Latest news with #arab.news
Arab News
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
For the American press, there are important warnings in Pakistan's playbook
Last February, when Pakistan's government shut down mobile phone services on election day to suppress information flow, my newsroom in Lahore went silent. Screens froze mid-sentence, phones lost signal, and the hum of breaking news gave way to an eerie quiet. We had faced blackouts before, but this felt like a rehearsal for something more permanent. Then, just a few weeks ago, a friend at Voice of America texted: 'They just gutted our Urdu service. 50 journalists fired overnight.' Of course, Pakistan is not America and parallels are not always relevant. But what is happening in Pakistan to the press, free speech and the truth will sooner or later happen in the US as the infections of populism, ideology, hatred and political division are not controlled and redressed. Consider these warnings. The methods differ — here, they raid offices and jail reporters; there, they employ lawsuits and algorithmic suppression — but the intent is the same: make the truth too costly, too dangerous, or too exhausting to pursue. America's press is not immune to the rot devouring ours; the difference lies only in the speed of decay. In Pakistan, censorship is a blunt instrument. The state silences reporters with trumped-up charges, jails critics under vague cybercrime laws, and when all else fails, simply pulls the plug on communication channels. Journalists learn to self-censor, making the truth just blurry enough to survive. In America, press erosion wears a different mask, wrapped in the language of free speech and balance. When Florida attempted to challenge New York Times v. Sullivan in 2023 (the ruling that shields journalists from predatory defamation suits) it was a test run. The bill failed, but the war on press freedom continues. Across the US, new 'fake news' laws criminalize documenting protests, and lawsuits drain the resources of newsrooms already on life support. The knock doesn't come at midnight. It comes as a subpoena. Reporters don't flee the country— they just stop covering certain topics. Over half of American journalists now say they avoid stories that might bring legal or online harassment. That is what censorship looks like in a democracy. A young Pakistani reporter once deleted her corruption story after her mother begged, 'They'll come for us.' How long until American journalists make the same decision? Dure Akram But laws are just one weapon. In Pakistan, when the government wants to silence a story, they cut off communication channels. In America, the blackout is algorithmic. Meta's algorithm changes have significantly reduced organic reach for news publishers, making it challenging for them to engage audiences without paid support. The effect is the same: flood the public with so much junk that truth becomes just another needle in a haystack of noise. Ask your Uber driver where they get their news. If they say TikTok or memes, you're already living Pakistan's playbook. When Pakistan banned YouTube in 2012, extremists flooded WhatsApp with propaganda. When local newsrooms in America die, Facebook groups and YouTube grifters fill the void. The result? The public drowns in lies, and no one remembers how to swim. Violence against journalists doesn't start with bullets. It starts with words. In Lahore, I've received death threats for writing about blasphemy laws. Colleagues have been sent photoshopped images of their corpses. In Louisville, reporters are doxxed for covering school boards. Assaults on US journalists have risen significantly; as of September 2024, assaults increased by more than 50 percent. Yet few acknowledge the chilling effect it creates. A young Pakistani reporter once deleted her corruption story after her mother begged, 'They'll come for us.' How long until American journalists make the same decision? State-backed propaganda doesn't always look like propaganda. In Pakistan, when opposition leaders are arrested, television channels air cooking shows. Newspapers flood their pages with debates over trivialities. America has its version of this. Climate deniers share panels with scientists as if their views hold equal weight. Voter suppression is framed as 'he said, she said.' This isn't balance. It's complicity. When The New York Times sued OpenAI for unauthorized use of its content, readers funded the fight. The public doesn't crave neutrality; they crave clarity. Stop serving them mush. So how do you fight back? You name the rot. When Pakistan's government flooded Twitter with #TraitorMedia hashtags, journalists responded with #BlackoutPakistan, forcing censors onto the defensive. US newsrooms must do the same: call out 'national security' gag orders for what they are: censorship dressed up as patriotism. Tell human stories. My most-read piece this year wasn't a political analysis but the story of why a blind voter had lost hope in the process. Data doesn't stir souls — people do. And most of all, protect each other. When Kansas police raided the Marion County Record, over 30 news organizations publicly opposed the actions, demonstrating solidarity. Solidarity is armor. Democracy isn't dying in darkness. It's being smothered in plain sight. It happens when reporters delete stories to keep their families safe. When platforms optimize for outrage instead of truth. When lawsuits become the preferred weapon of the powerful. Pakistani journalists type on burner phones in the dead of night. You still have a free press. The only question is: will you use it? When the lights go out, the real fight isn't whether journalism will survive. It's who will be brave enough to keep it alive. - Dure Akram is a Pakistan-based journalist and can be reached at durenayab786@ She tweets @dureakram.
