A mythological veil hiding the true reason for the founding of Israel,
wars that the future cannot avoid,
the ‘untermensch’ portrayal of suffering,
and the final mission of the Iranian revolution
Some conflicts are known to be coming. The outcomes are unclear, but certain conflicts seem pre-written. It’s somewhat defeatist to say that an unwritten future cannot be changed—perhaps even tragic—but the greatest tragedy lies in observing causes and consequences that defy all peace efforts. One such conflict is the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. For a decade (or more), we “knew” that so many things were pointing toward it, and it was difficult to even imagine moves that could prevent a plunge into the bloody vision of the near future. When the idea of Ukrainian neutrality began to collapse, it was clear that large-scale efforts to reorient this geopolitically significant European country would end in a ripping conflict. And the “vision of the vision” of an unpleasant future is often accurate—in Ukraine’s case, it was the fragmentation of a once-great country into at least two smaller ones, each leaning toward its respective “strangler.”
A conflict that hasn’t begun yet, but is already foreseen, is the one in which China finally moves to reclaimcontrol over its “renegade” island. Decades have passed, and fundamental causes haven’t been erased despite the world’s transformations. Defeated nationalist forces fled to Taiwan and found both physical and ideological protection there—thanks to the Taiwan Strait and the U.S. Navy’s enduring presence. Since then, it’s been a countdown to the inevitable moment when China becomes strong enough (if it does) to match and possibly surpass American military power. Beijing prefers waiting because it doesn’t feel surrounded in the same way Russia did when it launched its dramatic invasion on February 24, 2022. In fact, it could be said that China is patiently crafting a surrounding strategy for its grand plan.
There are many other predictions, both minor and major, that will surely come true one unfortunate day—but the greatest of them is almost certainly the conflict between Israel and Iran. Every war in the Middle East, especially in the 20th century, has been a kind of prelude to this one. Iran and Israel, as we know them today, are both relatively new countries despite their historical roots stretching back thousands of years. Israel was founded in 1948, and Iran was “reborn” through the 1979 revolution, becoming fundamentally different from the monarchy that preceded it.
What’s interesting—and many already realize this—is that today’s theocratic Iran, where religion holds primacy over secularism, is in some way a byproduct of Israel’s creation. Or more precisely, of the Nakba (Arabic for “catastrophe”)—the expulsion of Palestinians to “make room” for the new Israeli state. It’s important to be historically accurate: it would be wrong to say the 1979 revolution erupted because of Israel’s founding. That anti-Israeli (and broader anti-Western) sentiment emerged later—not much later, but still after. Primarily, the Iranian people rose against the authoritarian regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi, a pro-Western leader. They rebelled against SAVAK, the brutal secret police, and against the exploitation of their oil-rich land by foreign interests. Later, during the revolution, the Islamist faction led by Khomeini rose as the dominant force, becoming the first Iranian Supreme Leader.
Soon, it became clear that the new, now theocratic, revolutionary Iran was also deeply ideologically invested in the Palestinian cause. This made revolutionary Iran a significant threat to Israel’s existence—deeper than the challenge posed by secular Arab nationalism, which, history would show, had less staying power.
Yet, to the modern observer, Israel’s founding is now a largely abstract concept wrapped in mystique. The Jewish religious narrative, when observed in real-world geopolitical terms, functions almost exclusively as a strategic tool for very worldly goals. The same can be said for Iranian Islamism, the resurgence of Orthodoxy in Russia, or conservative evangelicalism in the U.S., which has grown so influential it can be felt in public life even far from America. But regarding Israel’s creation, clarity only emerges once we set aside the “opium” of religious justification. If we were to redraft the world map based on religious narratives, it would lead not only to global disorder but possibly the end of civilization itself.
Israel is essentially a geostrategic project—more precisely, a British one. That Zionists had been expressing desires for a Jewish state for some time would have remained a forgotten historical footnote if not for the involvement of a great power. As with most ideas, theory alone rarely becomes practice without power behind it. In this case, that power was Britain—the world’s dominant force at the time, seeking to undermine the Ottoman Empire from within. The best path, then and now, was to empower internal factions to weaken or dismantle a rival state.
The plan contributed somewhat to the Allied victory in World War I, after which the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and German empires all collapsed. Britain took control of Palestine and encouraged Jewish immigration. Does this mean Britain ideologically supported a Zionist state? Not necessarily—that’s a myth favored by those who see a deep conspiracy. If there was a conspiracy, it was shallow and opportunistic. Britain’s primary goal was expanding its influence in the Middle East, now seen as a prize due to oil. Britain tried to appease both Arabs and Jews—but it was too late. The genie was out of the bottle. Antagonism toward Britain grew among both communities: Arabs feared population replacement, while Jews feared betrayal by British duplicity.
