Opinion
The Ghosts of Baghdad: Why Israel’s Strike on Iran Echoes the Lies of Iraq
Netanyahu’s Iran strike echoes Iraq 2003: no proof, legal defiance, and global consequences

For more than three decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned the world of an imminent Iranian nuclear bomb. In 1992, as a member of the Knesset, he claimed Iran was just “three to five years away” from acquiring a nuclear weapon. By 2012, standing at the United Nations with a cartoonish diagram of a bomb, he dramatically drew a red line indicating Iran’s nearing capacity to enrich uranium for military use. In 2023, he doubled down: “We are attacking Iran’s path to nuclear weapons.” These warnings, now a ritual in Israeli rhetoric, have morphed from projection into justification for preemptive warfare.
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a series of coordinated airstrikes—Operation Rising Lion—targeting over 100 locations inside Iran, including the Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor and facilities in Natanz and Bushehr. Netanyahu defended the strikes as a necessary act to halt Iran’s alleged sprint toward a nuclear bomb. “We will not allow the world’s most dangerous regime to arm itself with the world’s most dangerous weapon,” he declared. But the evidence backing this claim, as in the past, remains deeply contested.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global authority on nuclear compliance, found no indication of active weaponization at the targeted sites. Following the Israeli strike, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi confirmed, “The sites impacted were subject to IAEA monitoring. We had no evidence of deviation toward military use.” The Arak facility, a heavy-water reactor, was being used for peaceful energy development. Notably, Iran has remained a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), granting the IAEA oversight.
Tulsi Gabbard, the current U.S. Director of National Intelligence and former congresswoman, also pushed back against the narrative. In her March 2025 Senate testimony, she stated, “The intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized a resumption of the program he suspended in 2003.” Gabbard added, “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is unprecedented for a non-nuclear state, but enrichment alone is not weaponization.”
The attack’s timing raised immediate questions. Strategically, Israel acted as Iran’s proxies across the region—particularly Hezbollah and militias in Iraq—were weakened by internal fragmentation and economic pressure. Domestically, Netanyahu faced intensifying political scrutiny following the October 2023 Hamas attacks and subsequent war in Gaza. The military action on Iran not only shifted public discourse but also allowed him to revive a decades-old image as Israel’s stalwart protector.
Yet this maneuver came without international legal backing. Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force against another state is prohibited unless it is in self-defense against an armed attack. Article 51 outlines the right to self-defense but only if an armed attack “occurs.” Israel’s justification—that Iran was on the verge of an attack—falls into the category of anticipatory or preventive self-defense, which is not recognized in international law.
The precedent of Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, and its 2007 bombing of Syria’s al-Kibar site, are instructive. Both were unilateral strikes justified as preemptive actions against potential nuclear threats. In the case of Iraq, UN Security Council Resolution 487 condemned the attack. Yet, no such action followed the Syria strike due to geopolitical deadlock. Operation Rising Lion continues this pattern—military action without multilateral legal sanction, carried out in defiance of the international legal framework.
This all feels eerily familiar.
In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, citing the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as a core rationale. American leaders, supported by faulty intelligence and widespread media amplification, claimed that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical and nuclear arms. The invasion went ahead without explicit UN Security Council approval. Months later, no WMDs were found. The intelligence had been wrong—or deliberately manipulated. The human and geopolitical cost: over a million dead, a destabilized Middle East, and a generation of lost credibility for Western foreign policy.
The similarities between 2003 and 2025 are not just academic—they are damning. In both cases, a state acted on the basis of intelligence disputed by international watchdogs. In both, there was no imminent threat or active attack. In both, the justification for military action involved existential language—about rogue regimes, evil leaders, and weapons of mass annihilation. And in both, legal norms were ignored, sidelined by the will of power and politics.
Iran’s nuclear program, despite its opacity and gamesmanship, has not—according to both the IAEA and U.S. intelligence—crossed the threshold of weaponization. Israel’s strike destroyed facilities central to peaceful nuclear development, including a heavy-water reactor that could have eventually produced medical isotopes and civilian power. Far from halting a weaponization path, the strikes may now radicalize Iran’s approach, undermining moderates and empowering hardliners who call for withdrawal from the NPT.
The legal implications are as stark as the strategic ones. The UN Charter, the cornerstone of the modern international order, was crafted precisely to prevent wars based on suspicion or fear. Without proof of an imminent attack, unilateral military strikes are illegal. As with Iraq, the world once again faces the question: what happens when states ignore law to act on assumptions?
Meanwhile, the political dynamics in Washington are shifting. President Donald Trump, now in his second term, has so far resisted direct military involvement. He has revived his “America First” doctrine, emphasizing domestic priorities over foreign entanglements. In a recent rally, Trump stated, “We are not the world’s policeman. We don’t go to war unless America is directly attacked.”
Yet Netanyahu is clearly angling for American backing. Analysts believe Israel’s escalated military posture is designed in part to trigger U.S. involvement. However, under the U.S. Constitution, a president cannot declare war without congressional approval. Trump faces a divided Congress, with key members in both parties demanding evidence and restraint. For now, the administration has limited its support to rhetorical backing and intelligence sharing.
Will Trump take the bait? That remains the million-dollar question. His reluctance to commit American forces could signal a break from the neoconservative playbook of the early 2000s. But history has shown that presidential resolve can shift rapidly under pressure—especially if a future Iranian reprisal targets U.S. assets in the region.
If international law is to mean anything, it must be enforced impartially. Otherwise, it becomes not law, but rhetoric—a mask behind which power operates with impunity. Israel’s repeated claims of existential peril from Iran’s nuclear program may hold emotional and political weight, but without evidence, they echo the same manipulation that led the U.S. into Iraq.
Netanyahu’s legacy, then, may be bookended by two wars driven by manufactured threats. The first he encouraged; the second he led. In both cases, the world paid the price.
As we reflect on these events, we must ask ourselves: how many more times will we believe the wolf is at the door, only to discover it was never there? And how long can the world tolerate a system where might makes right, and truth is the first casualty of ambition?