Arab News
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
How US-Russia rapprochement can bring stability to Syria
The emerging American-Russian rapprochement will cast its shadow over many conflicts around the world, but nowhere will it be more consequential than in Syria. If US President Donald Trump succeeds in putting his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin on a steady and positive course and secures progress in Ukraine, eyes will turn to other areas. These include Syria, where Russian-American cooperation could be transformative for peace and stability in the country, as well as the region. Syria entered a new era after the fall of President Bashar Assad in December. However, the Syrian people's euphoria over their hard-won freedom from an oppressive regime was tempered by the harsh realities of external military and political interference, coupled with economic pressures. The new government, led by interim President Ahmad Al-Sharaa, is facing a myriad of challenges and uncertainties, internally and beyond its borders. While Turkiye's influence in Syria is growing, Israel is also conducting frequent airstrikes deep inside Syrian territory. These actions, which Israeli sources describe as a warning to Ankara, are viewed by many regional experts as provocations that further fragment Syria and threaten its territorial integrity. Israel has already occupied new territories in the Golan Heights and in southern Syria, in addition to the demilitarized zone that was established in 1974. Regional and great power competition is intensifying over Syria, raising questions about the future roles of both the US and Russia. Will they cooperate to stabilize the country or allow it to be used as an arena to settle scores, fracturing the country further and increasing instability? Syria presents a compelling opportunity for Washington and Moscow to work together toward common goals Dr. Amal Mudallali Syria presents a compelling opportunity for Washington and Moscow to work together toward common goals: maintaining Syria's territorial integrity, securing the Syrian-Israeli border, preventing any extremist resurgence, and supporting reconstruction. The stability of Syria is critical for the stability of all its neighbors. Both the US and Russia have forces in Syria. America maintains about 2,000 troops in the country, according to the Department of Defense, supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight against Daesh. They are based in northeast Syria and in the Tanf garrison close to the borders with Iraq and Jordan. Russia controls two bases, Hmeimim airbase and the Tartus naval base, with the latter giving Moscow its only foothold on the Mediterranean. The future of both Russian and American forces in Syria is in flux. While the US is considering the future of its military presence in Syria, the Russians are in talks with the Syrian interim government and president to keep its forces in the country. Despite being weakened by the war in Ukraine, Russia is not ready or prepared to leave Syria. It is seeking new terms that will preserve its strategic foothold while adapting to the new political order and reality in Syria. Despite its weakened influence in the country, Russia still has cards to play. The Syrian president acknowledged as much when he talked about Damascus' 'strategic interests' with Russia. Syria also still needs Russia at the UN Security Council, as a permanent member with influence. However, some see the future of Russia's presence in Syria as related to the ongoing peace efforts over Ukraine. The Washington Institute's Soner Cagaptay sees a presence for Russia in Syria as part of an agreement with Trump, as he said at an Atlantic Council event. In February, Putin had a 'constructive' phone call with Al-Sharaa following Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov's talks in Damascus about the future of Russia's military bases and the bilateral relationship. Reuters reported at the time that Israel wants Russia to stay in Syria to counter Turkiye's growing influence. Ankara has a military presence in the north of Syria, along with strong influence over the government in Damascus, but Israel sees Turkiye's presence as a threat fueling competition, which poses a serious threat to Syria's fragile new government. Experts see in the weakened Russian and Iranian influence in Syria a chance for the US to step in and promote regional cooperation. This can best happen under the American umbrella with the involvement of regional middle powers like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkiye working together to stabilize Syria and preserve its unity, according to Shady Harb of Harvard's Belfer Center. The US acknowledges the strategic gains of the fall of the Assad regime, but the Trump administration has so far remained cautious and focused on Ukraine, while it is also now beginning negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program, so Syria remains on the back burner. The lack of clarity from Washington leaves a vacuum, while its sanctions muzzle the economy and the Syrian people Dr. Amal Mudallali Washington has yet to define its policy toward post-Assad Syria. Sanctions remain in place and US engagement with the Al-Sharaa government has been limited and marked by skepticism. Trump has not been engaged personally on Syria, but this may soon change. Al-Sharaa is expected to meet Trump and present Syria's case during his visit to Saudi Arabia this month — a pivotal moment that is hoped will reset the relationship. