An eye for an eye... the only solution to repel Iranian aggression
There is a principle in international law known as reciprocity, which is fundamentally linked to the sanctity of state sovereignty. No one has the right to violate it, dictate its terms, or interfere with its alliances and partnerships, whether economic, political, or military and security-related.
On this basis, any aggression against a sovereign state must be met with reciprocity. Any terrorist act suffered by such a state warrants the application of international and legal channels against the perpetrator of the crime and the aggressor.
In previous instances, we have discussed the history of Iranian terrorism against Kuwait, in particular, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in general. We stated at the time that aggression must be met with firmness, and that activating mutual defense agreements—whether between Arab Gulf states or with major powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council—has become a necessity. This is especially true since Iranian aggression not only undermines regional security but also reaches the threshold of destabilizing global stability. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a major surgical strike to repel this terrorism.
Analysis: Arabs and the peoples of the Middle East
Yes, Kuwait is a defensive state. However, when there is aggression against civilian and vital assets, such as water and electricity facilities, airports, and others, the response must be reciprocal.
Indeed, the barbaric enemy seeks to kill the largest number of people by attempting to strike power and water stations, as well as to disrupt civilian infrastructure. As we have stated on previous occasions, this enemy does not respect neighborhood relations, humanitarian values, or Islamic principles. This means that treating it with reciprocity has become a duty, not only national but also regional and Gulf-wide.
As we know from media reports, Kuwaiti defenses are capable of reaching the same Iranian civilian targets that the enemy bombs in our country. The same applies to Gulf defenses. This necessitates halting Iranian arrogance, and the response must be “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” for the aggressor is the wrongdoer.
The leaders of this regime established this principle at the beginning of the war. However, instead of responding to American maritime and Israeli aerial assets, they proceeded to bomb Gulf states, which from the first day declared that they would not allow their territories to be used to launch war against Iran. Nevertheless, Iran continued its aggression against us, which means we have the right to defend our land and our people.
This is a right granted to us by international law and UN charters, to make the aggressor aware that we are not an easy target. Wisdom in handling the situation calmly does not signify weakness; rather, it was intended to leave room for diplomatic solutions. However, the continuation of aggression signifies only one thing: punishing the aggressor, who has reached a level that cannot be ignored. It appears that he does not understand the language of diplomacy.
Previously, the region suffered from Israel’s weapons, whereas today, Iran’s weapons have become the problem.
Therefore, we must be clear: the shedding of a single drop of Kuwaiti blood demands the full force of war, and the destruction of all Iranian areas near the border that are used as missile launch platforms. It does not matter who dies among the aggressors in retaliation for the blood of a Kuwaiti shed by aggression.
