“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts,” warned the prophetess Cassandra as the wooden horse loomed at the gates of Troy. Her warning, ignored, became legend. Today, thousands of years later, another fortress nation stands encircled, not by spears and shields but by drones, intelligence networks, and diplomatic pressure. That nation is Iran, and the modern Greeks are not soldiers at its gates but agents within its walls.
Conflict between Iran and Israel started after the Iranian revolution in 1979. At that time, the new regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, in a stark opposite to his predecessor Reza Shah Pahlavi, galvanized national fervor based on anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments. By this time, Arab nations had already went to war with Israel 4 times in less than three decades with hopeless results.
As they say euphoria and chaos often go together, but the observer does not know which one is which. The sense of victory in Tehran that followed the fall of Shah Regime, has rallied immense enthusiasm amongst the Persian nation, but what followed after the initial success was a series of reforms by the new regime that widened the cracks in the society rather than bridging the gaps. Significant intellectual class of Iran chose to migrate in the aftermath of Islamic revolution due myriad factors, uncertainty about the civil liberties under the new regime being one of prime concern.
First decade after the revolution was occupied by an eight years conflict over shat-Ul-Arab with Iraq. The presence of a an enemy at its door provided an unprecedented boost to nascent Islamic Iranian nationalism. Conflict with the outside world often leads to a greater degree of cohesion amongst the society but rarely solves the deeper problems under the veneer of unity. Fractures inside the Iranian civil society are far from solve-able, they are deeply ingrained in their disparate worldviews. It is a common lesson of the history that arc of civil liberties follows a uni-directional flow, once granted they cannot be undone easily. We have two recent examples in the history, Iran and Afghanistan where such regressions has occurred during the past 50 years. But this has come at a cost, a divisive civil society which view the regime change not just a temporary phenomenon but an existential crisis.
Israel, a concept whose manifestation and utility had different meanings for leading powers In aftermath of 2nd world war, has proved to be most destabilizing factor in the whole middle. That is what the state department of US in 1945-46 time frame had predicted. But the pentagon’s view of Israel as necessary vasal in the middle prevailed. What followed thereafter, has been an utter disaster, a perpetual state of conflict, whose roots are so deep into the history along with the geopolitics, that it is impossible to reconcile. As rightly said by the first prime minister of Israel Ben Guriav about Arab Palestinians “if they leave their territory they would seize to exist and if we leave our guns we will seize to exit”.
Arab-Israel conflict while being an older issue has somehow settled with Countries like Egypt, Jordan and few others normalizing their relationship while GCC countries were on a track of normalizing through Abraham accords. But the relatively new dimension of Iran-Israel conflict had been simmering since long. Iran, a country with immense resources, could not achieve its true potential due to the diplomatic and economic isolation it had suffered at the hands of west. Notwithstanding the ethical and legal standing of these sanctions, Iranian citizens have suffered prolonged economic hardships which require a strong ideological and nationalist consolation. Iranian nuclear program provides just that fruit of bearing the hardships.
Tel-Aviv has succeeded in exercising a diplomatic influence far greater than its size and beyond its territory. Recognized as a Europe outside Europe for the Jews, the only democracy of the Middle East, and having the most liberal civil liberties that one could imagine; the policies of Israeli government are still shaped by the ancient persecution of the Jews. Policy makers in Tel-Aviv, have found a sweet spot of hypocrisy where they employ antisemitism, and or strategic objectives to garner support for Israel.
Apart from the diplomatic clout of Israel, military strategy of Israel hinges heavily on clandestine operations. Mossad, notorious, but potent, has delivered goods to Israel in the past against other Arab nations has been extensively working on the Iranian turf, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by a disgruntled sections of its society and disemboweled diaspora in the west. But just like ancient Troy, the threat was never only outside the walls.
