These days, the world is witnessing blatant acts of aggression by the Israeli regime against Iran and its people. In your view, why does this regime commit such crimes against defenseless civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran? What drives it to continue these aggressions, including targeted assassinations?
“Israel’s strategy relies on overwhelming force—including targeted killings and widespread military strikes against both military and civilian targets—to deter enemies and systematically weaken their capabilities.
Recent attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, conducted in collaboration with the United States, aim to hinder Iran’s advancement toward a potential nuclear arsenal. This reflects Tel Aviv’s long-standing security doctrine that views a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat. The assassination of high-ranking military and scientific personnel further supports this strategic imperative to neutralize leadership nodes and disrupt command-and-control frameworks within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and associated nuclear programmes.
Israeli historical military campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza have focused on Hezbollah and Hamas infrastructure, considered by Tel Aviv to be Iranian proxies. Repeatedly using excessive force in these areas, including cities, seems aimed at two goals: weakening enemy capabilities and deterring both regional opponents and the country’s own people.
While operational justifications typically center on defense, including civilian infrastructure in these campaigns, Israeli military operations and attacks in the last couple of years show a broader strategy of psychological attrition, aiming to reduce the resilience of local population and reduce the support from regional actors. This approach, however, also invites international condemnation and exacerbates humanitarian crises.”
The Israeli regime claims to be targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, yet it clearly strikes hospitals, infrastructure, and media institutions, with many of the victims being women and children. How can this contradiction be explained? What is the real objective behind these actions?
“Israel’s attacks on civilian infrastructure contradict their stated aim of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear and missile programs; we can contextualize this discrepancy by examining their strategic communication and deterrence strategies.
Israel maintains its operations are precision-based and intelligence-driven, aimed at neutralizing threats before they mature into existential risks. However, the widespread collateral damage inflicted during these operations, including on hospitals, energy infrastructure, and media institutions, shows either a tolerance for civilian casualties within the operational risk threshold or a deliberate attempt to undermine civilian morale and support structures.
Militarily, these actions aim to undermine the enemy’s resolve by attacking key support systems like logistics, media, and social stability. Israel treats civilian infrastructure in this context as dual-use, justifying its targeting under its rules of engagement.
Moreover, Israel’s actions targeting Iranian figures, especially within the IRGC and nuclear programs, suggest an effort to cripple not only Iran’s physical capabilities but also its institutional expertise.”
Although the UN and many human rights organizations have documented the war crimes of the Israeli regime, Western governments continue to support it militarily and politically. Why do you think Western countries largely remain silent in the face of these crimes?
“Despite extensive evidence of alleged Israeli war crimes documented by international human rights organizations, Western governments persist in their political and military backing because of geopolitical considerations, strategic alliances, and historical ties. We are in a well-known field of double standard policy which for years has characterized the West.
Israel remains a principal ally for Western powers, particularly the United States, in a region marked by strategic competition with adversarial powers such as Iran, Russia, and increasingly China. Close intelligence sharing, collaborative defense technology, and a mutual interest in countering Tehran’s regional influence make Tel Aviv a key player in Western Middle Eastern policy.
Western countries, particularly the United States, often prioritize strategic stability and maintaining alliances over concerns about human rights, affecting their political calculations. Consequently, condemnations of civilian casualties often remain rhetorical, with little effect on arms transfers or diplomatic backing.
A perception reinforces this dynamic, particularly within US policymaking circles, that Israeli security actions contribute to regional stability by containing regional power’s ambitions and suppressing non-state actors that threaten Western interests in the region.”
Western media often portray the Israeli regime as acting in ‘self-defense,’ while ignoring its massacres of civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, as well as its assassination campaigns. How do you interpret this media bias, and what can be done to counter it?
“Entrenched political alliances, media ownership patterns, and the effectiveness of Israeli strategic communications explain the predominance of pro-Israeli narratives in Western media. In conflict situations, the Israeli government’s proactive and coordinated information operations often dominate the initial information space, allowing it to frame military actions within a defensive narrative.
A general skepticism exists in Europe, for instance, towards state media from Iran, Lebanon, and Palestine, which are often dismissed in Western outlets as unreliable or propagandistic compounds. This creates an unbalanced information environment that boosts Israeli narratives while silencing alternative perspectives.
Combating this bias requires a concerted effort to improve access to reliable open-source intelligence, bolster the credibility and visibility of neutral monitoring organizations, and fund independent investigative journalism in conflict zones. Promoting digital literacy and transparent sourcing of conflict information is key to fostering informed public debate.”
What do you believe is the long-term goal of the Zionist regime’s aggressive and expansionist policies? What threats do these ambitions pose to its neighbors in the Middle East?
“Israel’s long-term strategic posture appears oriented towards ensuring regional hegemony by eliminating what Tel Aviv considers emerging threats. Israel seems to be following the Roman proverb, ‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’ – if you want peace, prepare for war. Regrettably, this stance has shifted from defensive to offensive, shown by recent major attacks in Iran.
Israel aims to hinder Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by weakening its military and targeting key personnel, as well as warning other regional players about the consequences of supporting Iran. The primary aim is to achieve regional dominance and unimpeded military mobility.
Such a posture, however, introduces significant risks. This increases the likelihood of regional conflict, aids terrorist groups—particularly the Islamic State—in spreading propaganda and organizing asymmetric attacks through their foreign fighters and supporters, and jeopardizes nearby countries by drawing them into larger conflicts. Furthermore, unilateral military actions outside of declared wars weaken international law and cause lasting instability in already volatile regions like Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.”
What is your personal reaction to the recent attacks by this regime against Iran and the killing of civilians? What message would you like to share?
“Analyzing the recent Israeli attacks on Iranian infrastructure reveals a major change in regional conflict: a move from secret intelligence operations to open warfare between states.
Civilian casualties, especially women and children, serve as a clear sign of the unequal burden placed on non-combatants in contemporary military conflicts. The pattern is not exclusive to this theater, but its continuance prompts important inquiries regarding the implementation of international humanitarian law and the weakening of the principle of proportionality.
The message, therefore, must be one of urgent restraint and strategic recalibration. The international community and regional actors must acknowledge that Israel started the conflict through its illegal and deliberate attack on Iran. It is discriminatory to argue that only Israel has the right to self-defense, ignoring Iran and other states Israel has attacked, who also may protect their citizens.
Despite Western media’s one-sided coverage, Europeans are increasingly seeking alternative sources for a more complete picture of events. Hence, despite certain European governments and institutions showing hostility towards Iran and its people, Italians and Europeans feel a closer bond with your country and its citizens who are facing the repercussions of a conflict that might have been prevented years ago had Western institutions maintained balanced relations in the Middle East.”
Giuliano Bifolchi, Research Manager at SpecialEurasia and an expert in intelligence analysis, security, and Islamic history, examines in this exclusive interview the Zionist regime’s ongoing acts of aggression in the Middle East—from targeted assassinations to attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon. Drawing on his knowledge of geopolitical dynamics, Dr. Bifolchi discusses the strategic motivations behind Israel’s military actions, the role of Western complicity, the manipulation of media narratives, and the dangerous erosion of international law. His analysis highlights how what is framed as “self-defense” by Tel Aviv increasingly aligns with an expansionist doctrine that destabilizes the region and threatens long-term global security.
NOURNEWS