Opinion
The Tragedy of a Nation: Bashar’s Glory Days and the Road to Ruin
On December 9th, Russia officially announced that it had granted asylum to Syria’s former president Bashar al-Assad and his family. On the same day, the Syrian embassy in Russia lowered the tricolor two-star flag of the “Arab Republic of Syria,” which had flown for over half a century, and raised the opposition’s tricolor three-star flag. Thus, Russia became the first major power to seamlessly transition its allegiance to the Syrian opposition government. Simultaneously, another long-time Syrian ally, Iran, also publicly announced its recognition of the new Damascus regime. The “strategic allies” Russia and Iran, who had been supporting Bashar in his campaigns, pivoted overnight to embrace their former adversaries. Such cold pragmatism—turning a blind eye to old allies’ tears while joining the smiles of new ones—is both baffling and unsettling.
However, reality is as cruel as it is straightforward. Politics is heartless, and the pursuit and defense of national interests are naked and unrelenting. When Bashar’s regime became a liability and an unreliable partner, its abandonment became inevitable. With Russia and Iran increasingly preoccupied with their own troubles, dropping Bashar and switching sides amounted to damage control and a last-minute effort to stop their losses.
The sudden collapse of Bashar’s regime surprised all parties, even those with the most advanced intelligence and information networks. Otherwise, how can one explain Israel’s sweeping bombardment of Syrian military targets and its occupation of more territory, or the United States’ large-scale bombing campaigns against remaining ISIS strongholds in Syria? These actions indicate that neither Israel nor the West anticipated such a swift and thorough collapse of Bashar’s regime. Moreover, they did not expect the opposition forces, particularly the “Liberation of Syria” alliance, which pose an even greater threat to Israel and the West, to seize Syria’s heartland so easily and control all the country’s war machinery.
Deeply analyzing the rapid and disastrous defeat of Bashar’s regime holds significant value. It offers lessons for authoritarian governments regarding governance and decision-making, and it provides insights for all nations on how to maintain diplomatic alliances and ensure their viability under certain conditions.
The primary reason for this historic upheaval in Syria lies within Bashar’s regime itself—or, more broadly, the Assad family, which controlled Syria for over 50 years, and the elite circles surrounding it. The key conclusion is that, despite being trapped in the vortex of war, the regime failed to adapt to the circumstances, make decisions about war and peace, or reconcile national integration efforts. Instead, it relied excessively on external forces to safeguard its sovereignty and regime. Ultimately, this dependence turned the regime into a mere cog in foreign war machines. Once it became dysfunctional, abandonment and replacement were inevitable.
The rise and fall of Syria reflect the broader modern history of war and peace in the Middle East, serving as a microcosm and a living museum of this turbulent process. Since 1948, driven by the ideals of Arab nationalism, Syria actively joined efforts to oppose the partition of Palestine, setting itself on a long-term collision course with Israel and enduring hostility with the West. This path ultimately led Syria to align with the Soviet Union, later binding itself tightly to Russia and Iran in its struggle for survival and development.
The Assad family, belonging to the Alawite sect—a minority within the Shia branch of Islam—long faced suppression, discrimination, and marginalization. During the French colonial period, Alawite men had little choice but to join the military to make a living. This adversity inadvertently enabled the Alawite sect to grow into a dominant force in the Syrian military. It played a central role in overthrowing the Faisal monarchy and became a pillar of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. In the end, the Alawites turned the tide and emerged as the ruling family holding Syria’s destiny in their hands.
In 1967, Syria, whose intelligence chief had been turned by Moscow, was misled by the Soviet Union and false intelligence suggesting that “Israel would launch an attack.” Alongside Egypt, Syria eagerly prepared for war, which prompted Israel, under immense pressure, to launch a preemptive strike. With its singular strength, Israel defeated Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, capturing Palestine’s Gaza Strip (occupied by Egypt), the West Bank and East Jerusalem (controlled by Jordan’s Hashemite Kingdom), as well as the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. This war reinforced Syria’s image as a victim of aggression and occupation, solidified its role as a frontline state, and strengthened the Assad family’s legitimacy in ruling over a majority Sunni Muslim population.
On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt coordinated a large-scale surprise attack known as the “Ramadan War,” the largest blitzkrieg since World War II. Syria nearly recaptured the Golan Heights and put Israel on the brink of collapse. However, with U.S. support, Israel ultimately turned the tide, reclaiming the Golan Heights. Yet, this war shattered the myth of Israel’s invincibility, elevating Syrian President Hafez al-Assad as a contemporary Arab hero alongside Egyptian President Sadat, both becoming new icons of Arab nationalism.
