logo
Why Israel must not be allowed to triumph?

Why Israel must not be allowed to triumph?

Observer14 hours ago

Could we imagine a Middle East without Iran — not merely without its current government, but stripped of its strategic presence, historical depth and deterrent capacity? And who would fill such a void? This question invites a cascade of potential chaos were Israel (or the West supporting it) to emerge victorious in the ongoing conflict with Iran. The reality is that Arab states cannot escape their responsibility for what follows if Israel achieves its aims. Regret by then would be too late, meaningless in a region fully dominated and unquestioningly obedient to Israel.
The heart of the matter isn't Israel's military might — it has Western backing and near-global silence bordering on complicity — but whether the Middle East could survive the consequences of an Israeli victory. The answer is unambiguous: it cannot. Such a defeat would usher in the greatest danger the Arab world has faced in recent times.
Arab perceptions of Iran have long been flawed, often narrowed to sectarian tropes. Yet Iran — both under the Shah and after 1979 — is an ancient civilisation, a state with deep historical roots, a regional vision and jurisdictional sway that cannot simply be erased. The 1979 revolution was not just a religious export — it was a profound internal upheaval, rooted in political, social and economic transformation. Arab states would have done better to engage Iran as a regional partner rather than heed Western calls to isolate and dismantle it.
Many policymakers in the Middle East have persisted in the belief that a weakened Iran would bring stability. This notion, fuelled by Western think‑tanks, treats the revolution as an ideological aberration and fails to grasp that dismantling Iran would leave a tremendous geopolitical vacuum. It risks turning Gulf states into mere satellites of a new regime — and could even fracture the Arab world, repeating patterns seen after Baghdad fell in 2003.
Israel isn't just aiming to disarm Iran; its Western backers envision full dominance — military, ideological and economic. This would enable Israel to reshape regional dynamics to serve its own long-held interests. In this scenario, normalisation agreements become superficial at best. Israel would define the cultural and geopolitical order. Those who resist would find themselves in the grip of widespread chaos.
Alarmingly, current Middle East dynamics could perfectly set this scenario in motion. It is among the darkest moments in Arab history — marked by disunity, ideological extremism and a lack of political coherence.
A victorious Israel would also have global consequences. It would convey that diplomacy is obsolete and that military dominance is the only arbiter of power. What may appear as a strategic void — an emerging Israeli hegemony — would instead become a regional vacuum filled by Israeli influence across security, economics and technology.
Such dominance cannot yield lasting stability. History shows that it breeds violent resistance — from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq. The collapse of central authority could ignite decentralised extremist movements, unleashing violence that cannot be contained. This would be worsened by a profound sense of injustice as Iran is punished for its support of Gaza and Palestine.
Preventing an Israeli win is not about endorsing Iran's military ambitions but about preserving regional diversity. The Middle East has always balanced on a knife-edge; allowing one power to dominate entirely would undermine that balance. Arab and Gulf states must deploy all their influence to block an Israeli victory — publicly and privately — and forge new regional equations based on partnership, deterrence and dialogue instead of military supremacy.
Otherwise, the Arab world will deeply regret dismantling Iran, just as it has regretted Iraq's downfall — and this time, the consequences could be far more catastrophic.
At this historic crossroads, the region needs clear-sighted leadership, wisdom and balanced thinking to maintain equilibrium and stability. Allowing Israel to win this war would imperil the Middle East's collective identity, culture and security.
Translated by Badr al Dhafri. The original version of this article was published in Oman Arabic newspaper on June 23.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Leader says Iran would strike back if attacked again
Supreme Leader says Iran would strike back if attacked again

