The Joel Espanol Maturan Blog

Iran and Israel: A Deepening Rift Rooted in History – My Take on a Protracted Conflict

As I sit down to write this, I realize that the Iran-Israel conflict is not just a regional issue—it is a global concern that ripples across borders, influences international diplomacy, and affects the everyday lives of people in the Middle East. As someone deeply concerned with peace, justice, and the interconnectedness of our world, I feel compelled to offer this reflection and analysis on one of the most complex and volatile rivalries of our time.

Origin of the Iran-Israel Conflict

The roots of the Iran-Israel conflict are political, ideological, and religious—woven into the fabric of shifting alliances and revolutionary upheavals.

Before 1979, Iran and Israel were strategic partners. Under the Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), Israel had diplomatic ties with Tehran, and both countries collaborated in areas such as intelligence, military cooperation, and trade.

However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution dramatically changed everything. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s new theocratic regime denounced Israel as an illegitimate “Zionist entity,” refused to recognize its right to exist, and positioned Iran as a champion of the Palestinian cause. This shift marked the beginning of an open and enduring hostility between the two nations.

Historical Timeline of Conflict and Confrontations

1980s – Proxy Beginnings
Iran began supporting anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, a powerful Shi’a militia trained and funded by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This marked the rise of proxy warfare, a key element of the Iran-Israel rivalry.
1990s–2000s – Escalation Through Words and Arms
Iranian leaders publicly called for Israel’s destruction, while Israel consistently lobbied the international community to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile, Iran expanded its network of influence in Gaza and Lebanon.
2006 Lebanon War
A major conflict erupted between Israel and Hezbollah. Iran was accused of arming and financing Hezbollah's capabilities, which intensified Israeli concerns about Tehran’s strategic reach.
2010s – The Nuclear Shadow and Cyber Warfare
Israel viewed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat. In 2010, the Stuxnet virus, believed to be a joint U.S.-Israeli operation, sabotaged Iran’s nuclear facilities. Covert assassinations of Iranian scientists followed—often blamed on Israeli intelligence.
2015 – JCPOA and Diplomatic Breathing Room
The Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) momentarily reduced tensions. Iran agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. But Israel, led by then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, fiercely opposed the deal, calling it a mistake.
2018–2023 – U.S. Withdrawal and Shadow War
The Trump administration's withdrawal from the JCPOA reignited hostilities. Iran resumed uranium enrichment, while Israel conducted airstrikes in Syria targeting Iranian military positions, and attacks on Iranian weapons shipments intensified. Iran retaliated with drone strikes and escalated threats against Israeli infrastructure.
2024–2025 – Tensions on the Brink
Ongoing Israeli attacks on Iranian operatives in Syria, Iran’s suspected coordination with groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and regional destabilization following the war in Gaza have pushed the conflict into a dangerous, near-direct confrontation.

Failed Resolutions and Diplomatic Gaps

Throughout this long-standing conflict, attempts at resolution have been limited, fragmented, and mostly indirect. There is no formal diplomatic engagement between the two states, and regional summits often exclude any real Israeli-Iranian reconciliation effort.

The JCPOA was the most structured attempt to de-escalate tensions, but it failed to address the ideological, regional, and military components of the Iran-Israel rivalry. Moreover, normalization deals like the Abraham Accords further alienated Iran, which viewed them as a betrayal of Palestinian interests.

My Reflections and a Call for a New Perspective

As I reflect on this decades-long animosity, I can’t help but see the tragedy of potential lost to pride, ideology, and militarism.

Iran and Israel are two ancient civilizations with rich histories, brilliant minds, and cultural legacies that have inspired humanity. And yet, their narrative today is written in the language of missiles, proxy wars, and existential fear.

This conflict has become a vortex, sucking in neighboring states, global superpowers, and innocent civilians—Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanese, Syrians—who pay the ultimate price while governments wage ideological warfare.

Unique Conclusion: A Conflict That Needs Rewriting

The Iran-Israel conflict is not fated. It is sustained by choices, policies, and posturing—and therefore, it can also be rewritten by courage, dialogue, and mutual recognition.

I believe the path to peace begins not in Geneva or Tehran or Tel Aviv, but in the collective will to stop dehumanizing the other. Peace requires empathy, truth, and courageous leaders willing to be unpopular for the sake of future generations.

Recommendations for Peace and Progress

Reinvigorate Diplomatic Channels
A backdoor dialogue mechanism between Iran and Israel, possibly facilitated by neutral countries like Switzerland or Oman, could open lines for crisis management and confidence-building.
Regional Peace Framework
The UN or a regional peace council could initiate a Middle East non-aggression pact framework—binding countries like Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to regional de-escalation terms.
People-to-People Diplomacy
Cultural exchange programs, academic collaborations, and diaspora dialogues can break down decades of demonization.
Stop the Proxy Arms Race
Both Iran and Israel must restrain from arming militias and engaging in asymmetrical warfare. The region needs fewer weapons, more schools.
Strengthen Civil Societies
Support NGOs, peace movements, and young activists from both sides who are calling for dialogue over division.