However, on October 7, 2023, Hamas (the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement) launched a surprise attack on Israel on the fiftieth anniversary of the Ramadan War. Ironically, this event ultimately led to the collapse of the Syrian government and the total downfall of the Assad family’s rule, as though history was playing a massive joke. Yet Syria’s current tragedy can be traced back to the misguided path it took after the Ramadan War.
The “victory” of the Ramadan War gave Sadat the political capital and historical opportunity to change course and withdraw from the Palestinian conflict. Egypt had already paid a devastating price—100,000 casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars in losses, and nearly 40 years of lost focus on peace and development. Sadat proactively sought reconciliation with Israel and, through the Camp David Accords, recovered the entire Sinai Peninsula at the cost of abandoning its Arab allies Syria, Jordan, and Palestine.
Feeling “betrayed” by Egypt, Syria aligned itself with Libya and Iraq, raising the banner of Arab nationalism and becoming a stronghold of the Arab resistance movement. Assad, Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein naturally emerged as the “three strongmen” of the Arab world. They supported and cultivated anti-Israel resistance forces while simultaneously competing for leadership within the Arab world.
However, Assad’s Syria had inherent weaknesses, which made achieving peace through war or independent resistance unattainable—a tragic role that continues into Bashar’s era today. Syria’s limited territory, small population, and complex ethnic dynamics left the majority Sunni Muslim population under the rule of Alawite elites pursuing secularization. Meanwhile, Israel held onto the Golan Heights, a critical strategic area just 60 kilometers from Damascus, which further exacerbated Assad’s precarious position.
This left the Assad regime in a difficult and divided state: internally, it relied on the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party’s “one nation, one party, one leader” ideology, maintaining authoritarian rule under the banner of resisting Israeli occupation; externally, it avoided military confrontation with Israel to prevent further devastation, sustaining a “cold peace” for half a century that allowed for slow national development under relative stability.
Driven by competition with Iraq’s Ba’ath Party for legitimacy and leadership of Arab nationalism—and by the Alawite elites’ fear of the Sunni majority—Assad decisively sided with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War (1979-1988), turning his back on the broader Arab community. In February 1982, inspired by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Islamic revival triggered by Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood staged an armed uprising in Hama, seeking to overthrow Syria’s “infidel regime.” The rebellion was brutally crushed. This historical event laid the groundwork for Hama’s support during the 2011 Arab Spring and the Syrian war, where local populations either cooperated with or passively watched rebel forces launch massive offensives against the government.
After the 1982 Lebanon War, the Assad regime, which had already lost the Golan Heights and viewed Lebanon as part of its sphere of influence, was unable to directly confront Israel. Instead, it entrusted the national responsibility of reclaiming lost territory to Hezbollah, which had been recently cultivated and armed by Iran. This opened the door for Iran’s westward expansion into the Arab heartland and gradually integrated Syria into the so-called “Shia Crescent.” To some extent, this represented the Assad regime betting Syria’s national destiny and its own rule on a third party rather than following Egypt’s example by courageously seeking peace with Israel to focus on development and improving democracy, livelihoods, and civil rights.
After the 1991 Gulf War, the Middle East entered a promising decade of peace. Saddam Hussein’s army—consisting of over a million elite troops—was crushed by a United Nations-authorized, U.S.-led coalition after attempting to use the occupation and annexation of Kuwait to force Israel’s withdrawal. U.S. President George H.W. Bush launched “Ramadan War” and subsequently worked with Russia (as the successor to the Soviet Union), the United Nations, the European Union, and Spain to initiate the Madrid Peace Process. For the first time, Israel—accustomed to tackling its enemies one by one—was brought under the same roof with its Arab adversaries, including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan (along with Palestinian representatives), to negotiate “land for peace.”
Unexpectedly, Assad faced a second and third Arab betrayal. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Jordan—who had originally pledged to confront Israel alongside Syria—separately negotiated agreements with Israel. The PLO secretly signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, establishing transitional Palestinian autonomy, while Jordan normalized relations with Israel in 1994. From that point on, Assad viewed the Palestinian and Jordanian leadership as strangers, even enemies, cutting off all relations.
Assad’s original heir was not Bashar but his eldest son Basil, born in 1962. However, at a time when Assad was growing old and Basil’s personal reputation was on the rise, Basil, who was destined to inherit the regime, died in a mysterious car accident in 1994—an event that rewrote Syrian history. Bashar, who had originally planned to become an ophthalmologist, was immediately recalled to Syria. He swiftly joined the military, rose through the ranks, and was groomed as the successor, ensuring the continuation of the Assad dynasty.