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week discussed with Trump the situation in Syria and it remains to be seen if the US president will be influenced by Israel's approach toward Syria or if he will keep an open mind until he hears from the Syrians. In the meantime, it has been reported that Syria was handed a list of conditions that must be met before things can move forward. Until then, the lack of clarity from Washington leaves a vacuum, while its sanctions muzzle the economy and the Syrian people. The US and Russia have coordinated their respective presences in Syria well over the last decade, working through 'routine and professional' deconfliction arrangements, according to the US Department of Defense. It is likely that the two sides will continue to coordinate until there is more clarity on policy and the situation in Syria. Syria stands at a crossroads. America could change the face of the country and the region for the better. It can preserve Syria's unity and help it safeguard its territorial integrity by reaching an understanding with Israel that restores the status quo ante on the Golan Heights, with Israel withdrawing to its pre-Dec. 8 lines and preserving the 1974 agreement as the basis that governs the future relationship between the two countries on the border issue. Washington can do this alone or in cooperation with Moscow. The US and Russia can also work together to prevent the return of Iranian influence and the resurgence of extremism. The Syrian government taking steps toward a democratic, diverse and united Syria free of any foreign extremists is a prerequisite for any outside power to help. It is Washington's call. It can treat Syria as an opportunity for peace and for rebalancing the region or let it devolve into a battleground for regional powers to gain territory and influence at the expense of America's interests, as well as the interests of the Syrian state and people. The choice the US makes will determine the fate of Syria and the stability of the Middle East for years to come.
Arab News
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Israel's war on Gaza poised for dangerous new phase
Since Israel suddenly and unilaterally ended the ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza on March 18, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed there — and this tragic figure is constantly rising. Schools and medical centers have also not been spared by the bombardments and, as a consequence, the familiar scenes of displaced Palestinians, most of whom have already been displaced multiple times, have also returned. Israel's decision to go back to war, and with such intensity, raises the questions: why now and for what purpose? The answer to both has more to do with Israel's domestic politics and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's unrelenting quest for survival in power than his country's security or strategic interests. From the outset of the ceasefire deal back in January, which was largely due to the encouragement of then-US President-elect Donald Trump, there were deep concerns that the three-phase agreement would not last beyond the first phase unless the mediators continued to pressurize the two sides. In Israel's case, it was mainly Washington that could do the persuading. Despite some setbacks and hiccups during the six weeks of the first phase, both sides fulfilled their main commitments, even if they did not always act in the spirit of defusing tensions and building trust. The fighting stopped, which saved many lives, humanitarian aid was allowed into Gaza, 33 of the Israeli and foreign hostages held in Gaza returned home in exchange for the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners detained in Israeli jails, and many of the displaced in Gaza returned to what survived of their homes in the north of the Strip. On the Israeli side, there has never been a genuine yearning to end the war. In fact, the exact opposite is the case Yossi Mekelberg A successful conclusion of the first phase could not guarantee moving on to the second one, or even starting serious negotiations over it, without which the release of the remaining 59 hostages still in Gaza could not be guaranteed and the resumption of hostilities was just a matter of time. On the Israeli side, there has never been a genuine yearning to end the war. