The resignation of the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center is significant. He is not leaving his post due to a technical dispute or institutional burnout, but rather after stating that Iran did not pose an imminent threat. This statement not only contradicts the dominant narrative but also destabilizes the very foundation upon which the legitimacy of the military escalation has been built. And yet, it has barely altered the public debate.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post It has been reported that Israel is encouraging the Iranian population to rebel against its government. This is not mere rhetoric: Israeli sources admit that an uprising could trigger a massive crackdown. The strategy presupposes a high human cost in Iranian civilians, while those promoting it remain beyond their reach, and it turns internal destabilization into a tool even when its consequences are foreseeable.
In this context, the notion of imminent threat loses its function as a limit. For years it served to legitimize the use of force; today it appears as a malleable criterion. When even actors with privileged access to intelligence recognize the absence of immediate risk, and yet the military dynamic continues, the criterion ceases to be security. Another logic comes into play: regional control, projection of power, and the ability to decide which risks matter and which are ignored.
All of this is happening while Israel continues killing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and has intensified its attacks in Lebanon. This is not an inevitable chain of events, but rather the result of sustained political decisions. War is no longer an exceptional measure but has become an integral part of conflict management.
This redistribution is not neutral. It falls on already vulnerable populations: Iranians, victims of airstrikes and subjected to predictable repression; Palestinians, under sustained offensive; Lebanese caught in an escalation they cannot control. Their lives become a variable factor in strategic calculations formulated elsewhere.
But this logic also fails to protect those who promote or support it. And it has effects beyond the region: it increases the volatility of energy prices, redirects public spending toward militarization, increases the exposure of soldiers, and consolidates a political climate marked by fear and insecurity. The promise of security becomes a dynamic that reproduces instability.
And Europe observes, expresses concern, and maintains its alliances. But this position also has material effects. The continued arms exports, political cooperation, and lack of effective pressure all contribute to sustaining this framework. This is not passivity, but rather a form of involvement that allows these dynamics to continue without a significant political cost for those who promote them.
What is at stake is not just a specific conflict or a particular escalation. It is the threshold beyond which war becomes acceptable, even as its own justifications erode.