Had Assad lived longer, Bashar might have inherited a legacy of peace and chosen a different path. If his elder brother Basil had not died, Bashar might have become a highly respected international doctor, perhaps even a Nobel laureate in medicine. Unfortunately, while members of royal families can sometimes choose their own future, others cannot—a stark contrast between Eastern and Western cultural traditions.
At the end of 1999, negotiations over the Golan Heights were close to an agreement but collapsed entirely due to an unintended turn of events that rewrote Middle Eastern history and Syria’s fate. In late 1999, Jordan’s King Hussein II passed away. Known for his remarkable emotional intelligence and extensive diplomatic ties, his funeral in Amman attracted an overwhelming number of world leaders and dignitaries.
Perhaps due to a softening heart as he approached the end of his life, pressure from the situation, or simply an inexplicable lapse in judgment, Assad, despite his frail health, broke tradition and personally attended the funeral of King Hussein. Following the Amman funeral, Israel suddenly announced the suspension of Golan Heights negotiations. The Israeli parliament passed a resolution requiring any policy concerning the future of the Golan Heights to receive two-thirds approval from the Knesset, followed by a national referendum.
Years later, reports emerged that Mossad—the formidable Israeli intelligence agency—had secretly swapped a temporary toilet Assad used at the Amman funeral. Subsequent analysis of Assad’s urine confirmed he was in the late stages of cancer and had little time left. Israel’s Security Cabinet feared that Bashar, then only in his early 30s, would be unable to secure his hold on power. If the Golan Heights were returned and Damascus fell into the hands of Arab nationalists or pro-Iranian forces, Israel would effectively be placing a noose around its own neck. Thus, the near-complete peace talks were permanently frozen.
Six months later, Assad passed away. The Israeli government, despite being an adversarial and warring nation, publicly expressed condolences to the Syrian people, government, and Assad’s family, describing him as a keeper of peace who honored his commitments. Bashar al-Assad assumed power as expected and consolidated his regime. However, he permanently lost the best opportunity to peacefully reclaim the Golan Heights. Instead, he found himself forced to bind Syria to the dual vehicles of the “Shia Crescent” and the “frontline state,” eventually becoming the hub of the “Axis of Resistance,” suffering exploitation from all sides. In this sense, Bashar’s Syria resembles the Western Roman Empire in its dying days, collapsing under the final onslaught of northern barbarians, or the Eastern Roman Empire, which, after a thousand years of survival amid wars and sieges, was finally sent to its grave by the Ottoman Empire following its occupation and division during the Fourth Crusade.
Bashar never aspired to be Syria’s angel or reform hero. After assuming power in 2000, he immediately sought reform, relaxed restrictions, and temporarily ushered in a vibrant and praiseworthy “Damascus Spring.” However, as the trends of liberalization and democratization began to threaten political transformation, Bashar, under immense pressure from powerful conservative forces and entrenched elites—and lacking the strength and political wisdom to persevere—abruptly shut the door to reform after just two years. This marked a lost opportunity to sever ties with history, with Iran, and the Shia Crescent, while reclaiming the Golan Heights through separate negotiations. Bashar dared not take such risks, fearing the same fate as Sadat, who pursued peace for land but paid with his life.
In 2005, the assassination of Saudi-backed Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Rafik Hariri implicated Syrian intelligence and Hezbollah, highlighting the brutal sectarian conflicts in the Islamic Middle East and the struggle over Lebanon. This event triggered the “Beirut Spring” or “Cedar Revolution,” forcing Syria to end its 30-year military presence in Lebanon and further affirming Lebanon’s independence.
The 2011 Arab Spring erupted following Tunisia’s “Jasmine Revolution,” which brought down several authoritarian Arab governments across the Mediterranean’s northwest coast. Its ripple effect eventually reached Syria on the eastern coast. The brutal handling of student protests in the southern town of Daraa sparked a broader uprising, with unrest spreading to traditional anti-Alawite strongholds like Hama. Bashar, facing his first major test after a decade in power, responded poorly. Instead of apologizing and addressing corruption and mismanagement, he blamed the West for orchestrating a “color revolution” and shut the door to dialogue. This fueled widespread dissatisfaction, plunging the country into chaos.