Observer

time14 hours ago

  • Observer

Supreme Leader says Iran would strike back if attacked again

DUBAI: Iran would respond to any future US attack by striking American military bases in the Middle East, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday, in his first televised remarks since a ceasefire was reached between Iran and Israel. Khamenei, 86, claimed victory after 12 days of war, culminating in an Iranian attack on the largest US base in the region, located in Qatar, after Washington joined the Israeli strikes. In his pre-recorded remarks, aired on state television, Khamenei promised that Iran would not surrender despite US President Donald Trump's calls. "The US President Trump unveiled the truth and made it clear that Americans won't be satisfied with anything less than surrender... such an event will never happen," Khamenei said. "The fact that the Islamic Republic has access to important American centres in the region and can take action against them whenever it deems necessary is not a small incident, it is a major incident, and this incident can be repeated in the future if an attack is made," he added. Trump said "sure" on Wednesday when asked if the United States would strike again if Iran rebuilt its nuclear enrichment programme. Tehran has for decades denied accusations by Western leaders that it is seeking nuclear arms. Khamenei said the US "gained no achievement" after it attacked Iranian nuclear sites, but that it entered the war to "save" Israel after Tehran's missiles broke through Israel's multi-layered defence system. "The US directly entered the war as it felt that if it did not get involved, the Zionist regime (Israel) would be fully destroyed. It entered the war to save it," he said. "The US attacked our nuclear facilities, but couldn't do any important deed... The US president did abnormal showmanship and needed to do so," he added. Trump said over the weekend that the US deployment of 30,000-pound bombs had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear programme. However, this appeared to be contradicted by an initial assessment from one of his administration's intelligence agencies, according to three people familiar with the matter. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also declared "a historic victory" on Tuesday, after the fragile ceasefire took effect, saying Israel had achieved its goal of removing Tehran's nuclear and ballistic missile threat. Shortly after Khamenei's speech, Netanyahu posted a message with a picture of himself and Trump holding hands with the message: "We will continue to work together to defeat our common enemies." Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday said he was unaware of any intelligence suggesting Iran had moved any of its highly enriched uranium to shield it from US strikes on Iran's nuclear programme over the weekend. US military bombers carried out strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend with more than a dozen 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs. The results of the strikes are being closely watched to see how far the strikes may have set back Iran's nuclear programme. "I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise," Hegseth said in an often fiery news conference. - Reuters

Why Israel must not be allowed to triumph?
Why Israel must not be allowed to triumph?

Observer

time14 hours ago

  • Observer

Why Israel must not be allowed to triumph?

Could we imagine a Middle East without Iran — not merely without its current government, but stripped of its strategic presence, historical depth and deterrent capacity? And who would fill such a void? This question invites a cascade of potential chaos were Israel (or the West supporting it) to emerge victorious in the ongoing conflict with Iran. The reality is that Arab states cannot escape their responsibility for what follows if Israel achieves its aims. Regret by then would be too late, meaningless in a region fully dominated and unquestioningly obedient to Israel. The heart of the matter isn't Israel's military might — it has Western backing and near-global silence bordering on complicity — but whether the Middle East could survive the consequences of an Israeli victory. The answer is unambiguous: it cannot. Such a defeat would usher in the greatest danger the Arab world has faced in recent times. Arab perceptions of Iran have long been flawed, often narrowed to sectarian tropes. Yet Iran — both under the Shah and after 1979 — is an ancient civilisation, a state with deep historical roots, a regional vision and jurisdictional sway that cannot simply be erased. The 1979 revolution was not just a religious export — it was a profound internal upheaval, rooted in political, social and economic transformation. Arab states would have done better to engage Iran as a regional partner rather than heed Western calls to isolate and dismantle it. Many policymakers in the Middle East have persisted in the belief that a weakened Iran would bring stability. This notion, fuelled by Western think‑tanks, treats the revolution as an ideological aberration and fails to grasp that dismantling Iran would leave a tremendous geopolitical vacuum. It risks turning Gulf states into mere satellites of a new regime — and could even fracture the Arab world, repeating patterns seen after Baghdad fell in 2003. Israel isn't just aiming to disarm Iran; its Western backers envision full dominance — military, ideological and economic. This would enable Israel to reshape regional dynamics to serve its own long-held interests. In this scenario, normalisation agreements become superficial at best. Israel would define the cultural and geopolitical order. Those who resist would find themselves in the grip of widespread chaos. Alarmingly, current Middle East dynamics could perfectly set this scenario in motion. It is among the darkest moments in Arab history — marked by disunity, ideological extremism and a lack of political coherence. A victorious Israel would also have global consequences. It would convey that diplomacy is obsolete and that military dominance is the only arbiter of power. What may appear as a strategic void — an emerging Israeli hegemony — would instead become a regional vacuum filled by Israeli influence across security, economics and technology. Such dominance cannot yield lasting stability. History shows that it breeds violent resistance — from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq. The collapse of central authority could ignite decentralised extremist movements, unleashing violence that cannot be contained. This would be worsened by a profound sense of injustice as Iran is punished for its support of Gaza and Palestine. Preventing an Israeli win is not about endorsing Iran's military ambitions but about preserving regional diversity. The Middle East has always balanced on a knife-edge; allowing one power to dominate entirely would undermine that balance. Arab and Gulf states must deploy all their influence to block an Israeli victory — publicly and privately — and forge new regional equations based on partnership, deterrence and dialogue instead of military supremacy. Otherwise, the Arab world will deeply regret dismantling Iran, just as it has regretted Iraq's downfall — and this time, the consequences could be far more catastrophic. At this historic crossroads, the region needs clear-sighted leadership, wisdom and balanced thinking to maintain equilibrium and stability. Allowing Israel to win this war would imperil the Middle East's collective identity, culture and security. Translated by Badr al Dhafri. The original version of this article was published in Oman Arabic newspaper on June 23.

