AFTER 13 days of direct Iranian-Israeli conflict, a ceasefire was finally reached through Qatari mediation and American sponsorship. With the negotiating table set and all parties weighing their gains and losses, several important points must be emphasized. The disruption of the Iranian nuclear project, achieved through this confrontation, is credited to the United States, which accomplished this goal through a highly precise surgical operation.
This proves the fact that when a superpower intervenes, supported by the European Union and regional states, it aims for a decisive outcome rather than merely managing the crisis. Secondly, Iran’s violation of the sovereignty of the sisterly state of Qatar revealed the true nature of the destructive mullahs’ regime in Tehran.
This regime shows no respect for good neighborliness or the excellent relations between Tehran and Doha. Through this reckless act, the Iranian leadership exposed their disregard for approaches that benefit their people, prioritizing instead their terrorist agenda in the region. There was indeed a prior agreement for a limited and “controlled” Iranian response to the US attack, similar to the reaction following the assassination of former Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad airport.
At that time, US President Donald Trump stated that Iran had informed the Americans it would strike the Ain al-Assad base, mainly to create an excuse for its people, a gesture seen as a merciful or “brotherly” bombing. What does this mean?
It means that no power can truly challenge the United States. Iran, for its part, cannot confront this superpower directly. Moreover, the United States and Europe consider Israel’s security a red line that must not be crossed. In contrast, Iran has demonstrated its weakness in direct confrontation. While Iran once waged wars against Israel through proxies and supplied arms, allowing Tel Aviv to score several points in its favor, the situation today is very different.
Iran no longer controls four Arab capitals, nor does it possess the capability to threaten Israel’s annihilation. Neither Lebanese Hezbollah, the Iraqi sectarian militias, nor the destructive Houthis can seriously threaten any country, especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
Overall, Iran’s network of proxies is weaker than ever. Based on this, experience has shown that Tehran must adopt a more realistic vision that aligns with its distinguished position, its large population of 94 million, and its considerable capabilities. We have stated before, and reiterate now, that neither anyone in the region nor the international community wants a country governed by such a regime to possess nuclear weapons. No rational Islamic state supports the proliferation of nuclear arms, especially in an extraordinarily sensitive region like the Middle East. Now that the war has ended, a realistic Iranian assessment of the confrontation’s outcome is a must. Iran must seriously consider changing its political and economic course and seeking common ground with its neighbors, who unanimously condemned Iran’s aggression against Qatar.
This united stance confirms that the Gulf Cooperation Council countries share an unshakable destiny and makes clear that any attempt to undermine regional security will be met with severe consequences. The day after the ceasefire, any rational observer can see who the biggest losers and winners are.
Iran faces the daunting task of rebuilding, requiring a lot of time, money, and resources, none of which are easily available due to the sanctions imposed on it.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to benefit from unlimited logistical and financial support from the United States and Europe, along with a workforce of 400,000 Palestinian laborers in Israel. Is this truly the outcome Iran sought from the war? To strengthen Israel’s position? Regardless of the outcome, Iran must adopt a wise and pragmatic approach to the future. It is time for Tehran to understand that stubbornness only leads to the harshest consequences.