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Its government set as its top priority the complete elimination of Hamas before it would agree to end the war. And the fact that this Islamist Palestinian movement is still playing a part in Palestinian society and politics clearly demonstrates that this aim — set by the Israeli government after the deadly attack of Oct. 7, 2023 — is unrealistic. Moreover, should the remaining hostages be released by an agreement, this would also contradict the government's claim that only military pressure could achieve such a result. Hamas might well want an end to the war, but it also knows that this would not stop Israel from going after those who were involved in the Oct. 7 attack, and this time Hamas would lack the advantage of holding hostages. There are also signs of growing anger among Palestinians who consider the group to be as responsible as Israel for the current suffering. So, this might be the moment for Palestinian society to hold it to account, as is also the case with Israeli society with regard to its own government. For a short while, the ceasefire held, despite the completion of the first phase without agreement on the second. Nevertheless, the fragility of the country's domestic politics, together with Washington's objectionable idea of emptying the Gaza Strip of its Palestinian residents, has emboldened the far right in Israel, including those in the governing coalition. They pressured Netanyahu to go back to war so they could realize their war crime fantasy of permanently occupying a Gaza without Palestinians and building Jewish settlements there. Meanwhile, Netanyahu's cynicism in abusing his position to remain in power indefinitely reaches a new low with every passing week, as does his recklessness regarding human lives, whether Palestinian or Israeli. Resuming the war has been a lifeline for the stability of Netanyahu's governing coalition. When he initially agreed to the ceasefire deal, the religious ultranationalist faction in government, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir and the Otzma Yehudit party, left the government, leaving it with a razor-thin majority in the Knesset. Meanwhile, the religious ultranationalist party of Bezalel Smotrich, Religious Zionism, put Netanyahu on notice, only agreeing to stay in government on condition that the second phase never materializes. The fragility of the country's domestic politics has emboldened the far right in Israel, including those in the governing coalition Yossi Mekelberg By resuming the bombardment of Gaza, Netanyahu was immediately rewarded by the return of Otzma Yehudit to the government, while Religious Zionism's threat was not tested. The great tragedy, of course, is that keeping Netanyahu in power and pulling all possible tricks to make a mockery of his corruption trial and of the rule of law generally resulted, in the first night of Israel's return to war, in more than 400 Palestinians killed. The numbers have kept rising since, with a reported 322 children now killed. If, by now, we are no longer shocked by Netanyahu and his coalition of right wingers' complete disregard for Palestinian lives, most Israelis cannot get their head around his utter indifference to the lives of his own people, and in this case the hostages too. Netanyahu and his political partners are insulting the intelligence of the Israeli public and everyone else by claiming that military pressure will bring back the hostages. If you want the truth, all you need to do is listen to Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who stated last week that Tel Aviv was looking for a major expansion of the military operation in Gaza in order to seize large areas of land that would be 'incorporated into Israel's security zones.' In his statement, Katz said the operation would also involve a 'large-scale evacuation of Gaza's population from combat zones.' Unless there is an intervention, first and foremost by Washington, there is a real risk that the war in Gaza will enter a new phase in which Israel makes the lives of the residents there utterly impossible, believing that it can achieve the twin objectives of victory over Hamas and the expulsion of Palestinians. However, the most likely outcome of such an approach is a never-ending and costly war.
Arab News
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Netanyahu's jets or Ortagus' conditions
When US Deputy Special Envoy for the Middle East Morgan Ortagus was born on July 10, 1982, the scene was as follows: Gen. Ariel Sharon's tanks were surrounding Beirut from all sides and his jets were bombing the capital without mercy. The general of the city at the time was Yasser Arafat, who was championing the Palestinian cause. Arafat sought to fight on for another six months before taking a decision over what to do next, recalled Hani Al-Hassan, who was in the battle. Back then, Lebanese Prime Minister Shafik Al-Wazzan would contact King Fahd, who would in turn contact Ronald Reagan to secure a drop of water or a spark of electricity to the first Arab capital that Israel ever besieged. Hezbollah had not been born yet, but it would be formed through an Iranian initiative and Syria's help in wake of the barbaric Israeli invasion. Back then, Hafez Assad was in power in Syria. The image is different now. His heir, Bashar, is living in 'humanitarian' asylum in Russia and Ahmed Al-Sharaa is the new ruler in Syria. Back then, Beirut realized it had to make a difficult and painful choice: either suffer at the hands of Sharon's jets or take the advice of the American envoy of Lebanese origin, Philip Habib. The game was obvious. Whenever the city showed resistance, the jets would strike again to discipline it and force it to agree to the US envoy's