A True state is defined by a single decision, not a collection of conflicting ones. This is the principle we have long maintained and find necessary to emphasize once again, in light of the intensifying Iranian hostilities toward the Gulf and various Arab nations.
Incidents over the last three weeks have validated this observation, evidenced by the reciprocal strikes involving the United States of America, Israel and Iran in June. The Iranian leadership imposed numerous conditions in both instances. The initial conflict concluded, leaving the Iranian state with deep-seated wounds that remain difficult to address without meeting the demands. We saw a familiar pattern that emerged today. Iran is acting as if it is victorious and in a position to dictate terms despite having grown significantly weaker since the start of the conflict.
For 47 years, the Gulf states have witnessed the inconsistent stances and broken promises of the mullahs’ regime. This stems from the fact that Tehran has never operated under a singular, cohesive decision-making authority. The state appears to be governed by shadowy entities rather than a transparent leadership. The intentions of the regime are frequently conveyed by anonymous ‘sources,’ rather than accountable individuals. This exposes the underlying reality – a fractured power structure devoid of unified direction. While Khomeini provided a clear center of authority, his intransigence pushed a nation of immense potential wealth into the cycle of poverty, scarcity and repression, instead of prioritizing the prosperity of the Iranian people. His stubbornness resulted in the eight-year war.
The current situation made this reality unmistakably clear. Tehran has spoken with many conflicting voices following the recent announcement of potential negotiations between Iran and the United States of America. One narrative suggests that a third nation is facilitating the discussions, while another entirely dismisses any communication with Washington. Simultaneously, the Revolutionary Guard offers a distinct perspective, claiming that Iran, rather than America, is dictating the terms of engagement. This defiant stance is echoed by the Speaker of Parliament and the Iranian Foreign Minister.
In contrast to these internal denials, certain diplomatic sources reported that remarkable progress is being made to organize high-level meetings in Islamabad. It is widely recognized regionally and globally that Iran operates as a totalitarian state masked by a democratic facade. The current political landscape is marked by a total lack of clear authority for engagement, the Supreme Leader’s status remains a mystery, and the president has disappeared from public life for several days without any communication, indicating profound isolation. For 47 years, the Gulf states have grown accustomed to the inconsistent stances of the mullahs’ regime, which has never operated under a singular, cohesive decision making authority.
This landscape of internal contradictions is destined to continue until a unified leadership emerges, or until the status of the new Supreme Leader is brought to light. It is expected that he will find himself forced to repeat the bitter declaration of Khomeini in 1988, who admitted to “drinking poison” when he accepted the United Nations Resolution 598 – a move that signaled a crushing defeat after an eight-year war, which cost nearly two million lives on both sides. The current political landscape has shifted fundamentally. The confrontation is no longer a triangular regional dispute involving Tehran, Washington and Tel Aviv.
It has evolved into a global stand against the Iranian regime that has systematically eradicated every opportunity for peaceful coexistence. What really concerns us in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states is the adoption of a resolute new strategy centered on a single imperative — the Iranian leadership must be held fully accountable for its entire legacy of aggression from 1979 to the present day, irrespective of any potential internal transitions, while ensuring the absolute protection of our nations against future hostilities, regardless of the geographic harshness that complicates the regional rule. Pulling the seeds of such aggression, in all its forms – whether through overt strikes or more insidious provocations – remains an absolute necessity and a far superior course of action than the 47 years of strategic stagnation we have endured under the mullahs’ regime.
