The Iranian Evil Will Come to an End

Every time Iranian officials make a statement, they invoke the phrase “an eye for an eye,” implying that this principle applies to others as well. In other words, actions taken by Iran or its proxies in the region should be met with reciprocal measures. Reciprocity in the face of aggression entails legitimate self-defense and proportional retaliation against terrorist attacks, commensurate with the incident.

The response to the terrorist attack on the Abdali border crossing should involve punishing the aggressor, particularly since the group responsible has officially acknowledged its involvement. This group is one of Iran’s proxies operating in Iraq, even as the Iraqi Prime Minister was visiting Tehran at the time.

In politics, we understand that this constitutes a dual practical message to both Iraq and Kuwait. When militias affiliated with Iran bomb a border crossing between Kuwait and Iraq, it confirms that the attack was premeditated. At the very least, the justifications offered for attacking a civilian crossing carry significant implications, empowering Kuwait to escalate its response to such acts, especially since the attack lacked any legitimate pretext. Even the argument that U.S. forces struck the Iranian side of the Shalamja crossing between Iran and Iraq does not grant Iran or Iraqi militias the right to attack Kuwait.

Opinion Columns

Electricity

Seasonal Holidays and Occasions

Here, I pose legitimate questions within a political context, and as a Kuwaiti citizen whose country has been and continues to be subjected to continuous aggression by Iran and its proxies in Iraq, I ask: If Iran’s security is tied to Iraq’s security, as the Iraqi Prime Minister stated, does that mean that the security of the Arab neighbor, Kuwait, should also be protected, and that the response to violations should involve punishing those who operate outside the law?

If Iran’s security is linked to Iraq, does that permit terrorism to be carried out from Iraqi territory against Kuwait? Would Iraqi officials accept reciprocal retaliation in such cases?

These questions, among others, are raised in the context of reciprocity. They reflect a vision based on equality and mutual respect in relations between two neighboring countries. They also arise in light of the Iraqi government’s recent decisions affirming that state sovereignty belongs exclusively to the state itself, is not partial or diminished, and is not shared with forces operating outside the bounds of legitimacy.

In a previous instance, we said: “If you are not ashamed, do whatever you wish.” We were referring to Iran and its continuous aggression against Gulf states, particularly Kuwait. However, it appears that Iran’s groups are now adopting the same behavior, leading to a complete erosion of trust today.

The shelling of the Abdali crossing, as previously noted, is in fact a message to both Iraq and Kuwait. Consequently, Kuwait has the right to respond in kind, in accordance with international law, the UN Charter, and all established international norms. Thus, Kuwait is entitled to retaliate “eye for an eye,” as Iranian officials themselves advocate, and as Iran’s militias in Iraq do.

At the same time, the response should also be political, aimed at developing relations between the two Arab neighbors and preventing Iranian malign influence from driving a wedge between the two brotherly nations. Ultimately, the evil Iranian regime will vanish, while Kuwait and Iraq will endure.