The war that Israel launched against Iran last Friday morning raises many questions, but the strange thing is that the answers to some of these questions are not surprising, as they are expected, but few of them are extremely surprising, even though they are almost expected. Nevertheless, observers and those interested in public affairs continue to raise these questions, and therefore it is useful to clarify which of them should not be a source of surprise.
Let's start with the two immediate protagonists, Israel and Iran. There's nothing surprising about the Israeli attack, either in its likelihood or timing, or what appeared to be Iran's initial exposure on the first day of this confrontation. Regarding Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently called for a strike on Iran to prevent its nuclear program from reaching the threshold—the ability to enrich uranium to 90%, enough to produce a nuclear bomb. Aside from the strategic considerations behind this position—namely, Israel's insistence on being the premier military power in the Middle East with its monopoly on nuclear weapons—declaring war on Iran would serve to prolong his government and put him on trial. As for the timing, there could not have been a more appropriate day for the Israeli attack. It coincided with the end of the 60-day deadline set by the US president for a peaceful settlement of the dispute over the nuclear program with Iran. It followed a decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of directors that Iran had violated its commitment to the agency to adhere to a certain limit on uranium enrichment, as well as conducting nuclear activities at sites unknown to the agency. The attack also came days after a phone call with the US president last Monday, in which Netanyahu informed him of his intention to launch a strike on Iran. Trump did not object to this, and the Israeli cabinet approved it that evening. Following this, the presence of US diplomats and their families in a number of Middle Eastern countries, particularly Iraq and some Gulf states, began to be reduced. None of this is surprising, as it is well known to all readers of serious newspapers and Israeli media outlets.
• • •
As for Iran, its extreme vulnerability to the first wave of the Israeli attack on Friday morning should come as no surprise. Israeli airstrikes in April and October of last year destroyed Iran's state-of-the-art S-300 air defense system, imported from Russia. It is well known that the Iranian government has faced financial and political difficulties in modernizing both its military and civilian aviation due to Western sanctions. It may have attempted to compensate by relying on the production of drones, at which it has been quite successful, even exporting them to Russia, which relies on them in its war in Ukraine and in the development of ballistic and long-range missiles. The second manifestation of Iran's vulnerability was the deaths of almost the entire top echelon of its regular military and Revolutionary Guard commanders, and Israel's assassination of nine of Iran's most prominent nuclear scientists, whom Israeli sources describe as having been engaged in developing a nuclear weapon. This exposure is due to Israel's tremendous success in penetrating the Iranian regime, not only through the use of advanced technology, such as facial recognition technology, scanning Iranian airspace with drones and satellites, and the use of artificial intelligence, but also through the use of Iranian and Israeli spies, even establishing bases inside Iran itself. Unfortunately, this is not surprising, as the Iranian regime does not enjoy the support of large segments of the Iranian population, especially among young men and women, regardless of their sectarian affiliations. Restrictions on freedoms, including the personal freedoms of women, and deteriorating living conditions open the door to the recruitment of agents. Previous assassinations of Iranian scientists and guests of the Iranian state, and Israel's acquisition of Iranian nuclear program documents, are all precedents that reveal the extent of Israeli intelligence penetration into Iran. Perhaps this serves as a lesson to all.
Is there anything new in the positions of regional and international powers?