Opinion
The Washington Eye: A Bold Vision in Global and U.S. Journalism

The Washington Eye is an independent news platform founded on a clear mission: to bring truth to light with courage, context, and credibility. We are not just another media outlet — Washington Eye is a sharp, bold vision for modern journalism in a noisy world.
We believe that news should inform, not manipulate. That stories should go deeper than headlines. And that journalism must serve the public, not power.
What We Stand For
🔹 Independent Reporting
The Washington Eye is free from corporate influence and political bias. Our loyalty is to truth and to the readers who seek it.
🔹 Global & U.S. Coverage
From the heart of Washington D.C. to global conflict zones, our reporting spans across politics, economics, social justice, and human stories.
🔹 Critical Thinking
We challenge narratives. We fact-check everything. We ask the hard questions others avoid.
What You’ll Find on Washington Eye:
- Politics: Deep analysis of U.S. government, policy, and elections.
- World News: Geopolitical developments and global affairs.
- Business: Markets, money, and the changing economy.
- Opinion: Thought-provoking insights from independent voices.
- U.S. Focus: Stories that matter to Americans, from coast to coast.
A Platform with Purpose
The Washington Eye exists to empower citizens through accurate information and fearless storytelling. We’re here to shed light — not add to the noise.
Whether you’re a reader, contributor, or simply curious, you’re welcome to be part of a news movement that values clarity, truth, and depth.
Washington Eye — Journalism That Sees Through the Noise.
Business
From Barter to Bitcoin: The Journey and Future of Currency
Currency is trust, coordination, and stability; without it, society and global trade collapse rapidly

