Sovereignty, Security and Selective Silence

Saudi Arabia's condemnation of Iranian attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain is understandable. Any attack against a neighboring Gulf state threatens regional stability and raises legitimate concerns about security. Riyadh's warning that such actions could push the region toward greater instability reflects the anxieties of governments and citizens alike.

Yet the latest crisis exposes a deeper question that deserves serious debate across the Gulf.

The Kingdom and its GCC partners have been swift in condemning Iranian military actions. However, they have been far more restrained when it comes to criticizing US attacks on Iran, many of which originate from military facilities located within GCC countries. This raises an uncomfortable but important question. Is sovereignty being defended as a universal principle, or is it being interpreted through the lens of strategic alliances?

The issue is not whether Iran should be held accountable for actions that threaten regional peace. It should. The real issue is whether the same standards are applied consistently to all actors.

For decades, Gulf states have justified hosting US military bases as a necessary component of their security architecture. The arrangement has undoubtedly provided strategic protection. However, it has also created a paradox. Facilities intended to enhance security may simultaneously transform host nations into potential targets whenever confrontation erupts between Washington and its adversaries.

This dilemma goes beyond the Gulf. It touches the very meaning of sovereignty in the modern world. Sovereignty is not merely the defense of territorial borders; it is also the ability to exercise independent control over how national territory is used. If military operations against a third country are launched from bases located within a sovereign state, can that state genuinely claim neutrality in the resulting conflict?

Supporters of the current security framework argue that these operations occur with the consent of host governments and therefore do not violate sovereignty. Critics counter that consent alone does not eliminate responsibility for the consequences that follow.

The Gulf's leaders frequently call for dialogue, restraint and de-escalation. These are worthy objectives. Yet lasting credibility requires a consistent approach. Condemning attacks from adversaries while remaining silent about military actions conducted by allies inevitably invites questions about selective outrage.

The debate, therefore, is not about choosing between Washington and Tehran. It is about determining whether sovereignty is a principle to be upheld universally or a concept applied selectively when political convenience demands it.

Western Media’s Selective Outrage on Iran

Protests are a natural and fundamental part of any society whose citizens care about their future and believe they can influence it. They are not a sign of systemic failure, but an indicator of civic health and the practice of free speech, assembly, and association. For Western states, their media, and their politicians, all of this holds true—except when the protests occur in Iran.

The unprecedented volatility in the currency market and the rapid devaluation of the Iranian Rial in recent weeks compelled business owners (known as bazaaris) to shutter their shops, go on strike, and gather in several of Tehran’s central squares to voice their discontent. Reports from journalists on the scene and footage shared by participants indicate the protests—spanning several days—remained largely peaceful.

Demonstrators refrained from vandalizing public property, kept pathways open for vehicles, and directed their slogans toward improved economic management. Anti-riot forces monitored the gatherings and seldom intervened. None of what has emerged from Iran would be unfamiliar in the regular protests seen across European capitals or American cities.

Yet this manner of protest does not sit well with the West or with Israel. