Innocent Onoh
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced earlier today that Israel had accepted a ceasefire proposal brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, the world momentarily exhaled. After about two weeks of escalating military action between Israel and Iran, global attention shifted to what this ceasefire truly means. But in the immediate aftermath, a storm of misinformation flooded social media platforms, painting a completely different picture — one that falsely claimed Iran had brought Israel and the United States to their knees. This disinformation campaign, clearly orchestrated by anti-Israel propagandists, deserves a closer examination, and must be debunked with facts and reasoned analysis.
The narrative peddled by these online commentators suggests that Israel and the U.S. reluctantly agreed to a ceasefire because Iran had gained the upper hand in the conflict. They cited Iranian ballistic missile strikes on Israeli facilities, including a refinery, a research center, and high-profile civilian structures, with some 30 civilians reportedly killed. This argument seeks to frame the ceasefire as a surrender by Israel and the U.S. — a conclusion that is not only misleading but intellectually dishonest.
The truth, as outlined by Prime Minister Netanyahu in his official address, is entirely different. He emphasized that Israel had achieved all its principal objectives in Iran:
✓Full air superiority over Tehran
✓Elimination of senior Iranian military leaders
✓Crippling of Iran’s nuclear and missile development infrastructure
✓Destruction of key Iranian military assets
These are not small feats. Achieving air dominance over a sovereign nation’s capital, particularly one as heavily militarized as Tehran, is not just symbolic — it is strategic and decisive. In warfare, air superiority is a critical indicator of control. It means Israel could, if it chose to, obliterate Iran’s governmental and military infrastructure at will. Yet, it chose to limit its targets to strategic military and nuclear sites, avoiding the wholesale targeting of civilian populations — a stark contrast to Iran’s retaliatory posture, which targeted residential areas and sought to inflict human casualties.
Let us look more closely at Iran’s supposed “victory” narrative. One of the claims made was that Iran bombed American facilities in Qatar in retaliation for U.S. involvement. But multiple credible reports suggest that this was a carefully staged drama to save face rather than a genuine act of aggression. Iran reportedly informed Qatar ahead of the attack, and Qatar in turn informed the U.S. military. The resulting missile exchange was tightly choreographed, allowing only a single explosion in a predetermined safe location. What was intended to look like an act of resistance was, in reality, a geopolitical theater — a face-saving gesture to appease domestic hardliners in Tehran, not a declaration of military strength.
It is crucial to understand the psychological warfare at play. Iran’s leadership understands the importance of symbolism in the Middle East. By staging a retaliatory strike, they hoped to preserve the illusion of parity with Israel and the U.S. But that illusion crumbles under scrutiny. If Iran truly had the upper hand, why pre-inform a third country (Qatar) of an imminent strike? Why limit the impact to a controlled detonation? The only rational conclusion is that Iran sought optics over substance, theater over real resistance.
In truth, the war laid bare Iran’s vulnerabilities and simultaneously showcased Israel’s unchallenged military dominance in the region. Not only did Israel neutralize threats within Iranian borders, but it did so with a level of precision and control that reflected deep intelligence and technological superiority. Meanwhile, Iran resorted to launching rockets from hidden bunkers and civilian zones, with minimal success beyond limited infrastructural damage.
This brings us to the broader lesson: war, no matter the victor, brings destruction. The ceasefire, while welcome, should not erase the horrors endured by civilians on both sides — particularly those manipulated into thinking violence will bring them dignity or victory. The vast destruction could have been avoided if Iran had chosen diplomacy over defiance from the onset.
What was Iran’s expectation? Perhaps that its traditional allies — Russia and China — would come to its defense. But again, this expectation was naive. The international order may appear fractured, but on critical matters of global security, world powers often find common ground. Russia’s unexpected public alignment with Israel should serve as a warning to Tehran and its sympathizers. President Vladimir Putin’s open affirmation of Israel as a country with deep-rooted emotional and historical ties to Russia sent a clear signal: Iran is, at best, a transactional partner in arms trade — not a true ally.
While Russia may sell weapons to Iran, its heart is not with the Ayatollahs. It profits from their desperation. The longer Iran fights, the more weapons it buys. And when the cost of war escalates beyond what Iran can manage, it will find itself isolated — armed, but abandoned.
Nigerians — especially those who took to the streets in misguided solidarity with Iran — must reflect. We are a sovereign nation with diplomatic ties to both Israel and the U.S. Our role should be that of a neutral voice for peace, not a cheerleader for regimes whose ideological extremism has no place in a democratic and religiously plural society like ours. America’s recent security warning to its citizens in Nigeria, prompted by such public demonstrations, portrays us in an unfavorable light internationally. Let us be wise. Supporting terrorist-aligned regimes under the guise of religious loyalty is not patriotism; it is recklessness.
Beyond the geopolitics, there is a moral clarity to this war. Israel, for all its military might, pursued strategic targets aimed at preserving global peace — dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which remain a source of global anxiety. Iran, on the other hand, demonstrated its disdain for civilian life by deliberately targeting non-military zones. This contrast must never be lost on the world.
As we move forward, the ceasefire must not be misread. It is not an indication of weakness by Israel or the United States. If anything, it is a demonstration of restraint — a signal that despite having the capacity to annihilate its enemy, Israel chose peace. That is not surrender. That is power under control.
And what of President Trump’s role? Once again, he proved his unique ability to mediate high-stakes conflicts and broker peace under fire. His intervention prevented what could have escalated into a broader regional war involving other Middle Eastern nations. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, this much is clear: Trump remains a key player in shaping global diplomacy.
In summary, let us reiterate the facts:
✓Israel achieved all its military goals and demonstrated dominance over Iranian airspace.
✓Iran’s retaliations were symbolic, not strategic.
✓Russia publicly aligned with Israel, shattering Iran’s hope of support.
✓The U.S. demonstrated tactical diplomacy through Trump’s ceasefire negotiations.
War is tragic, and its escalation is often rooted in false expectations and propaganda.
Let Nigerians and the wider world not be swayed by emotional narratives spun by internet warlords. The truth is grounded in facts and confirmed actions. If the world must take sides, let it be on the side of truth, justice, and measured strength — not propaganda-fueled delusions.
Israel walks out of this conflict stronger, more united, and undefeated. And the world, hopefully, walks away wiser.
Innocent Okoro Onoh is a senior correspondent with Radio Nigeria