Final Word

As a global citizen, a peace advocate, and a student of history, I choose to believe in the power of dialogue over destruction. The Iran-Israel conflict may seem intractable, but even the most bitter rivalries can end—when both sides dare to see beyond the past and begin to write a different story.

A story not of vengeance, but of vision.

#IranIsraelConflict #MiddleEastPeace #EditorialOpinion #GlobalAffairs #JoelEMaturanWrites

A Critical Analysis of the War on Drugs Campaign by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte: Gains, Gaps, and the Road Ahead

In 2016, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte launched the controversial “War on Drugs” as a centerpiece of his administration. Backed by tough rhetoric and a promise to eliminate the country’s drug problem, the campaign drew both praise and condemnation. This blog post provides a balanced and critical analysis of the program—its background, execution strategies, effects on society, and lessons for future governance.

The War on Drugs was formally initiated through Project Double Barrel, spearheaded by the Philippine National Police (PNP) in July 2016. It aimed to eradicate illegal drug use and trade, primarily through a two-pronged approach:

Oplan Tokhang – derived from Visayan words “toktok” (knock) and “hangyo” (plead), involved police officers visiting homes of suspected drug users and pushers, urging them to surrender and undergo rehabilitation.
Oplan HVT (High-Value Target) – focused on identifying, neutralizing, or apprehending high-profile drug personalities and syndicates.

Prior to Duterte’s presidency, the Philippines faced a growing problem with methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as “shabu.” Previous administrations acknowledged the issue but implemented softer community-based rehabilitation programs. Duterte, drawing from his Davao City governance style, championed a more hardline and immediate approach.

Strategies

Nationwide Tokhang Operations
Police conducted house-to-house visits, initially emphasizing voluntary surrender. However, operations soon turned aggressive, with reports of nighttime raids and violent confrontations.
Involvement of Barangay Watchlists
Local officials compiled names of suspected users and pushers, which were then validated and used as targets for police operations.
Use of PNP and PDEA Collaboration
The PNP led the initial wave but, after growing criticism, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) later took a more prominent role.
Encouragement of Citizen Reporting
Community members were encouraged to report drug-related activities, increasing surveillance and accountability—but also fostering fear and suspicion.
Establishment of Community-Based Rehabilitation
Amid criticism, the administration promoted Barangay-based rehabilitation centers and reintegration programs for voluntary surrenderees.

Pros of the War on Drugs

Heightened National Awareness
Drug addiction and trafficking were placed front and center of public discourse.
Massive Drug Surrender Statistics
As of late 2021, over 1.3 million drug personalities reportedly surrendered nationwide, per government statistics.
Crackdown on Drug Syndicates
Numerous high-value targets were neutralized, and several drug labs were dismantled.
Barangay Engagement
The program decentralized anti-drug efforts, making barangays frontline players in implementation and monitoring.

Cons and Criticisms

Alleged Human Rights Violations
Over 6,000 deaths in anti-drug operations (as per PNP reports), with independent bodies claiming higher numbers. Many of these involved alleged extrajudicial killings.
Fear and Breakdown of Community Trust
Communities grew wary of law enforcement. Accusations of abuse of power, mistaken identities, and planting of evidence surfaced.
Poor Targeting and Inconsistent Data
The process of identifying drug suspects was often unclear, with limited validation mechanisms. This led to possible wrongful deaths and arrests.
Overburdened Criminal Justice System
Courts and detention facilities were overwhelmed, resulting in delayed hearings and congestion in jails.
Minimal Focus on Rehabilitation
Critics argued the campaign was punitive and lacked substantial investment in long-term rehabilitation and reintegration.

Impact to Society

Social Polarization
The campaign deeply divided public opinion—some hailed Duterte as a crime-fighting hero, while others saw the campaign as authoritarian and inhumane.
International Backlash
Organizations like the UN, Human Rights Watch, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) launched inquiries and condemned the alleged rights violations.
Influence on Law Enforcement Culture
The campaign emboldened police forces, but also raised issues of impunity, lack of oversight, and abuse of power.
Rise of Civil Society Movements
NGOs, church groups, and human rights defenders became more vocal and active, demanding transparency and justice.

The War on Drugs under PRRD was a defining chapter in modern Philippine governance. It aggressively confronted a real national problem but did so through a method fraught with ethical dilemmas and legal controversies.

Key takeaways:

Drug issues require a holistic approach—addressing not just supply, but demand, poverty, education, and mental health.
Rule of law must prevail—combating crime must not come at the cost of human dignity and due process.
Community engagement is vital—barangays should be empowered, not militarized.
Post-campaign healing is necessary—truth, justice, and support for victims’ families must be prioritized.

As the Philippines moves forward, future anti-drug programs must learn from the past—balancing firmness with fairness, and enforcement with empathy.

Author's Note:
This analysis does not seek to discredit the intention to create a drug-free Philippines but to call for a more humane, evidence-based, and sustainable approach in addressing such a complex issue.

#WarOnDrugs #DuterteAdministration #HumanRights #PhilippineGovernance #BarangayEmpowerment #CommunityBasedSolutions