Spain PM alleges 'genocide' in Gaza as rescuers say 56 killed
Spain PM alleges 'genocide' in Gaza as rescuers say 56 killed

Observer

time2 days ago

  • Observer

Spain PM alleges 'genocide' in Gaza as rescuers say 56 killed

GAZA CITY: Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez on Thursday became the most prominent European leader to describe the situation in Gaza as a "genocide", as rescuers in the war-ravaged Palestinian territory said Israeli forces killed 56 people. After more than 20 months of devastating conflict, rights groups say Gaza's population of more than two million face famine-like conditions. Israel began allowing supplies to trickle in at the end of May following a blockade of more than two months, but distribution has been marred by chaotic scenes and near-daily reports of Israeli forces firing on those waiting to collect rations. Israel meanwhile is pressing its bombardment of the territory, in a military offensive it says is aimed at defeating Hamas -- whose unprecedented October 2023 attack on Israel triggered the war. Spain's Sanchez said Gaza was in a "catastrophic situation of genocide" and urged the European Union to immediately suspend its cooperation deal with Israel. The comments represent the strongest condemnation to date by Sanchez, an outspoken critic of Israel's offensive who is one of the first European leaders, and the most senior, to use the term "genocide" to describe the situation in Gaza. Speaking ahead of an EU summit in Brussels, Sanchez mentioned an EU report which found "indications" Israel was breaching its rights obligations under the cooperation deal, which forms the basis for trade ties. A mourner reacts during the funeral of Palestinians who were killed in an Israeli air strike earlier in the day, in Deir Al Balah, central Gaza Strip. - Reuters The text cited Israel's blockade of humanitarian aid for the Palestinian territory, the high number of civilian casualties, attacks on journalists and the massive displacement and destruction caused by the war. The spokesman for Gaza's civil defence agency, Mahmud Bassal, said Israeli forces killed 56 people on Thursday, including six who were waiting for aid in two separate locations. The Israeli military said its troops had "fired warning shots" in order to prevent "suspects from approaching them" near the Netzarim corridor in central Gaza, where Palestinians gather each night for rations. Israel's military campaign has killed at least 56,259 people, also mostly civilians, according to the health ministry in Gaza. The United Nations considers its figures reliable. Footage from a hospital in central Gaza on Wednesday showed Palestinians sobbing over bloodied body bags containing their loved ones who had been killed in an Israeli strike. "They (killed) the father, mother and brothers, only two girls survived. One of them is a baby girl aged one year and two months and the other one is five years old," one mourner said. Beyond daily bombardment, Gaza's health ministry says that since late May, nearly 550 people have been killed near aid centres while seeking scarce supplies. The United Nations has condemned the 'weaponisation of food' in Gaza, and slammed a US- and Israeli-backed body that has largely replaced established humanitarian organisations there. The privately run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation was brought into the territory in late May, but its operations have been marred by chaotic scenes, deaths and neutrality concerns. - AFP

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store