Italian Analyst Condemns Israel's Aggressions, Warns of Energy-Driven Geopolitical Strategy

Silvia Boltuc, Founder and Managing Director of SpecialEurasia offers a geopolitical analysis of Israel’s aggressive behavior in the region in an exclusive interview. She sees Israel’s recent attacks on Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon not merely as isolated military actions but as part of a larger strategic project aimed at energy control, territorial expansion, and regime change. According to Boltuc, Tel Aviv seeks to prevent the recognition of a Palestinian state to monopolize access to maritime gas resources and to preserve its geopolitical leverage in a rapidly shifting global order.
She strongly criticizes the West’s selective silence, denouncing Europe’s opportunistic complicity and Israel’s role as a regional outpost for Western interests. Boltuc points to the Western media’s biased narrative as a means of sustaining public support for morally indefensible policies. She also warns of the grave dangers of nuclear escalation, legal double standards, and the long-term destabilization of the region.
In a deeply personal tone, the Italian analyst expresses outrage at the civilian casualties in Iran and Gaza, calls for legal accountability, and urges the world to reject geopolitical cynicism in favor of human dignity. Read the full interview below.

1. These days, the world is witnessing blatant acts of aggression by the Israeli regime against Iran and its people. In your view, why does this regime commit such crimes against defenceless civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran? What drives it to continue these aggressions, including targeted assassinations?
We must distinguish between the various objectives mentioned, even though they fall within a broader, interconnected strategic framework.
With regard to Gaza and the West Bank, the removal of the Palestinian population has consistently been a central element of Israeli policy. Israeli leadership has never genuinely pursued a model of peaceful and equitable coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. This long-standing stance has shaped the country’s approach to territorial and demographic management in the occupied territories.
In parallel, a critical issue that has gained prominence in recent years is the diversification of Europe’s energy supply. The war in Ukraine profoundly impacted European energy security, leaving Europe reliant on expensive US liquefied natural gas and prompting a search for alternative energy partners. This context sheds light not only on Europe’s growing interest in Central Asia but also on developments in the Eastern Mediterranean, including those in Gaza. Following the disruption of Russian gas flows, Israel signed an agreement with the European Union positioning itself as a key future supplier of gas to the European market.
Significantly, the waters off Gaza’s coast contain an estimated one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Gaza Marine field is located closer to shore than Israel’s existing oil and gas installations, making it more economically attractive to develop.
This reality strongly influences current Israeli and allied policies. Crucially, Tel Aviv cannot afford to allow the formal recognition of a Palestinian state. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), only a sovereign state can claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Should Palestine gain formal statehood, it would be legally entitled to assert sovereign control over the EEZ adjacent to its coastline. An EEZ, as defined by UNCLOS (1982), grants a state exclusive rights over the exploration and exploitation of marine resources within that zone.
Despite repeated discussions and proposals, Israel has never allowed the Palestinians to develop or benefit from the Gaza Marine gas field, citing the concern that revenues might be diverted to fund terrorism—while at the same time openly admitting to having supported Hamas for years as a counterbalance to the Palestinian Authority.
The strategic significance of the energy sector cannot be overstated. In October 2023, a consortium led by British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan’s state oil company SOCAR secured exploration licenses for an area west of Israel’s Karish oil field. Simultaneously, another consortium, including Italy’s ENI, acquired rights to a region southwest of the Leviathan field. These developments are particularly revealing, as the United Kingdom, Azerbaijan, and Italy have been among the strongest political supporters of Israel and have notably refrained from condemning the ongoing military actions and humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
In March 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Israel’s readiness to export gas to Europe via Italy. During a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, he presented Israel as a potential partner in transforming Italy into a Mediterranean energy hub. Considering also the substantial profits Italy has accrued through arms sales to Israel, the rationale behind Rome’s political alignment becomes readily understandable.
Turning to BP, it is significant that the company now holds interests in two regions that intersect closely with Iranian geopolitical concerns. It has been granted rights to develop the Gaza offshore gas field and, following Azerbaijan’s military conquest of the Armenian-majority region of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh, has also acquired rights in this newly controlled area. Azerbaijan and Israel have cultivated a close strategic alignment, which Tehran views as explicitly adversarial to both Armenian and Iranian interests—even though Iran has thus far attempted to maintain stable, neighbourly relations with Baku.
The historical dimension is also crucial. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company—BP’s predecessor—was one of the original members of the “Seven Sisters” oil cartel. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalised Iran’s oil industry to regain sovereignty over its resources, a move that led to his overthrow in 1953 through a coup orchestrated by British and American intelligence services. This remains one of the earliest and clearest examples of foreign interference in Iran’s internal affairs, motivated by resource control.