At a critical moment, Saudi King Abdullah called Bashar, offering $20 billion to create jobs, stabilize the economy, and maintain regime stability—on the condition that Damascus sever its strategic ties with Iran and the Shia Crescent. However, Bashar viewed Saudi Arabia’s proposed antidote as a poison pill, recognizing that his Alawite minority regime depended on the Shia family for survival. Additionally, reclaiming the Golan Heights required the support of Iran and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia’s outstretched olive branch was rejected, leading it to mobilize the Arab League and align with Western nations to intervene in Syria under the pretext of protecting civilians and human rights. This opened the curtain on the Syrian Civil War, with external funding and support for opposition forces.
At the brink of regime collapse, Russia—engaged in a geopolitical contest with the U.S. and NATO over Ukraine—intervened. To divert pressure and protect its last remaining Soviet-era sphere of influence in the Middle East, especially its Mediterranean naval base in Syria, Russia coordinated with China to veto Arab League and Western-sponsored resolutions in the UN Security Council, thwarting attempts to replicate Libya’s regime-change scenario. Under the guise of counter-terrorism, with tens of thousands of Shia militia and Hezbollah fighters crossing borders to support the regime, Bashar’s government regained most of its lost territory and major population centers. A ceasefire agreement was signed with the opposition in March 2020, stabilizing the situation for the first time in a decade. However, this left the country divided, with lingering roots of civil war and fragmentation.
Bashar understood the importance of eliminating opposition, yet Syria lacks the strength to uproot rebels protected by Turkey in the northwest and Kurdish forces supported by the U.S. in the northeast and east. Russia and Iran are also unwilling to bear the massive costs of direct confrontation with Turkey or the U.S. to fulfill Bashar’s ambitions for reunification. They have repeatedly urged Bashar to settle for stability and form a coalition government through negotiations—an offer he has rejected. Fundamentally, Syria remains a bargaining chip for Russia and Iran’s geopolitical interests. What matters to them is securing their core national interests, not who controls Damascus. Otherwise, how can one explain why Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militias abandoned Bashar in his final hour?
Bashar was originally a “laissez-faire” figure. Despite not being religious, his visit to the Lingyin Temple during the Asian Games in Hangzhou turned him into an internet sensation, sparking controversy and unfounded speculation. Perhaps now, as an exiled leader, Bashar can finally let go of the burdens he has carried for 24 years—burdens too heavy for him to bear. He may return to being an ordinary person or even resume his old career in medicine. But Syria, having been placed on the operating table for half a century, remains carved up and bleeding. Who will save it from this torment?
Overthrowing Bashar’s regime and dismantling the remnants of the Ba’ath Party might not end Syria’s decades of bloodshed but could instead mark the beginning of new conflicts and suffering—much like the downfall of Saddam Hussein’s regime 20 years ago.
On June 20, the mutual airstrikes between Israel and Iran entered their second week, with both sides suffering heavy losses. The confrontation is escalating, and a ceasefire seems unlikely in the short term. Moreover, the U.S. has openly supported Israel’s strikes on Iran, intercepting Iranian missiles and drones, and is preparing to join in the offensive. President Trump has not only threatened Iran to “completely surrender” but also sent three aircraft carrier fleets to the Middle East, raising the possibility of a two-against-one situation that could resemble the Yugoslav war—defeating the opponent through prolonged joint airstrikes.
The Persian Gulf is a vital oil hub, and Iran’s nuclear facilities are a main target, raising the risk of global oil and gas disruptions and possible nuclear leakage or proliferation. This conflict is more concerning than most regional wars and affects global stability. Beyond the military and diplomatic specifics, it’s necessary to assess the rights and wrongs of the Israel-Iran conflict from a grand historical perspective. This marks a final showdown after over forty years of hostility, ending years of mutual insults, threats, and proxy wars. Now both countries are engaging directly in a high-intensity duel.
Firstly, Israel’s preemptive strike lacks legitimacy and justice, drawing widespread international condemnation. As a UN member, attacking another member without a formal declaration of war—based only on suspicion of nuclear development—violates international law and the UN Charter. It is a blatant infringement of Iran’s sovereignty and civilian rights, and a reckless challenge to modern legal and civilizational norms.