by: The Washington Eye
Currency is one of the most significant inventions in human history, yet many of us overlook its importance in our daily lives. At first glance, money seems simple—coins in your pocket, bills in your wallet, or digital numbers in a bank app. But beneath its surface lies a complex system of trust, governance, and economic coordination. Currency works because people believe it works. It is not just a tool for buying and selling; it is a shared agreement among individuals and institutions that a certain object—whether paper, metal, or digital code—holds value and can be exchanged for goods and services.
Before currency came into existence, human societies relied on the barter system. In barter, people exchanged goods and services directly. This method, while natural in small communities, had major limitations. It required a double coincidence of wants: both parties had to want what the other had. If you had wheat and wanted shoes, but the shoemaker didn’t want wheat, you couldn’t trade. Currency solved this problem by serving as a universally accepted medium of exchange. Early currencies included commodities like salt, cattle, or gold—items considered valuable and difficult to fake. Eventually, these evolved into coinage and paper money, often backed by physical commodities such as gold and silver. In modern times, we use fiat money, which has no intrinsic value but is declared legal tender by governments and accepted because people trust the system behind it.
Today, central banks and financial institutions manage currency through complex tools like interest rates, inflation targeting, and money supply regulation. When handled well, these tools can stabilize the economy, foster investment, and generate employment. But mismanagement—such as excessive money printing—can lead to disastrous consequences, including hyperinflation. Historical examples like Zimbabwe or Venezuela demonstrate how quickly a currency can become worthless when public trust is lost. Without faith in currency, prices skyrocket, savings vanish, and economies collapse.
Now imagine a world without currency. Would we return to barter? Perhaps, but that would bring back the same inefficiencies that currency was invented to solve. More likely, alternative systems would emerge. These could include commodity money like gold or oil, decentralized digital currencies such as Bitcoin, or even systems of social credit or labor exchange. Each of these, however, has its flaws. Cryptocurrency, for example, promises decentralization but remains volatile and vulnerable to speculation. Commodity money might favor nations rich in resources and deepen inequality. Social credit systems, while potentially fair, could also become tools of control and surveillance.
A world without currency would likely cause global trade to collapse. Currency provides a common unit of account that allows us to price goods, calculate profits, and manage contracts. Without it, international transactions would become chaotic. Supply chains would stall, and financial markets would lose their foundations. Moreover, debt and long-term contracts rely on stable money. Without currency, these agreements lose meaning. Lending would slow down, investments would halt, and the global economy would become stagnant.
Some idealists imagine a future where money is no longer needed—where technology, automation, and abundance make everything freely accessible. In such a society, resources could be distributed based on need rather than ability to pay. This vision, promoted by movements like The Venus Project, presents a post-currency economy guided by logic and sustainability. But achieving this would require more than technological advancement. It would demand a radical transformation in human behavior, moving from competition to cooperation, and from ownership to shared access. Such a shift, while theoretically possible, is not likely in the near future.
Ultimately, the question is not whether we can eliminate currency, but how we can use it more equitably. As the world becomes increasingly digital, currencies will continue to evolve—through blockchain, central bank digital currencies, and global financial reforms. But the fundamental role of currency as a tool for coordination and trust will remain. Rather than dreaming of a currency-free utopia, our focus should be on building systems that make currency work for everyone, not just the privileged few. Currency is not just about money; it is about meaning, fairness, and the structure of our economic lives. Without it, society as we know it would unravel.

Opinion
The Middle East Bermuda Triangle for Peace and Security
Middle East stability requires KSA-USA-Israel alliance, countering Iran and China, ensuring regional peace

