of resistance came to Tehran, not the other way around. Even the project of a “united nation,” which transcends ethnicity and geographical boundaries, materialized when nations became complicit in it. This is the historical path of civilizations: they inspire before they create construct.
If Tehran had followed a path similar to what some countries in the region have taken (allowing the sale of alcohol on the streets, holding glitzy Western concerts, or opening the country's economy to predatory American capitalism), then not only would it not see any opposition, but Washington itself would have demanded the construction of nuclear facilities in Iran; as was the case during the reign of Shah Pahlavi. The same president who can take five trillion dollars out of the pockets of the people of those countries by traveling to a regional country would never have a problem with a tame, featureless, and customizable Islam. The Islam that America desires is one that can be used in the global order; not the pure Islam of Muhammad (PBUH).
From this perspective, the recent war was not a one-off event, but a gradual and condensed process of confrontations: from the tanker war to the assassination of scientists, from economic sanctions to nuclear threats. But when Iran's civilizational power crossed borders and became a geopolitical reality in the form of the "Axis of Resistance" project, the United States and Israel considered it an existential threat.
Assassinations, military strikes, missile responses, and open clashes are all superficial manifestations of a deeper conflict. The threat, for American and Israeli strategists, lies not in the missiles but in the model: a model of governance based on ideology, military self-reliance, and narrative autonomy.
Iran stands against the American globalization project with an alternative project; one that places justice, spirituality, and sovereignty at the center. Hence, as Brzezinski and Kissinger have said, the emergence of such a civilization is enough to shake the global balance.
This war is not a war over the present. Not even over yesterday. Rather, it is a confrontation over the future; between those who consider themselves the bearers of a heavenly message, and those who consider power alone as the criterion of legitimacy.
Yes, this is a moment of global tension that promises the birth of a new civilizational order; one that will redefine not just geography, but memory, narrative, perspective, and the meaning of existence.