This is not Israel’s first violation of another nation’s sovereignty. In 1956, Israel joined the UK and France in the Suez Crisis. In 1967, citing the potential threat of an imminent attack by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, Israel launched a preemptive strike, taking the initiative to destroy the air forces of the three countries. It subsequently occupied Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Syria’s Golan Heights, and seized the Palestinian Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem—the holy city—from Egypt and Jordan. In 1981, Israel flagrantly violated the airspace of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, launching a long-range airstrike with a large formation of aircraft to destroy Iraq’s nuclear facility under construction. In 2007, the Israeli Air Force penetrated deep into eastern Syria and bombed a nuclear reactor that was also under construction. Between 2009 and 2012, the Israeli Air Force carried out multiple long-distance strikes over a thousand kilometers away in Sudan, targeting what it claimed were dangerous threats.
Admittedly, Israel was indeed in a state of hostility or ceasefire with these Arab countries, and the governments of these countries did harbor animosity toward Israel. It is also possible that some of them were preparing for war. However, Israel has consistently invoked its small territorial size, lack of strategic depth, and encirclement by hostile forces as justification for launching preemptive offensives, in order to maintain absolute military superiority and ensure its own security. In reality, since its establishment in 1948, Israel has never fundamentally overcome its strategic predicament. One key reason lies in its excessive reliance on military means and its deep attachment to warfare, leading it to become, in effect, a military force operating under the guise of a state.
Now possessing nuclear weapons and overwhelming superiority, Israel’s justification for attacking Iran over suspected nuclear ambitions is widely condemned as unjust and hypocritical.
The confrontation between Israel and Iran is a continuation of the “Sixth Middle East War,” which erupted on October 7, 2023. Although the immediate trigger was the offensive launched by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the deeper root lies in Israel’s long-standing illegal occupation, exploitation, and encroachment upon Palestinian territories. It reflects the persistent dynamic of occupation and resistance, plunder and counter-plunder, that has defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over half a century. While this round of war may appear to have resulted in a military victory for Israel—defeating Hamas and its allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian government, and even humiliating Iran for its involvement—the underlying cause of the conflict remains unresolved: Israel’s continued refusal to return the Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories it illegally occupies.
According to international law, peoples under occupation have the right to armed resistance, and states subjected to aggression have the right to self-defense. This is the crux of the Middle East dispute and the reason why Israel finds itself increasingly isolated and lacking in international support.
That said, Iran cannot be regarded as entirely innocent in the face of Israeli attacks. Israel’s illegal occupation of Arab territories is fundamentally a dispute between Israel and Arab states, and international opinion has largely sided with the Arab position, consistently condemning Israel’s occupation practices. However, since the establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and has maintained a hostile stance toward a country with which it neither shares a border nor has any territorial disputes. Moreover, Iran has continuously supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and hardline Palestinian factions in their military struggle against Israel, thereby constituting a substantive challenge to Israel’s national security and regional stability.
In recent years, Iran has used its involvement in the international war on terror and its nuclear deal with the Obama administration to secure tacit recognition of its regional sphere of influence. It successfully established the “Shia Crescent” from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, forming a Tehran–Baghdad–Damascus–Beirut–Sana’a axis. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and large numbers of Shia militias have infiltrated Syria and set up numerous military bases, posing a direct threat to Israel. This in turn has prompted Israel to repeatedly bomb Syria—who has the will but not the ability to retaliate—ultimately leading to the collapse of the Assad regime that ruled Syria for decades.
Iran’s deep involvement in Middle East conflicts—especially the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts—is not based on international legal norms, but rather on pan-Islamist ideology. This ideology holds that Muslim countries have a duty to liberate occupied Islamic lands and oppressed Muslim brothers. However, traditional religious law cannot replace modern international law, and sympathy for Palestinians, Lebanese, or Syrians cannot justify proxy warfare. Over time, Iran has become not just the base and backer of Israel’s enemies but has also brought war and disaster upon itself. From the perspective of international law and international relations, it is not excessive to say Iran “brought the attack upon itself.”
In essence, is Iran really aiming to solve the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts? If it were, Iran would support peaceful negotiations based on UN resolutions, and at least acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state, even if not normalize relations. Iran would align with the collective stance of Arab nations, advocating “land for peace,” and recognize Israel’s sovereignty contingent on withdrawal from occupied Arab lands. Instead, Iran has pursued a path that overrides Arab nations’ consensus, attempting to dominate Arab-Israeli territorial disputes like an impatient outsider. Iran’s Middle East policy is fundamentally driven by Persian nationalism—under the guise of reclaiming Arab lands, it seeks to increase regional influence while avoiding the disadvantages of being an ethnic and sectarian minority in the Arab-dominated Middle East.
