For nearly five decades, Iran has been subjected to economic
sanctions, covert operations, cyber sabotage, and targeted killings of nuclear
scientists. These measures, justified in the name of non-proliferation, have
failed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability. Instead, they have entrenched
confrontation, weakened moderates, and institutionalized hostility as a policy
tool.
Israel has played the most aggressive role in this strategy.
Operating with implicit Western backing, it has repeatedly attacked Iranian
assets and openly threatened pre-emptive strikes. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s
recurring warnings of unilateral military action reflect a dangerous mindset:
one that treats force as a substitute for diplomacy and assumes escalation can
be controlled. History suggests otherwise.
Any military adventurism against Iran would not remain a
limited strike. It would provoke retaliation across the region, destabilize
already fragile states, disrupt global energy supplies, and risk drawing major
powers into a wider confrontation. The Middle East is already burdened by
overlapping crises; igniting a new war over speculative threat perceptions
would be an act of strategic recklessness.
If the objective is to prevent nuclear weapons
proliferation, coercion has proven ineffective. Verification, inspections, and
negotiated limits offer far greater security than sanctions and bombs. The West
must accept that peaceful enrichment under monitoring is safer than perpetual
confrontation.
Equally important, Muslim countries must move beyond silence
and ambiguity. Enabling or facilitating attacks on Iran, directly or
indirectly, only accelerates regional self-destruction. Strategic autonomy
demands collective restraint.
Enough is enough. Denying legal rights, normalizing
aggression, and tolerating unilateral strikes will not bring stability. They
will only push the Middle East closer to a conflict whose consequences no
one—not even its architects—can control.

No comments:
Post a Comment