conditions. Initially, the situation was compared to Stalingrad and Hanoi, but the siege and breaking of the balance of power left Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization no choice but to flee by ship. And so, the Palestinian cause sailed toward a new exile. Whenever Beirut showed resistance, the jets would strike again to discipline it and force it to agree to the US envoy's conditions Ghassan Charbel The world has changed immensely since Ortagus' birth. The Soviet Union collapsed and the world came under the rule of the sole global power: the US. Osama bin Laden launched his attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad and Iranian influence flooded the region. Some two decades later, Hafez Assad's statues were toppled in Damascus and the leaders of Hamas, including Yahya Sinwar, who launched the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, were assassinated, along with Hassan Nasrallah and several of his Hezbollah colleagues. When Ortagus arrived in Beirut last week, the 'general' of the White House, Donald Trump, had just launched a trade war whose results cannot be predicted by the greatest of experts, a terrified Europe was criticizing America's betrayal of its allies and China was assessing the extent of the challenge ahead. Meanwhile, small countries were preparing for rising prices of goods, poverty and great unrest. While Vladimir Putin was rejoicing at his victory in Ukraine, with American blessings, US jets were bombing Houthi rocket caches and tunnels in retaliation for their attacks on Red Sea shipping. The Houthis were deluded into believing that the Americans would simply leave the marine waterways under the control of the factions and their Iranian arsenal. And at a time when Iran could not save its proxies, Tehran had to reply to Trump's letter. This is not just about agreeing to dismantle Iran's nuclear dream, it goes beyond that to abandoning the idea of becoming a major country in the region that boasts about holding the keys to war and peace in four countries. Trump threatened Iran with 'very bad things' if it did not surrender the management of the region and its sorrows to the Americans because it has no right to them in its delusion of being a 'major country in the region.' When Ortagus arrived in Beirut, Benjamin Netanyahu's forces were continuing to tear Gaza apart. No people since the Second World War have suffered as much as the Gazans and more is still to come. Evacuation orders keep coming and Hamas is holding on to the remaining hostages, while Netanyahu turns the whole of Gaza into a hostage that is drowning in blood, rubble and despair. The number of Palestinians who will be released in swaps is far less than the number of graves Netanyahu has dug for the people of Gaza. Aoun, Salam and Berri know that this is a phase of painful choices in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria Ghassan Charbel Israel is drawing a security belt by fire in Gaza, the same way it did when it decimated Lebanese border villages. It is demanding a similar security belt inside Syrian territories and does not hesitate to warn Turkiye against deepening its influence in Syria. Joseph Aoun, Nawaf Salam and Nabih Berri have very difficult tasks ahead of them. They know what it means for the war to erupt again in Gaza despite the ceasefire and mediations. They also know the extent of the free rein that Trump has given Netanyahu. They are aware that, this time, the situation demands more than just applying weak bandages to inflamed wounds. They know what it means when Israel warns that it will no longer allow what it perceives as danger to lurk by its borders. The American-Israeli demand is clear: disarming factions, not just persuading them to agree to a ceasefire. They know that waiting is not the best advice and that dangers lie ahead. The Lebanese are preoccupied with the American visitor. They dig up her history to learn more about where she has worked before. A commentator, spokeswoman and analyst. They know that the conclusions the beautiful visitor will draw will impact the situation in Lebanon. The country cannot withstand the possibility of a return to war. Hezbollah cannot go to war, especially after seeing the developments unfold in Yemen and Syria. Israel and the US are pressuring to take Gaza out of the military aspect of the conflict with Israel. They are also pressuring to take Lebanon and Syria out of it as well. Aoun, Salam and Berri are aware of the severity of the situation and the major imbalance in the balance of power. They know that this is a phase of painful choices in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. They recall that, when Ortagus was born, they had to choose between Sharon's jets and Habib's conditions. They know that today they need to choose between Netanyahu's jets and Ortagus' conditions. They know that wrong choices have led to catastrophes in the past. Israel today is more barbaric than ever and they will naturally wait and see what Trump has to say to Netanyahu when they meet. This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.
Arab News
06-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Is a nuclear weapon a serious option for Iran?