Third, the pain and historical choice facing the peoples of Israel and Iran. When war breaks out, it is the ordinary people of both nations who suffer most. But the greatest value of this war may be whether it awakens public opinion in both countries—enough to reshape national policy and eliminate the cycle of hostility.
Both Israel and Iran, to varying degrees, are democratic nations—at least in law, with separation of powers and regular leadership changes. While their systems differ—Israel as a Western-style multiparty democracy and Iran as a theocratic authoritarian Islamic republic—both countries’ political structures ultimately reflect the will of their people. The enduring policies that brought today’s conflict cannot be blamed solely on governments; the people share responsibility.
Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies are deeply tied to the worldview, security mindset, and sense of justice of its Jewish majority. Centuries of exile and suffering—culminating in near extinction—have become a cultural gene that prioritizes survival and security over neighborly rights. This has prevented strong public pressure to return occupied lands for peace, and instead enabled far-right forces to drive policy toward militarism, giving the government unchecked power and exposing Israelis to endless danger.
As millions of Gazans live in what’s called “the world’s largest prison,” as over 50,000 Palestinians have died in the past year and continue to bleed and starve, the Israeli public remains numb. Watching their government seize neighboring land and fuel national prosperity while ignoring the lasting hatred this creates, Israelis drink poison as if it were wine. When current far-right leaders drag the country into war with Iran to save their political careers, the response is panic and calls for harsher retaliation—not reflection on the nation’s course.
Iran, meanwhile, regularly changes leadership but maintains its confrontational foreign policy—with the consent or apathy of its people. Over 40 years ago, Iranians overthrew the corrupt and brutal Pahlavi monarchy in a revolution led by clerics. The new Islamic Republic soon plunged into an eight-year war with Iraq, costing nearly a million lives. Yet these painful lessons did not shift public will toward focusing on internal development. Instead, Persians embraced a mix of nationalist nostalgia, martyrdom in holy wars, and emotionalism—fueling continued confrontation with Arab neighbors and the outside world.
Over the past few decades, the Arab-Israeli conflict has undergone a major transformation. Starting with peace between Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO with Israel, and progressing to the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, the political landscape of the Middle East has shifted significantly. The region’s political main theme has turned toward peace, reconciliation, cooperation, and development. However, the Iranian people continue to blindly follow their government’s outdated and rigid policies, enduring hardship and political repression, sacrificing economic development and national progress, while stubbornly clinging to anti-Israel rhetoric and ambitions to eliminate Israel. They persist in claiming the mission of reclaiming Arab lands, even at the cost of engaging in a prolonged struggle with the U.S. and the West, dragging their country into isolation and turning their capital into a city that people flee.
2,500 years ago, the ancestors of the Iranian people established the first empire spanning Asia, Africa, and Europe—the Persian Empire. The Achaemenid dynasty ruled with an inclusive and open approach. It was this dynasty that generously freed the Jews from Babylonian captivity after 70 years of enslavement. The Jews were so moved that they revered the Persian king Cyrus the Great as a savior. The Jewish princess Esther, concealing her identity, became queen and won the favor of King Xerxes. Together with her powerful uncle Mordecai, they used their influence to eliminate their enemies, the Amalekites, and protect the Jewish people. These legendary stories represent a historical peak of Jewish-Iranian coexistence and harmony.
Yet in the modern age, Israel and Iran have become bitter enemies for nearly half a century due to diverging national policies. This is a tragic irony, a misfortune for both nations and their people, and a betrayal of the shared legacy of Jewish and Persian civilizations. The ongoing and escalating indirect war between Israel and Iran will have no winners regardless of the outcome. Hopefully, the decision-makers and voting citizens of both nations will awaken from the flames of war, shift their policies, abandon mutual hostility, and join Arab states in upholding the principle of “land for peace.”
They should work to resolve the Palestinian issue based on the two-state solution, expand the Abraham Accords by supporting the return of Lebanese and Syrian territories through negotiations, and build mutual understanding, acceptance, and respect. Only then can the long-standing conflict between Israel and Iran come to an end. Together, they can help the Middle East break free from cycles of war and chaos, and move toward peace and development like other regions that have already put large-scale violence behind them—making up for lost time and missed opportunities for prosperity.
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
As someone who has wanted to bomb Iran for nearly 30 years, it’s not hard to understand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has his own agenda and is using claims of Iran developing nuclear weapons as a pretext. This demonization campaign has been quite long-running. Even in the 1990s, he persistently made this claim, which had no basis in fact. In fact, US intelligence reports at the time clearly showed this claim to be false. The most recent US intelligence report, published this past March, says the same thing. Despite this, Netanyahu persists with his claims, wildly exaggerating them. One of his latest claims is that Iran will build nuclear weapons and distribute them to terrorists.
Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program, conducted with full transparency under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], should be considered a normal state of affairs. Indeed, in 2015, under President Obama’s leadership, the US and the UK supported this agreement, and it was signed. At the time, Iran also stated that it had no nuclear weapons program and welcomed being fully open to inspections.
When Trump took office in 2017, he withdrew from this agreement in 2018—likely due to pressure from the Israel lobby in the US—plunging everything back into uncertainty. Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy, on the contrary, pushed Iran to increase its uranium enrichment activities. It is extremely interesting and confusing that Trump, having withdrawn from a previously agreed-upon deal during his first term, would now strive to return to it in a potential second term. It would be naive to think that Trump has learned from the past and wants to correct his mistake.
It is very clear that Israel, under Netanyahu’s leadership, wants to topple the Iranian regime using the nuclear program as a pretext. It is advancing toward this goal step by step, virtually paralyzing opposing forces and preventing them from offering any meaningful response. At this point, it is also moving away from the typical Western approach of preferring “the devil you know.”
The pretext of nuclear bombs instead of weapons of mass destruction
An attempt to bring about regime change in a Middle Eastern state was also made 20 years ago in Iraq. We witnessed the horror created by the Iraq plan, which led to the rise of ISIS and the deaths of millions. At the time, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his speech at the UN, said, “Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons and has no qualms about using them again against his neighbors and his own people.” In his presentation, Powell used reconnaissance photos, detailed maps and charts, and even recorded phone conversations between high-ranking members of the Iraqi army. The phrase “weapons of mass destruction,” which he repeated 17 times during his hour-long speech, accompanied by information that intelligence officials had assured him was reliable, became the public justification used by the Bush administration to legitimize the invasion of Iraq.
A month and a half after Powell’s UN speech, President Bush ordered airstrikes on Baghdad. In a televised address to the nation, Bush said this was the beginning of a military operation “to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger.” US forces, along with their internal collaborators in Iraq, overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime within a few weeks, and evidence of Iraq’s so-called “weapons of mass destruction” was nowhere to be found.
The Bush administration used the credibility of Colin Powell—known for his opposition to war, particularly US military interventions in the Middle East—to bring about regime change in Iraq. Powell later described his UN speech as a “major intelligence failure” and a “blot” on his record. Before he died, Powell expressed his regret, admitting that his sources had turned out to be wrong, flawed, and even deliberately misleading.
If Israel succeeds in neutralizing Iran—and perhaps even turning it into an ally in the medium to long term—guess which conventional power in the region will be its next target? Efforts to demonize Türkiye have been underway for a long time, although they are currently on the back burner. A bilateral confrontation in the region would unfold on a very different footing than a trilateral balance; we had better take precautions and fasten our seatbelts.
Middle East
An assault on the Axis of Resistance: The Israeli escalation against Iran and its impact on Palestine and Gaza
Khaled al-Yamani, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Events in the region are accelerating as if we are on the brink of a new political and security earthquake, led by the direct confrontation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Zionist entity, under blatant American complicity. This confrontation, though it appears to be military and security-based, is in essence a major war targeting the entire project of resistance — from Tehran to Gaza.
Latest escalation: Aggressive maneuvers in the name of ‘Israeli security’
The Zionist entity launched an aerial assault targeting military sites deep within Iranian territory. Under recycled pretexts — related to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs — “Israel” continues its strikes, not only against Tehran, but also against its allies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.
But what’s happening isn’t just “preemptive strikes” as Western media claims — it is the continuation of a long war waged by the United States and “Israel” against the Axis of Resistance, aiming to break the balance of deterrence established by Iran and its allies after years of strategic patience and military development.
America and Israel: One goal behind false slogans
This escalation cannot be separated from direct American direction. The Biden administration, though claiming to seek de-escalation, in practice provides full political, military, and intelligence cover for this aggression.
The goal is clear: to dismantle the Axis of Resistance and deprive Iran of any ability to support its allies — first and foremost, the Palestinian resistance factions.
The U.S. administration knows that Iran’s strength does not lie solely in its nuclear program, but in its presence in the regional equation — from Lebanon to Iraq to Palestine. Therefore, striking Iran means breaking the backbone of the Jerusalem Axis.
What does Gaza and Palestine have to do with this?