The decades of wars and tensions in the Middle East have reached a point of no return and any ceasefire will not cut the deal for peace and stability in the region. Which is a requirement for the New Middle East and a New World Order by 2030. Therefore, the scenarios of the geopolitics of the region are no longer a classic one with Iran as the “Torch” holder of hegemon. The aging and decaying system of Iran exemplified by the so-called Ayatullah Khamenei the Supreme Leader, becomes irrelevant in a futuristic worldview.
A system based on false theology, or an apocalyptic mission, will only serve as the axis of evil. Such mission was rapidly spreading in the last few years by a movement called “Shiatization” of the world, which is basically a global movement aims to manipulate youth around the world to become paramilitary soldiers implementing a prophecy of the resurrection or “the reappearance” of the 12th Imam Mohammed Al Mahdi a descendent of the Prophet Mohammed according to the Shia sect of Islam. It is important to note that based on this myth; a false claim the Quran does support; the Shiatization movement has a significant role of destruction and in creation of a total dystopia as a pre-requisite condition for “the reappearance” to happen.
Therefore, the Middle East and particularly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) have stepped in as a prominent power in the region with a clear vision of 2030 for the Middle East. The KSA under the Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) have taken bold steps to strengthen the relationship with the United States with President Trump in Office. The two leaders of a vastly different worlds and backgrounds, have significant and noticeable friendship as business men and Heads of States. The world witnessed the success of the Saudi-American Economic Forum in Riyad in May 2025, and massive investments for years to come. Granting the sanctions lift of Syria and allowing its new leadership to have a chance to stabilize Syria and save the lives of millions of the Syrian people, meant a lot for MBS and showed confidence in his regional leadership. Same goes with the other Gulf Countries during President Trump’s visit to the region to ensure that Arabs are solid allies to the United States of America. What is remarkable about Trump and MBS, is that both share the undeniable prospect of the Middle East once it has peace and stability in place. The 2030 vision of the Crown Prince MBS is that eliminating the Iranian/IRGC intrusive violent interference of the proxies in Iraq, Syria (under Assad), Lebanon with Hezbollah, Houthis in Yemen and Hamas in Gaza. Only then, the alliance of Arab nations could enter into real peace agreements with Israel.
Furthermore, the U.S.-Israel relationship will also need to step up given the decades of alliance and ironclad ties, Israel, cannot live in isolation from its regional neighbors. Thus, a Bermuda Triangle must be secured as KSA-USA-Israel. The US as the trusted ally to both countries, and Trump as a trustworthy leader to both MBS and Benjamin Netanyahu. Both who might seem rivalries, they are in fact have more in common including a core value of peace and security in the region. The tactics or approaches might differ significantly, but that can be addressed through soft-diplomacy the trademark of KSA, not the arm twisting, but rather building on common grounds. For instance, both leaders count on the peoples in the region, Arab Muslims, Kurds, Druz, Christians, Jews, Persians, Bloshs, Azaris, and many other ethnic and religious minority groups. Both leaders want to establish and secure economic prosperity and wealth of resources including sustainable energy resources and agriculture. Therefore, if President Trump could bring KSA and Israel to the negotiation table with realistic expectation rather than selling new maps, the future of the region would very well be worth every effort for peace.
Finally, how Middle East Bermuda Triangle effect the United States? i.e. what is the Return of Investment for the America First and Make America Great Again? The wealthy region will be entirely a strong ally to the US, not only economically, but also in every industry concerns the American superiority such as the energy, minerals, trades, water passages, and overall presence. The Middle East peace and security or as I call it the “Bermuda Triangle” will be a massive buffer zone against China which is creeping into Africa using Iran as its proxy which is actively spreading the Shiatization movement that entails more terrorists’ organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and the militias in Iraq. The alliance between Iran and Egypt and Algeria is not for bilateral diplomatic relations, but rather a destruction power to threaten Israel and to sabotage the West Sahara Desert Agreement with Morocco. China through Iran will increase their exploitation to African countries to ensure destabilization and attacks on U.S. interests in the continent. In addition, the China-Iran alliance have funded operations, based on open-source intelligence reports, to reach American soil by exploiting open border policy of the Biden Administration, and have established training and grooming camps in Cuba and Venezuela.
In conclusion, the Bermuda Triangle Peace and Security of the Middle East through the U.S., the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel is a necessity for world peace and security; by forcing the Islamic Republic of Iran to hand down its torch of hegemon by Peace through Strength Policy of the U.S. of the Trump Administration. The power of KSA and Israel together will hold the fragile region together and build it up from ruins. The KSA legitimately can unite the Arab countries for peace and stability without leaving Israel in isolation. While the U.S. will have a greater presence with solidified allies and partners to counter the greater global threat of China and its proxy of Iran.

-
Business5 months ago
Why Are Planes Falling from the Sky?
-
Opinion5 months ago
How I Spent My Week: Roasting Musk, Martian ICE, and Government Absurdities
-
Business3 months ago
Trump’s ‘Gold Card’ Visa: Citizenship for Sale at $5 Million a Piece
-
Politics4 months ago
Trump and the New World Order
-
Politics7 months ago
Comrade Workwear Unveils ‘Most Wanted CEO’ Playing Cards Amidst Controversy
-
Politics6 months ago
The Changing Face of Terrorism in 2025
-
Opinion6 months ago
From Le Pen to Trump: The Far-Right Legacy Behind a Presidential Comeback
-
Opinion6 months ago
2025: The Turning Point in Global Power and Security