Iran... When Arabs Become the Battlefield
A recurring question with every crisis is: Why do the repercussions of any pressure or military strikes on Iran extend to the Gulf states? Why does the Iranian regime justify targeting its Arab neighborhood under the pretext of the presence of American bases, when these bases are distributed across many countries outside the Gulf? And if Israel is the “primary enemy” in its rhetoric, why is the cost of confrontation directed not toward it, but toward Arab states that were not parties to the conflict?
Since the Mullahs’ regime seized power in 1979, hostility toward Israel has been the cornerstone of its ideological discourse, presented as justification for its regional expansion and the construction of a wide network of proxies. However, policy is measured not by slogans but by actions. When this discourse was tested in moments of confrontation, the paradox emerged: Arab states did not become allies in a battle the regime declares against Israel; rather, they became battlefields whose security and stability pay the price for that confrontation. More dangerously, targeting the Arab environment is not a behavior imposed by recent crises, but a recurring pattern in Iranian policy. For decades, the Iranian project has been linked to expanding influence through cross-border political and military tools, turning several Arab arenas into fields of conflict and pressure. Therefore, what we are witnessing today is not an exception, but an extension of a long trajectory that has made Arab security one of the most important bargaining chips. In every wave of escalation, international navigation, energy facilities, and Gulf security are threatened, while Iran avoids sliding into a comprehensive confrontation with Israel, aware of its military and intelligence superiority and the American support it enjoys.
Here, the logic of calculations is revealed: the criterion is not the declared creed, but the balance of power and regime survival. The ethical paradox lies in the fact that the regime, which raises the banner of supporting the oppressed, has not hesitated to turn Arab and Islamic countries into battlefields, forcing their peoples to bear the cost of conflicts unrelated to their national interests. Instead of respecting the sovereignty of its neighbors, these countries have become pressure cards used whenever pressure on Tehran intensifies, revealing that the Iranian project aims more at expanding influence than at confronting Israel.
Attacks on Gulf security do not represent a mere political disagreement, but a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter. Furthermore, threats to international navigation and energy facilities affect the global economy as a whole, undermining the stability of energy markets, supply chains, and international trade. Therefore, Gulf security is no longer just a matter of defending borders, but of defending the regional system and the sovereignty of its states. This requires Gulf states to uphold international legitimacy, enhance collective deterrence, unify the Gulf and Arab position, and build an internal front capable of withstanding security, media, and economic pressures.
Experience has proven that regimes are known by their actions, not their slogans. One who makes Arab security a battlefield for settling scores, while postponing confrontation with the one he designates as his primary enemy, does not lead a liberation project, but a project of influence and hegemony. History does not preserve slogans; it records the direction of missiles. When missiles are directed more toward Arab capitals than toward the declared enemy, facts speak louder than rhetoric.