Like the fall of Troy, what unsettled Iran was not a direct confrontation, but a quiet unraveling from within. In a span of days, a wave of precise strikes dismantled the core of its military and scientific leadership. Among those lost were Maj‑Gen Gholam Ali Rashid, head of Khatam‑al‑Anbiya Central Command, and his deputy Brig‑Gen Gholamreza Mehrabi—pillars of conventional defense planning. Brig‑Gen Ali Shadmani, who was set to succeed them, was also killed before he could assume command. The IRGC’s intelligence arm suffered equally, with Maj‑Gen Mohammad Kazemi and Brig‑Gen Hassan Mohaqeq among the casualties, alongside air defense chief Davoud Shaykhian and drone unit commander Taher Pour. The Quds Force endured heavy losses too, including Behnam Shahriyari, responsible for weapons logistics, and Saeed Izadi of the Palestine Corps. Iran’s regular military, the Artesh, lost key figures such as Maj‑Gen Mahmoud Bagheri, Maj‑Gen Mohammad Bagher Taherpour, and Brig‑Gen Mansour Safarpour—all associated with strategic defense roles. In parallel, a number of nuclear scientists, including Fereydoon Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, were reportedly killed. These were not isolated events but a coordinated attempt to disable critical leadership nodes. The modern Trojan Horse bore no warriors within, only signals—subtle, swift, and deeply embedded—leaving behind silence where command once stood.
The results of these strikes emboldened the US government to jump in and take out the Iranian nuclear program.
What made these events more than just tactical strikes was the suggestion that they had inside help. The presence of informants, the exact knowledge of routes, routines, and internal systems—all pointed to a disturbing possibility: Israel had operatives—or at least collaborators—operating deep within Iran’s security establishment.
This is the modern Trojan Horse—not a structure made of wood, but networks made of men. Intelligence, not infantry. Iran’s leadership has been forced to confront a bitter truth: while their external defenses held, the real breach came from within.
Wars are fought not just on battlefields, but in the minds of those who wage them. Iran, a nation priding itself on revolutionary resilience and ideological unity, has been forced to question its internal integrity. The greatest cost of these Israeli operations may not be the loss of a scientist or a nuclear facility—but the deepening fear that the enemy is among them.
In a country where state control is paramount, and loyalty is sacred, the possibility of infiltration breeds insecurity. How many are compromised? Who can be trusted? Which system is clean?
These are not just tactical dilemmas—they are existential ones. The impact on Iran’s morale and internal cohesion is profound. Every act of sabotage, every leaked plan, every sudden strike is a whisper in the ears of Iran’s leadership: “You are not safe, even within your own gates.”
Israel’s military doctrine has long favored precision, intelligence, and deniability over large-scale confrontations. The 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, the 2007 strike on Syria’s nuclear facility, and countless operations attributed to Mossad follow a clear pattern: strike first, quietly, and leave just enough ambiguity.
This strategy is not merely about achieving military goals—it’s about shaping psychological outcomes. By proving it can penetrate Iran’s walls without a declaration of war, Israel reinforces its deterrent posture while avoiding the political and human costs of full-scale combat.
It’s not brute force. It’s calculated deceit. It’s Troy all over again.
The fall of Troy wasn’t just a tale of war—it was a warning against hubris and misplaced confidence. The Trojans believed they had endured the worst, only to be undone by their own trust. Iran, despite its geopolitical tenacity and ideological rigidity, now faces a similar conundrum. Its walls, built of ideology and surveillance, are impressive. But no wall is impregnable when the breach comes from within.
As the latest chapter in the Iran-Israel conflict unfolds, it may be tempting to track missile exchanges and diplomatic statements. But the real story is in the shadows—the agents, the informants, the betrayals. That is where wars are increasingly won or lost.
In a world of hybrid warfare and artificial diplomacy, the most dangerous weapon is no longer a bomb, but a belief—a belief that one is safe when they are not. Iran’s strategic miscalculation, much like Troy’s, may not have been in underestimating the enemy’s strength, but in misjudging the enemy’s method.
The Trojan Horse did not look like a weapon. Neither does a scientist’s assistant, a janitor in a nuclear facility, or a rogue node in a government database. Yet these are the siege engines of our time.
History, it seems, doesn’t repeat—it reconstructs.
And once again, the gates are open.
By Ertaan Siddiqui
“The writer is a regular columnist on social issues and can be reached at seer42.blog or via email at furian240@gmail.com.”
