f Gaza.
Other Arab comments, especially official ones, did not bring anything new. For instance, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry described the recent developments as a dangerous escalation, directly resulting from what Egypt had repeatedly warned against—the dangers of conflict escalation due to Israel’s war on Gaza. The UAE contented itself with demanding a halt to regional escalation and avoiding serious consequences while warning against further instability. Saudi Arabia similarly called for de-escalation, while Qatar expressed deep concern.
As for Jordan, it stood out as the only Arab state that participated in intercepting some of the Iranian marches and rockets, as stated by its Prime Minister, Mr. Bisher Al-Khasawneh, eloquently expressing: “Foreign objects flying in Jordan’s skies were targeted.” Nevertheless, the Jordanian government joined the same “moderate” Arab statements in urging parties to exercise restraint and address regional tensions with discipline and responsibility.
Thus, Arab official comments continue to speak in generalities, without specifying who did what, where the responsibility lies, and what relevance all this has to the ongoing massacre in Gaza.
On the international level, I will suffice with a few indicative examples. The Secretary-General of the United Nations called for an immediate halt to hostilities in the Middle East, urging all parties to exercise restraint and avoid any actions that could lead to major military confrontations on multiple fronts in the Middle East. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that the Iranian attacks “once again confirm Iran’s lack of respect for peace and stability in the region,” asserting Canada’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself and its people against these attacks (without hearing any comment from him on the right of the Palestinian people to defend themselves).
It was not surprising that the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry condemned the Iranian attack, describing it as unacceptable and irresponsible (given that its president has announced more than once that he is a genuine Zionist, some in Ukraine have wondered, if America and Britain have the capability to intercept hundreds of Iranian drones and rockets to protect Israel, why don’t they do the same to protect the Ukrainian people, who are facing incessant attacks of drones and rockets from Russia? Perhaps the answer to this question lies in the fact that Ukraine lacks a strong lobby in Washington like Israel does).
As for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, he hastened to write on website X: “Britain will continue to stand by Israel and protect its security, as well as all regional partners including Jordan and Iraq… Iran has once again proven its determination to spread chaos in its regional surroundings.” (Mr. Sunak conveniently forgot the primary reason behind this chaos, especially since it was originally a “British-made” product, and at least Britain bears a historical, ethical, and legal responsibility – as the Mandatory Power over Palestine according to the League of Nations – for all the Arab and Jewish bloodshed in Palestine over 75 years, being the source of the infamous Balfour Declaration. Despite its responsibilities as a mandate state over “Palestine,” it had abandoned it under a new name” Israel”, and documents now reveal much of the shame carried by Britain’s leaders in creating this monstrous entity, especially the foremost Zionist Churchill who played a central role in this tragedy… No, Mr Sunak didn’t remember that, otherwise, he would also recall what Great Britain did in his ancestors’ land.)
Unfortunately, history is not a script that is written after the end of the movie! …
As for Ireland, which maintained a balanced position on the current events in Gaza, it called on both sides to exercise restraint and avoid escalation after the reckless attack carried out by Iran – as described by the Irish Foreign Ministry…
In Germany, Chancellor Scholz wrote on website X: “The Iranian attack is unjustified and irresponsible, and Iran is risking another escalation in the region. Germany supports Israel and will discuss the matter with allies.” (Perhaps Mr Scholz has his excuse given the enduring legacy left by his ancestors’ crimes as Nazis, although he did not explain why Palestinians are paying the price for these crimes with their blood.)
France, on the other hand, affirmed Emmanuel Macron’s commitment to Israel’s security, while still calling for restraint!
It was notable that during Sunday prayers, the Pope in the Vatican addressed the large crowds, referring to the Iranian attack the day before, calling on all nations to stand for peace and help Israelis and Palestinians live in two neighboring states in safety…
As for China, the official spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry stated: “China expresses serious concern about the current escalation, which is one of the consequences of the conflict in Gaza. The ceasefire must be implemented promptly.” This statement is entirely relevant.
Pakistan announced that the Iranian attacks are a result of “diplomatic failure,” and Pakistan has been urging for months for international efforts to prevent the expansion of hostilities in the region and to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza… (A kind of disclaimer that is not to be blamed).
Finally, the Russian position was limited to calling on all parties to exercise restraint.