Any attack on Iran is, by extension, an attack on Gaza. What is plotted in Tehran reflects immediately in the alleys of Khan Younis and the Jabalia refugee camp. The rockets that overwhelmed the Israeli army during the “Al-Aqsa Flood” battle would not have reached the resistance without decades of accumulated Iranian support.
Now, the Zionist entity — with American backing — seeks to cut off the lifeline to Palestine and destroy the support network Iran has built for the resistance, whether in weapons, knowledge, or training.
Thus, striking Iran is not separate from the ongoing aggression on Gaza; it is a direct extension of it, and part of the suffocating siege aimed at weakening the Palestinian people’s ability to endure and resist.
The Axis of Resistance: Unity of fronts and a shared fate
The new equation imposed by the Axis of Resistance after the “Sword of Jerusalem” battle — and later the “Al-Aqsa Flood” — has become a nightmare for the enemy: the unity of fronts. No longer is Gaza alone, or the southern suburbs alone, or Sanaa alone.
Hence, the Zionist entity is now trying to preempt any emerging united front by striking at the center — Iran — before a full-scale confrontation erupts that could spell the end of “Israel” as we know it.
Conclusion: The battle continues… and Palestine remains the heart
We are facing a pivotal moment in the history of this struggle. The enemy seeks to paralyze the Axis of Resistance at its strategic core and turn the conflict into a fight for survival. Yet the Axis today is stronger than ever.
Despite the wounds, Gaza remains at the heart of this confrontation. The battle is not just being fought in Iranian territory or over the skies of Lebanon and Syria — it is being fought over the future of Palestine, from the river to the sea.
Therefore, it is the duty of all the free people of the world, and all honest journalists, to speak the truth.
If Israel emerges victorious from its ongoing confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the consequences of that victory will not be limited to Tehran or the Axis of Resistance alone. Rather, they will extend to impact the entire regional balance of power — with Türkiye’s role at the center of that shift.
An Israeli victory would, in effect, cement its dominance as an unchallengeable military force in the Middle East, fully backed by the United States. This would open the door to a new phase of political interference and pressure, especially against regional powers that still maintain a degree of independent decision-making — chief among them, Türkiye.
Türkiye, which seeks to maintain an independent and balanced role between East and West, and whose interests are intertwined with Russia, Iran, and Central Asian countries, would come under increasing pressure to reposition itself according to Israeli-American terms. It may find itself facing two options: either submit to the new regional equation, or enter an unwanted political — and possibly security — confrontation.
From this perspective, what is happening in Tehran today is not isolated from what could happen in Ankara tomorrow. If Iran falls as an independent regional power, Türkiye may be next in line.
The assault on Iran is an assault on Palestine. Defending Tehran is defending Jerusalem.
This battle has strategic implications not only for the Palestinian cause and the Axis of Resistance against Zionist-American hegemony, but its outcomes will extend across the entire region — particularly affecting major regional powers such as Türkiye, Iran, and Egypt.
If Iran stands firm and emerges victorious in this confrontation, it will strengthen the role of these countries in resisting Zionist arrogance and domination. One could even say that such a victory may bring an end to Zionist hegemony over the region and, as a result, weaken American influence as well.
It would allow these countries to become more independent and distant from U.S. control, which seeks to turn the peoples of the region into subjects by dividing them into warring sects and identities. Therefore, solidarity among these countries at this moment is one of the key elements of victory — and a potential beginning of liberation from Zionist-American domination.
Israel’s nuclear arsenal used as a tool of blackmail, says expert
US presidents ignore intelligence reports on Iran, says ex-CIA analyst
Viewing the Israel-Iran Confrontation Through the Lens of Grand History
Japan diverges from G7, urging restraint in Israel-Iran conflict
Citigroup warns oil could hit $90 if Strait of Hormuz is closed
-
Diplomacy1 week agoFormer diplomat warns forcing Iran out of the NPT is the greatest danger
-
Middle East2 days agoUS to launch major bombing campaign against Iran this weekend, Hersh reports
-
Opinion2 weeks agoEuropean defense autonomy and Germany’s military role enter a turning point
-
Middle East1 week agoNetanyahu’s government survives no-confidence vote as Haredi crisis is delayed
-
Asia2 weeks agoJapan, US showcase B-52 bombers in nuclear deterrence dialogue
-
Diplomacy1 week agoFormer CIA analyst says Israel used ceasefire talks as a trap
-
Middle East5 days agoIran targets Mossad and Unit 8200 in missile attack on Tel Aviv
-
Middle East1 week agoIsrael strikes Iran’s nuclear program, killing high-level commanders
