The Council for Arab and International Relations and Confusing Facts
The Council criticized the conflation of Iranian attacks on Gulf states and Jordan with Israeli attacks, calling for clarity in the political narrative.
Translated by Qiyas from السياسة — Original source
The tendency to mix political narratives and conflate facts has become a pervasive phenomenon in certain Arab circles that consider themselves part of the political and intellectual elites. Recent Iranian aggressions targeted Gulf states and Jordan, yet these groups conflate the condemnation of “Iranian and Israeli aggressions against some Arab countries” with the actual Iranian aggression against Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and Jordan.
In this context, the Council for Arab and International Relations, acting as a political and intellectual forum or a pressure group expressing unofficial views, issued a statement condemning “Iranian and Israeli aggressions against some Arab countries,” according to the text published on May 21, 2026.
The reality is that Israeli aggressions against some Arab countries have a long and extended history, representing established military operations rather than recent developments. In contrast, Iranian aggressions against GCC states and Jordan constitute a recent development, coinciding with the US war on Iran. These are clear facts that allow for no ambiguity or confusion.
Mixing facts does not produce an objective understanding of events; rather, it scatters and distorts the truth. Iranian aggression against GCC states and Jordan is an overt aggression that admits no interpretation or equivocation. However, the Arab mind, which is sometimes unbalanced and subservient to its own agendas and biases, refuses to acknowledge clear facts and realities, preferring to live in a space of ambiguity and to spin narratives that confuse the aggressor with the victim, thereby confusing public consciousness.
If this stance originated from an individual, such as Amr Moussa, a member of the Council for Arab and International Relations, it would not be surprising; he has previously expressed positions related to what he considers part of the Arab cause. Those arguments and excuses have been refuted, recalling the tense history between Kuwait and Amr Moussa since 2003, during his tenure as Secretary-General of the Arab League.
According to the principles of political pressure, neutral analysis, and scientific observation, it is unacceptable to market a conflation of facts as political or historical truth. Pressure groups and lobbies have the right to defend their interests and promote their visions, but they do not have the right to distort facts or rewrite history according to shifting agendas.
According to the principles of political pressure, neutral analysis, and scientific observation, it is unacceptable to export a conflation of facts as political or historical truth. Pressure groups and lobbies can work to achieve their goals and visions, but without distorting facts or reshaping history according to changing agendas.
It is unacceptable for media platforms to become tools for entrenching a conflation of facts or reinforcing ambiguity in the interpretation of events under the influence of pressure groups and political agendas. Responsible media and sober statements should serve the truth and clarify it, not serve obscurity and mislead public consciousness, and should contribute to building an objective understanding of events rather than confusing public opinion and clouding perception of facts.
Iranian aggression cannot be separated from its political background, ideological dimensions, and directives issued by decision-making centers in Tehran. This has been reflected in the movements of groups and entities affiliated with Iran in the region, including the Iraqi arena.
Research centers, lobbying groups, and interest groups are expected to base their policies on a higher degree of transparency, even if they hold cautious positions or divergent perspectives; there is a fundamental distinction between official meetings and the roles of informal power brokers, who are expected to adhere to professional neutrality and clarity, without distorting intentions or misrepresenting facts. Ambiguous facts, in part, reflect an immature Arab political landscape in terms of its objectives, as well as a lack of clarity regarding its nature, operations, and trajectories.
