SAEDNEWS: Sadegh Zibakalam views the 12-day conflict not as a “full-scale war” but rather as a deliberate Israeli attempt to weaken Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities—highlighting, in his view, the urgency of diplomacy and de-escalation rather than confrontation.
According to Saed News, in an interview with Shargh Newspaper, political analyst Sadegh Zibakalam offered his perspective on the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran.
Here are excerpts from the interview:
Frankly, what happened over those 12 days was not a “war,” and it was primarily triggered by the nuclear file—specifically, the stalled Muscat negotiations. Beyond that, I still firmly believe that war is what has been happening in Ukraine for nearly three years now, and what has unfolded in Gaza for more than 20 months: the mass killings and unprecedented atrocities committed by Israel against the people of that region. For us, war is what was imposed on us by Iraq and the Ba’athists for eight years. Compared to those examples, I maintain that what we saw during those 12 days cannot be considered war.
I believe that during those 12 days, Israel was not pursuing war in the sense of what is happening in Ukraine or Gaza. Rather, it defined specific targets within our territory and sought to achieve them through airstrikes, missile attacks, and drone raids. They martyred several of our commanders and nuclear scientists, aimed to dismantle our nuclear and missile programs, and attacked our facilities to cripple our logistics and military capabilities. In response, we launched our missiles at Israel, which caused damage and casualties. After the bombing of our facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan by the Americans, we carried out a retaliatory strike on a U.S. base in Qatar. That was the extent of what happened during those 12 days—and I still insist, no actual war took place.
One significant aspect of Israel’s recent attacks on Syria was that, perhaps for the first time, we witnessed a bloody conflict where Iran was not blamed and, fortunately, had no involvement. As for Israel’s goals in attacking Syria after the 12-day conflict with Iran, I believe—regardless of whether Israel was seeking to partition Syria or pursue some other objective—the more important point is that Israel may have finally realized that it cannot achieve its aims through bombardment or military aggression. Other countries played a role in pushing Israel back from further aggression. Turkey pressured Israel, as did Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and even the United States. All of them encouraged Israel to accept a ceasefire and end the fighting, handing control back to the Syrians.
Israel failed to meet its stated objectives in Syria. If various countries begin to support different Syrian groups—Kurds, Arabs, Alawites, Sunnis, Druze, and others—it will plunge Syria into crisis, which will undoubtedly have negative consequences for Syria’s neighbors and for Israel itself. In my view, the idea of partitioning Syria is dangerous—for Israel’s own security as well.
A significant portion of the Syrian population is both Muslim and armed, and they harbor deep resentment toward Israel. The old notion that Israel’s security depends on instability among its neighbors does not apply in Syria’s case. If Syria were to fall apart, Israel could be the next target, with armed Syrian Muslims marching toward its borders.
In my opinion, after the events of those 12 days, Israel and the United States have shifted their full attention to Iran—specifically to the question of whether, following the recent escalation, Iran will pursue nuclearization or enhance its missile, military, and regional capabilities. Trump claimed that Iran’s nuclear facilities were destroyed during the attacks on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. But gradually, numerous reports have emerged suggesting that Iran’s underground nuclear infrastructure was not destroyed to the extent Trump asserted. Therefore, the claim that our nuclear capabilities were wiped out is far from reality. Of course, no one truly knows the full extent of the damage. Until the dust of the 12-day conflict settles and the situation stabilizes—until the wreckage is cleared—it is impossible to accurately assess the damage inflicted on the nuclear facilities. No one can provide a definitive figure at this time.
I believe Israel will not initiate another round of aggression against Iran, as neither side—neither Iran nor Israel—appears eager to resume hostilities. During those 12 days, Israel also suffered substantial logistical and military costs, in addition to the damage caused by Iranian missile strikes, which resulted in financial losses and domestic insecurity. The evacuation and sheltering of Israeli citizens also incurred significant expenses. It is clear that Israel—and Prime Minister Netanyahu, in particular—have no desire at this stage to trigger a renewed confrontation.
Let’s not forget: Israel continues to bear immense military, logistical, security, political, and diplomatic costs due to its ongoing and intensifying atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza. Global public opinion is increasingly turning against Israel and Netanyahu, which is raising the stakes. In Iran, aside from a few voices from a fringe of hardliners, I believe the broader political establishment is not seeking a return to heightened tensions. Iran, after all, has never been the initiator of any war.