The deadline set last week by US President Donald Trump for the Iranian government to engage in negotiations with Washington regarding its nuclear program, as well as related issues such as its ballistic missile program and Tehran's influence and alliances in the Middle East, seems to have exerted pressure on the Iranian political leadership and even on the elites surrounding Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran submitted its response to Trump's message through Omani mediators, who conveyed it to the White House. The Iranian foreign minister stated that responding through the sultanate is a natural course of action, given the trust that Iranians place in Omani leadership and the experience Muscat has gained as a mediator over many years. Furthermore, the Iranian leadership believes that any future discussions between the two countries will prominently involve Oman, especially since Iran continues to reject direct negotiations and prefers discussions to be conducted through intermediaries. In parallel with this development, it is worth noting the remarks made by former Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani, who was appointed as an adviser by Khamenei. Larijani stated that 'the leader's fatwa prohibits nuclear weapons; however, if America makes a mistake, the Iranian people may feel compelled to demand their production.' He further added in a television interview: 'Their (the Americans') wise individuals recognize that, if they attack Iran, it will drive the country toward nuclear armament.' These statements are significant because they come from a prominent figure within the Iranian elite, who is also categorized as a moderate rather than a hard-liner. Larijani previously expressed critical views regarding the fundamentalist approach in Iran. This suggests that a perspective advocating for the acquisition of a 'nuclear bomb' as a deterrent is gaining traction in discussions, especially in light of the Israeli strikes against Iran following the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on Oct. 7, 2023, as well as the shifting balance of power and Tehran's loss of military strength with respect to its two main allies: Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The military and security exposure faced by Iran has prompted some of its elites to adopt a more rigid approach, rather than pursuing more flexible diplomacy and direct negotiations with the US. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif were among the figures who advocated for a more pragmatic approach, encouraging direct negotiations. However, Khamenei has taken a different stance. While he did not outright reject the idea of negotiations and indicated a willingness to make specific concessions to mitigate the escalating losses, the election of Trump prompted Khamenei to reassess his position. He opted for indirect negotiations instead, rejecting direct talks and adopting a rigid stance against what he perceives as negotiations under duress or harsh preconditions. Revisiting Larijani's perspective on nuclear bomb manufacturing, he asserts that 'the people will push to defend the country' and that 'Iran has the capability to produce nuclear weapons, but it emphasizes that there is a fatwa prohibiting this.' However, he notes that 'the fatwa is distinct from political decisions,' even though the fatwa issued by Khamenei is recorded with the UN. There are numerous diplomatic alternatives that could be more beneficial for Tehran than pursuing a nuclear bomb. Hassan Al-Mustafa These statements elicited a range of both supportive and opposing reactions. Iranian Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Abbas Salehi stated that 'the leader's fatwa regarding the prohibition of nuclear weapons is not merely a legal opinion on branches of jurisprudence, but rather is based on immutable religious principles that are not subject to change and are not merely interpretative branches that can be altered.' Iranian Middle East conflict researcher Mostafa Najafi said: 'We should be skeptical about whether this threat will be effective, especially since he (Larijani) announces an attack on the country as a condition for manufacturing weapons.' He added: 'I don't know of any country in the world that is like that. They usually manufacture weapons so they won't be attacked. Who knows if there will be anything left to build after an attack?' He believed that 'Larijani's remarks will intensify the threat rather than diminish it.' Ali Hashem, a Lebanese researcher specializing in Iranian affairs, stated that 'Mr. Larijani's threat to pursue nuclear bomb production if the US attacks Iran is quite similar to the threat made by the late Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian at the onset of the Gaza war to escalate the conflict.' Hashem emphasized that 'the reality that the Iranians fail to grasp is that threats are ineffective; rather, they indicate weakness rather than strength.' This rejection of Larijani's statements reflects the views of a significant segment of the reformist movement in Iran, as well as those aligned with former President Hassan Rouhani and some supporters of the late Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. However, a notable figure from the Construction Party founded by Rafsanjani, former Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Ataollah Mohajerani, endorsed Larijani's position. He stated that 'the announcement regarding a shift in Iran's nuclear doctrine, which was articulated in a thoughtful and timely interview with Dr. Ali Larijani, appears to be a clear and explicit decision by the regime aimed at safeguarding the country, the nation, the system and the Islamic revolution.' Yadollah Javani, head of the political bureau of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Joint Command Council, affirmed that 'we will reconsider our defense doctrine if the enemy carries out its threats.' This raises the question of whether these statements are merely a bargaining chip in negotiations to avert any potential military action by the US and Israel, or if they clearly indicate that the Iranians now believe that acquiring a nuclear weapon has become a national necessity. If Iran's nuclear doctrine were to change and it pursued the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, as stated by Larijani, this would negatively impact its relations with its Arab neighbors, particularly the Gulf states. Iran has recently adopted a policy of openness toward these countries, which have engaged in diplomatic efforts, led by Saudi Arabia, to alleviate tensions. Therefore, proponents of the nuclear military option should not only focus on deterring Washington and Tel Aviv, as they often claim, but also consider the adverse consequences such a decision would have on its relations with the Gulf states, which require trust-building, cooperation and the enhancement of economic, tourism and security partnerships. There are numerous diplomatic alternatives that could be more beneficial for Tehran than pursuing a nuclear bomb that could effectively safeguard it from potential attacks. Smart and long-term diplomacy remains the safest approach, even if it is a challenging and protracted process.