In light of this history, the current decisions by Israel—and increasingly by the United States—to target Iran appear to be driven less by immediate security concerns and more by broader strategic calculations aimed at achieving regional hegemony. Unsurprisingly, if Iran were to be destabilised or overthrown, the next declared target would be Pakistan, particularly due to its nuclear capabilities.
As an analyst, I place a premium on source reliability. If the US intelligence community—arguably the most sophisticated in the world—has publicly assessed that Iran is not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, then any preemptive strike against Tehran lacks legitimate justification. Such an action, moreover, would constitute a clear violation of international law.
The US involvement can be explained by its need for a Western foothold in the Middle East, the influence of the Israeli lobby in Donald Trump’s election, and Washington’s broader strategy to contain China. Striking Iran, and subsequently Pakistan, would have far-reaching consequences for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, inflicting significant damage across the region.
2. The Israeli regime claims to be targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, yet it clearly strikes hospitals, infrastructure, and media institutions, with many of the victims being women and children. How can this contradiction be explained? What is the real objective behind these actions?
Israel has unequivocally demonstrated its capacity to conduct precise, surgical military operations with minimal collateral damage. The systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure in Iran, therefore, cannot be dismissed as accidental. Rather, it appears to be a calculated component of a broader strategy. The objective seems to be the destabilisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran through a bottom-up revolt initiated by its own population. By driving Iranian citizens into a state of despair and portraying the revolutionary government as the primary source of their suffering, external actors seek to incite regime change from within. This narrative is also being actively echoed by Reza Pahlavi, the exiled heir to the former monarchy, through his various social media platforms.
From a principled standpoint, the Iranian people must be free to determine their preferred system of governance without foreign interference, coercion, or the trauma of aerial bombardments that devastate their cities and endanger their collective future.
Additionally, the risk of radiation exposure resulting from strikes on nuclear facilities introduces an intolerable level of danger—not only for Iran but also for neighbouring countries. Such attacks would represent a serious violation of international norms and significantly escalate regional instability. 
Iran holds enormous geopolitical potential, which makes it the target of strategic interests from multiple global powers. Regardless of the nature of its government, a sovereign Iran that does not align with Western policies will never be fully accepted—especially if it emerges as a regional military power capable of surpassing Israel’s military strength.
It is undeniable that Iran’s regional security posture—largely structured around the so-called Axis of Resistance—is perceived as a threat by the West. While such concerns may be considered legitimate within a traditional security paradigm, they must be evaluated in parallel with Israel’s own military posture, including its undeclared but widely acknowledged nuclear arsenal. In a genuinely rules-based international system, Israel must be held accountable under the same legal framework that applies to other regional actors.
Without such parity, international law risks becoming a tool of selective enforcement. This erosion of legal credibility fosters impunity, undermines global stability, and invites dangerous precedents. It is, therefore, imperative that international institutions adopt a consistent and impartial approach in their assessments and condemnations, avoiding any semblance of double standards. 
3. Although the UN and many human rights organisations have documented the war crimes of the Israeli regime, Western governments continue to support it militarily and politically. Why do you think Western countries largely remain silent in the face of these crimes?
Some European countries, such as Ireland and Spain, have long supported the Palestinian cause and the rights of the Palestinian people. In recent months, additional member states have taken a more assertive stance. Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, and Slovenia formally urged European Commission President Kaja Kallas to end EU trade with Israeli settlements. Similarly, Norway, Malta, Slovenia, and Iceland joined public declarations asserting they “will not stay silent” in the face of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and called for a reversal of the blockade policies. France has also issued strong statements, demanding an end to what it described as Israel’s “blind violence” and the ongoing blockade, even threatening sanctions and signalling an openness to recognising Palestinian statehood.
Regrettably, these condemnations have come far too late and have so far remained largely symbolic, devoid of concrete political or economic repercussions. When Israel conducted its attack on Iranian territory—an act in clear violation of the rules of engagement and established principles of international law—European governments refrained from condemning Tel Aviv.
Furthermore, the escalation against Iran has conveniently diverted global attention from the crisis in Gaza, which Israel continues to exploit. While media and diplomatic focus shifted elsewhere, Israeli forces have persisted in targeting unarmed civilians—including those queuing for food—and using starvation as a weapon against a population already on the brink of collapse.
