Arab governments decry Iran’s retaliation while enabling the US-Israeli strategy, exposing contradictions between claimed neutrality and material complicity.
Are the Arabs innocent?
The question is uncomfortable, but it cannot be avoided.
At one level, everything unfolding in the region appears internally logical—not in a moral or legal sense, but in terms of how these states have historically behaved and positioned themselves.
It is logical, for example, for Israel and the US to seek to expand the war with Iran by drawing in Arab states and other regional actors. Their long-standing preference for managed instability—what has often been described in policy circles as “constructive chaos”—fits this trajectory.
It is equally logical for Iran to respond by targeting US military and strategic interests across the region, in addition to retaliating directly against Israel. Tehran has stated this position consistently for years: that any confrontation will not remain geographically contained. Its current actions, whether one agrees with them or not, follow a declared doctrine.
And it is also “logical,” in that same narrow, descriptive sense, for Arab Gulf governments to express shock when the consequences of these alignments reach their own territories—even if that shock is politically convenient rather than analytically sound.
This is where the logic begins to fracture.
Because a pattern that is predictable based on past behavior does not make it politically coherent, legally sound, or morally defensible. (more...)
Not Just Netanyahu’s War: The Arab Factor They Don’t Want You to Know
No comments:
Post a Comment