It appears that all this momentum of regional and international statements was not enough to convince the “Arab trumpet players defending Israel,” as these trumpets produced some brilliant scenarios from their hats, repeatedly chanting since the first announcement of the Iranian attack that it was a staged play agreed upon by the three main parties (Iran, America, and Israel) sometimes to preserve Tehran’s reputation, which has sworn more than once to take revenge against Israel after its repeated attacks on Iran and its leaders and scholars. The evidence for this is that whoever plans a military operation of this magnitude does not announce details of the attack before carrying it out, then sends drones covering about 1800 km to reach Israel after long hours, which Israel and its allies (and partners in the region) have prepared to repel the attack. The confirmation came after the attack was already over, with the Israeli military spokesperson stating that about 99% of the Iranian marches and rockets had been intercepted, which means that the play had been completed as planned: “saving Tehran’s face and not shedding a single drop of Zionist blood, and each party can celebrate being the victor.” A play that might not encourage any viewer to follow… Was it really like that?
As for the main parties in the “play,” with Iran as its protagonist, this was the first time Tehran launched a direct attack from its territories against Israeli lands, and before the “Al-Aqsa flood” on October 7 last year, Iran was receiving multiple strikes from Israel on Iranian sites in Syria and Iraq, even within Iran itself, and each time it threatened to retaliate but did
Could the “hero” of the play have been encouraged and improvised, inspired by the “slap” received by the Israeli military on October 7 and subsequent slaps during the operations that lasted for months in Gaza, shaking the “Israeli horrors” that Israel considered in itself a “moral deterrent,” using it to spread fear among its neighbors.
Not only that, but Iran declared in unmistakable terms that it “will respond” with full force, and more fiercely if Israel itself decides to attack Iran, or even its allies (whether America, Britain, or France), or its partners (is there a hint here about Arab partners?).
Is this truly a play when Commander Hussein Salami, the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, warns that the “Sincere Promise” operation (perhaps to contrast with the previous repeated threats) has introduced a “new equation” into the conflict, where there will be direct retaliation whenever Israel attacks Iranian interests (and the writer of this article has previously stated in both written and spoken interviews that what happened on October 7 will result in several adjustments to the frozen equations in the Middle East).
Is it a play when Sardar Bagheri, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Army, threatens Israel and “America,” warning against any attack on Iran, and adds that his country sent a message to America through the Swiss embassy, warning Washington against cooperating with Israel in its upcoming operations because America’s military bases in the region will not be safe, and they will be dealt with?
The second pivotal character in this “play” is America, which made it clear after the Iranian operation ended that President Biden contacted Netanyahu and made it explicitly clear that “America will not participate” in any attacks against Iran while continuing its commitment to protect Israel from threats by Iran and its proxies in the region. Blinken (who has openly declared himself “a Zionist”) reaffirmed that they will consult with their allies and “partners” in the region in the coming hours and days, and America strongly condemns the Iranian attack but does not seek escalation, reaffirming its continued support for Israel.
It seems that Trump decided to seize the opportunity during his election campaign in Pennsylvania, announcing: “The Iranian attack would not have happened if he were President of America,” and added: “I want to say, God bless the people of Israel, for they are under attack now.” Was Biden participating in a play that could affect his chances in the upcoming elections?
As for John Kirby, the spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council (and one of Israel’s advocates in the American administration), he stated “The decision to respond to Iran depends on Israel,” meaning that the man, perhaps as a lone voice so far, did not warn Israel of the dangers of taking military action. Could this be a play whose script was not seen by anyone on this important site?
According to the comments of the Republican representative from Florida and Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in Congress, when he spoke to CNN, he said, “The goal of the Iranian attack is to make Israel an ‘unlivable’ place, leading to its collapse economically and socially,” questioning the impact of this attack on the number of tourists in Israel today and in the coming weeks, or on investment and business sectors in Israel. This is a reality that cannot be ignored by anyone. Did Israel agree to a play that adds new losses to it?
In conclusion, I find no logic in those who attack Palestinian resistance and declare hostility against Iran because, according to some of them, it “supports terrorism,” which in their understanding is resistance. If they were truly defending Arab national security, they might know the Arab saying: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And if their Western culture does not allow them to understand that, perhaps what Churchill did during the darkest hours of World War II when German bombs were pounding London, deciding to ally with Stalin despite all the voices of opposition, saying: “If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the devil.”
This does not mean that Iran’s positions are exempt from criticism, or that it is unknown that Netanyahu has been seeking from the outset to widen the circle of war to involve America and its allies in a war against Iran. Thus, America helped Israel by destroying Iraq’s power, then got rid of its strongest enemies even if it cost American blood and money, not to mention that this might save Netanyahu from an increasingly tight internal account. Is it conceivable that Iran would agree to play a role in a play that saves Netanyahu from his inevitable fate?
In any case, my opinion has always been that expanding the war will threaten stability and security in the entire region, and perhaps the world as a whole, and global peace is contingent on any miscalculation or misjudgment, not among today’s world leaders like Roosevelt, Churchill, or De Gaulle. We are facing faded copies of Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain, and Ceaușescu… God help us!