The reasons behind such widespread and unconditional European support for Israel appear to be primarily opportunistic. Notably, Germany and Italy—two countries that have consistently abstained from condemning the mass killing of civilians, particularly children, in Gaza—are also the two largest European suppliers of arms and logistical support for Israeli military operations.
A second, more covert factor is fear. Israel maintains a significant footprint in European political and intelligence circles. There have been credible reports of Israeli espionage operations conducted for purposes of blackmail, including documented cases targeting Italian politicians and journalists. In such an environment, many prefer silence in order to safeguard their professional careers and personal safety.
However, it must be clearly stated that responsibility for the ongoing atrocities in Gaza does not rest solely with the West. Member states of the Arab League possess sufficient geopolitical leverage to pressure Western powers into halting what increasingly resembles an ethnic cleansing campaign. Nevertheless, these states have largely prioritised their own strategic interests—economic partnerships, regional stability, or political alignment—over the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves and their homeland.
4. Western media often portray the Israeli regime as acting in ‘self-defence,’ while ignoring its massacres of civilians in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, as well as its assassination campaigns. How do you interpret this media bias, and what can be done to counter it?
The West harbours deep apprehensions about the rise of what Russia has termed a “multipolar world”—a global order in which multiple actors, with diverging interests and ideological frameworks, challenge the hegemony and normative influence of the Western bloc. At the core of this concern lies a dual imperative. On the one hand, there is the fear of state actors that do not adhere to Western democratic standards and whose governance models are viewed as a systemic threat to the preservation of the liberal international order. On the other, there is a strategic necessity to maintain control over critical energy resources and the global supply routes that underpin economic and geopolitical dominance.
This strategic anxiety is clearly visible in Western reactions to Iran’s ability to exert influence over the Strait of Hormuz—a vital chokepoint for global oil shipments—and in its broader efforts to contain China’s geopolitical reach in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in the increasingly contested Strait of Malacca.
At the same time, the Western media environment remains tightly controlled, especially regarding coverage of the atrocities being committed in Gaza. The rationale is straightforward: an informed European public represents a liability for governments seeking to sustain policies that lack moral or legal legitimacy. Public support is essential for the continuation of those policies, and to secure it, governments must preserve a narrative in which Israel is framed as the perpetual victim. Were the full scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza to be transparently reported, popular indifference would swiftly give way to outrage—threatening the fragile consensus on which these foreign policy decisions rest.
5. What do you believe is the long-term goal of the Zionist regime’s aggressive and expansionist policies? What threats do these ambitions pose to its neighbours in the Middle East?
The current objective is twofold: the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the removal of Palestinians from the territories granted to them under international law. According to Israeli leaders, once these goals are achieved, the next step will be to attract Western investment and strengthen strategic cooperation, positioning Israel as a regional extension of the West in the Middle East. Simultaneously, they intend to target Pakistan and its nuclear program.
For neighbouring countries, the threat lies in Israel’s expansionist ambitions. Several Israeli public figures have referred in the media to territories that, according to biblical claims, are considered part of a “Greater Israel”—an area that would include parts of Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.
Despite Arab willingness to pursue normalisation through the Abraham Accords, Tel Aviv has consistently demonstrated that the country’s strategic interests take precedence over diplomatic agreements and international law.
6. What is your personal reaction to the recent attacks by this regime against Iran and the killing of civilians? What message would you like to share?
As an analyst, I understand the constraints faced by states and the imperatives of geopolitics, which often involve difficult or unpopular decisions. However, as an Italian and a European, fully aware of the role my country has played in supporting the ongoing genocide in Gaza, I can only condemn what is an unacceptable massacre—not only from the standpoint of international law, but above all from a human perspective. Even if the violence were to stop today, the price paid by the Palestinian people—in lives lost and in the lasting psychological and physical trauma endured by the survivors—is irreparable.
This has laid bare, for the world to see, the emptiness of our values-based and democracy-driven narrative, revealing it as fundamentally opportunistic. Even more serious is the blatant disregard for international law and the legal frameworks that underpin it. The ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu was binding, yet no state has enforced it. At the same time, when Iran fails to conform to our directives, we expect it to be internationally isolated. This double standard undermines international law as a pillar of global security and opens the door to highly dangerous scenarios.
My thoughts are with Gaza—with the unbearable grief of mothers burying their children, and with the young ones left behind, unprotected and alone, in the face of a horror for which we all share responsibility. I also think of the civilian victims in Iran. Every day, I message my friends there just to ask if they are still alive. The very fact that such a question needs to be asked is, in itself, a tragedy beyond words.