In the midst of an escalation that risks igniting the entire Middle East, Riccardo Redaelli—one of Italy’s foremost experts on regional geopolitics—offers a clear and in-depth interpretation of the strategic balances at play, from military logic and political tension to religious implications. From the Israeli strike to the Iranian response, from the collapse of international diplomacy to the role of faith, Redaelli examines the roots and scenarios of the crisis: “Geopolitics has systematically failed. Unless the human awakens, only the logic of force will prevail.”
Has the Israeli strike on Iran marked the start of a bilateral war or triggered a broader regional crisis?
The risk is that it becomes a regional conflict. Initially, Israel attacked another state deliberately.
Israel is a nuclear state that has for years declared its intention to prevent Iran from obtaining the atomic bomb. Netanyahu chose to attack while negotiations were still ongoing: Iran is not close to a bomb, but only to military-grade uranium enrichment.
Jerusalem claims this was a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear programme. Is this narrative credible?
US intelligence reports maintain that Iran was not physically building a nuclear device—a much more complex process. The strike was thus a political decision, shaped also by internal Israeli politics: whenever Netanyahu faces difficulty, he turns to war.
Full professor of Geopolitics and History of Asian Institutions at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, where he also heads the research centre on the Global South and the wider Mediterranean (CrisSMa). An expert on Iran and the Islamic world, he has authored numerous studies on political, religious, and strategic dynamics in the Middle East, and has conducted field research in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.
The reaction from Iran surprised many observers. How do you interpret it?
It is an oppressive regime, but it responded far more effectively than expected. Even Israel did not anticipate that its defence systems would be breached. This is significant.
What does it reveal that Arab states did not support Israel as they have in the past?
It says a lot. In previous Iranian missile attacks, Arab and Western countries assisted Israel in intercepting them. This time none did—partly due to Israeli arrogance in declaring self-sufficiency, partly because the Arab world is today much less aligned with Israel than before.
The Arab world today is much less aligned with pro-Israel positions than in the past.
You often speak of Iran’s “resistance” rather than concrete strength. What exactly do you mean?
Israel has total military superiority. Iran once believed it could maintain asymmetric deterrence using missiles and regional militias. But Israel has neutralised Iran-aligned militias and severely weakened its missile programme. Today, Iran can inflict annoyances, not counterbalance Israeli might.
Could eliminating the Pasdaran commanders upset the balance within the Islamic Republic?
I doubt it. The regime is deeply unpopular—at least three quarters of Iranians want its downfall. But no organised opposition exists capable of overcoming it. As long as hundreds of thousands of Pasdaran and Basij are willing to fire on their own citizens, the regime endures.
Even decapitating the leadership isn’t enough?
No—toppling a regime requires more than eliminating its leaders. Moreover, these commanders were already divisively criticised from within. The old Pasdaran guard close to Khamenei was corrupt and softened by power and wealth; a new generation despised them, and may now rise. But this is no cause for optimism—it could lead to something worse: more ideological, more ruthless, more fanatical.
The old Pasdaran guard close to Khamenei was corrupt and softened by power and wealth. A new generation despised them, and may now rise. But this is no cause for optimism—it could lead to something worse: more ideological, more ruthless, more fanatical.
Meanwhile, the war in Gaza continues. How would you characterise it?
In Gaza, generals are waging war against hungry people—mostly children. It is the massacre of a population deprived of food, medicine, and care.
What political project lies behind this escalation?
It is the attempt to realise the repugnant dream of Israel’s far-right: the “biblical Israel.”
Is there still credible space for international mediation?
Unfortunately, the European Union is pathetically irrelevant. The crises in Ukraine and the Middle East could have prompted change—but Europe failed to seize the opportunity. Member states remain divided, and the foreign affairs representative remains fixated on Russia alone.
Overnight from 12 to 13 June, Israel launched operation “Rising Lion”, targeting over a hundred sites in Iran—including nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow, missile bases, and Pasdaran command centres—killing several senior officers and scientists. In response, Iran struck Israel on 13 June with over 150 ballistic missiles and drones, many intercepted by the Iron Dome and regional defences. Some warheads hit areas near Tel Aviv and Be’er Sheva, causing damage and casualties. The international community convened an urgent UN Security Council session. Concerns are growing of a wider conflict spreading to Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, where Iran-aligned militias are active.
Can the United States still play a role in containment?
With or without Trump, US posture is incoherent: they say one thing and do another. They feign negotiation, but allow Israel to wage a reckless war. Those with the means lack will; those with will lack means. The result is moral paralysis in diplomacy.
Does it still make sense to speak of peace in this context?
Yes, because there must remain room for peace. Religious initiatives are often mocked as naïve. But the truth is that politics has failed, and geopolitics has failed systematically.
But the truth is that politics has failed. Geopolitics has failed systematically. Religious leaders—Christian, Muslim, Jewish—must continue proposing a different vision, founded on humanity, justice, compassion.
Have you seen any concrete signs in that direction?
Pope Francis and the Vatican have played an important role, for example in facilitating prisoner and casualty exchanges. They did not stop the war, but opened cracks. This is essential—because beyond political calculations, we need an appeal to the best in humanity.
An appeal that transcends religion and appeals to our shared humanity…
Exactly. I don’t mean the religious dimension is automatically the best—but it can evoke deep values: compassion, justice, dignity. If we lose those, only algorithms and power games remain. We become machines, and the world turns into a faceless tragedy.