Then came the greatest horror in human history—World War II. It was a turning point of all turning points. Britain again emerged victorious but was internally weakened, leading to the swift disintegration of its empire and the birth of dozens of new states—among them Israel in 1948.
Official history says that the civilized world, having triumphed over fascist darkness, “allowed” Israel to be established as a grand gesture to a people who had suffered genocide in the Holocaust. Nazi Germany’s death machine—shamefully copied by Hitler’s satellites—killed millions of Jews, as well as many others: Slavs, Roma, and others. While not exclusively a Jewish tragedy, Jews were undeniably the main target.
Still, the idea that powerful nations—always self-interested—suddenly had a moment of compassion and gave Israel the green light out of empathy is a myth designed to distort history. That narrative, then and now, means little if it’s merely a rhetorical veil covering raw geopolitical ambition.
Evidence? The two great post-WWII powers—the U.S. and the USSR—both strongly supported the creation of Israel in 1948. Ironically, Britain, weakened, was no longer enthusiastic. Initially, the U.S. hesitated but quickly saw Israel as a strategic opportunity to project power in the oil-rich Middle East. The Soviet Union also hoped Israel would be its ally—after all, many early Zionists were communists, and many Israelis had Soviet roots (even today, around 20% of Israelis speak Russian).
So from the start, Israel was part of the Cold War dispute. It soon became clear the U.S. would prevail, and Israel became a major strategic win for America. Britain couldn’t manage it. The Soviets lost out too—the American faction within Israel proved stronger.
In any case, there’s little real mystique—only selective mythology. Today’s Israeli right-wing leadership loves the mystique as a blanket justification. But Israel, as a state, almost never acts alone. It has always been and remains a U.S. geostrategic asset—with just enough autonomy to not be called a neo-colony. At times, it even seems to influence the U.S. more than vice versa, a rare historical dynamic. Meanwhile, Russia hasn’t forgotten that Israel almost became “theirs,” which partly explains Moscow’s ambivalent position. Deep in the Russia–Ukraine war, Russia relies on Iran for weapons but doesn’t want to sever ties with Israel either. Iran can’t expect much Russian help. Moscow believes sealed history can eventually be rewritten—that Israel might one day tire of American meddling and remember that Russia once wanted it too. It’s a weak or extremely long-term plan, easily undone by figures like Trump, whose pro-Israel stance was so extreme it may never be matched. Israel knows this—and is now executing long-laid plans.
We know the current war’s timeline. Israel crushed Gaza, defeated Hezbollah, and has now turned its sights on Iran. Whistleblowers’ knees have always buckled before truth and justice—now they are on the ground, hidden from view. On Friday the 13th, 2025, Israel launched an attack on Iran. Militarily, it mirrors Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Ironically, both justify it with “national security” concerns. There may even be some unspoken mutual understanding.
But the greatest moral hypocrisy is shown by those who fiercely condemned Russia, imposed sanctions, and defended Ukraine—yet, only days after Israel’s attack on Iran, openly state their support for Israel.
This seals the truth: victim or aggressor doesn’t matter—only raw interest does. Mystique again serves as a curtain for uninformed masses. But this goes further—those same powers (France, Britain, Germany, U.S.) demand that Iran, which has no nuclear weapons and claims not to want them, “must give them up”—while supporting Israel, the region’s only undeclared nuclear state.
In conclusion: rhetoric is a lever, “information” is propaganda.
It gets worse. Following this newly escalated war reveals something primitive, regressive, and anti-human. Look at how media reports civilian casualties.
What civilians in Tel Aviv and other cities endure is horrific. But many, angered by Israel’s inhuman attacks on Gaza, fall into hate and say, “they deserve it,” forgetting how many Israeli civilians fought to remove Netanyahu’s militaristic regime—unsuccessfully.
Yet, leading European media blatantly treat Israeli deaths as far more significant than Iranian ones—even though Iranian civilian deaths are ten times higher so far. This reflects a grotesque “untermensch” media mindset. It’s morbid—but not surprising. Indifference to tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Gaza already hinted at this. The line separating the “good” from the “bad” is now iron and immovable in European media. If Israel were to drop a nuclear bomb on Tehran, it’s not impossible we’d witness celebration of the ultimate crime.
How this conflict ends remains unclear.
Both sides are showing vulnerabilities—Iran lost key military leaders in an Israeli strike that was publicly announced days in advance (!), while Israel is revealing cracks in its “Iron Dome” and myth of invincibility.
We may be facing another war with no off-ramp.
Israel wants to pull the U.S. in, eliminate Iran’s nuclear capacity, and engineer regime change.
Iran sees this as the greatest—perhaps final—mission of its revolution, and will fight to terrifying lengths, as it did against Iraq.
About the Author