What's new in the positions of regional powers, including all Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Arab League, and Turkey, is that they have condemned the Israeli attack. Of course, we don't know what's in people's hearts, but there's no doubt that the governments of all these countries are seriously concerned about the repercussions of an Israeli attack, to which Iran could respond by targeting American interests in the Gulf region, oil facilities, or shipping routes, whether through the Arabian Gulf or the Red Sea. Indeed, Vali Nasr, a professor of international relations specializing in Middle Eastern affairs, has suggested that a new distribution of power may emerge in the Middle East following the weakening of the axis of resistance, which Iran has supported and includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Ansar Allah in Yemen, and Shiite forces in Iraq. This new distribution of power pits Iran and the Gulf states against Israel, which the Gulf states fear will continue to blackmail them. According to this researcher, these countries believe that strengthening relations with Iran could counter Israel's growing influence in the region, especially since Saudi Arabia and the UAE have restored normal relations with Iran and supported the US president's efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear program and arm it with diplomatic means. Furthermore, Iran's regional influence has collapsed following the strikes Israel launched against Iran's allies in Palestine and Lebanon and after the fall of President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
But what is truly sobering is the position of Western governments, particularly the United States, France, and Germany. The US president backed down to the Israeli prime minister in his preference for a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Iran, acquiescing to the fact that the Israeli attack on Friday morning preceded by two days a planned meeting in Amman between Iranian and American delegations, attended by his special envoy, Steve Witkoff. He appeared before the media before the meeting to frighten Iran about a potential Israeli attack that could inflict horrific consequences. He even described the attack on Friday after it occurred as"excellent," prompting US commentators to question his commitment to a peaceful settlement of the conflict with Iran. In fact, despite all the rumors about his personal arrogance, the American president showed that he is weak in the face of Netanyahu. He preferred to cover up his weakness by pretending to go along with the Israeli prime minister, who appeared victorious on Friday, as if he had a share in the latter's victory. He also wanted to make the concessions he hoped the Iranian government would make in the ongoing negotiations appear as if they were the result of a military action in which he did not participate, but which he certainly did not object to, and thus he will reap its fruits.
• • •
Observers will pause at the stance of the French and German governments, which were quick to adopt a position that can only be described as ridiculous. The French and German governments, which have been deafening the world with their claims of adhering to international law, were quick to declare their support for Israel's actions, describing them as acts of self-defense. Observers are wondering what evidence there is of Iranian aggression against Israel. Even if we believe the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has not yet reached the threshold of producing a nuclear weapon, and there is nothing to indicate that it would plan to use this weapon against Israel in the future if a hypothetical war breaks out between them. President Macron has presented further evidence of his hypocrisy to Arab public opinion by announcing the postponement of a proposed conference to recognize a Palestinian state, which was scheduled to be held in New York this week. He claimed that the reason for the postponement to a date to be determined later was security and practical considerations, including the fact that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would not be able to attend, outsmarting all observers who know that he is subject to the US president's threats to whoever attends this conference, and of course as a courtesy to Israel, which is waging a war in his opinion"for self-defense," expressing France's readiness to participate in this "defensive" war, according to what was stated in the press conference he held on Friday night.
All of this, in the author's view, is essentially a racist stance taken by Western governments toward Arab issues in the face of a racist state they see as an extension of Europe into Arab and Muslim lands. Yet they verbally concede to the Arabs under pressure from public opinion in their countries and the continued support of all their governments. Reports published in their own newspapers confirm that they continue to arm Israel.
Which is really surprising:
But I reserve for my dear readers what I find truly astonishing, which is the position of all the other Middle Eastern governments that do not seem to appreciate the danger that Israel poses to all of them, not just to the countries surrounding them, whether Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Iran, where there is either an Israeli military presence on the lands of some of them, or plans being implemented to displace the Palestinians on their lands, or official statements made by ministers in the Israeli government that the historical lands of Israel that they believe they have been promised include parts of the lands of all of these countries, in addition to Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
The history of the Zionist project has taught us that Zionist dreams are plans that can be implemented when the right conditions are present. The Israeli government, regardless of the party or coalition in power, views the scientific, economic, and military progress of Middle Eastern countries as the greatest threat to Israel's monopoly on the region's fate. Therefore, it sabotaged Egypt's missile project in the 1960s, assassinated nuclear scientists in Iraq before and after 2003, resists scientific and military progress in Iran, is concerned about the Egyptian army's armament, and opposes cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the United States in developing nuclear energy for peaceful uses. Its supporters have previously attempted to stop the United States from arming Saudi Arabia with advanced warplanes. This present, shared, serious, and dangerous threat has not yet prompted all Middle Eastern countries to come up with a plan that would ensure they all stand together to counterbalance and deter this common enemy. Isn't that truly surprising?
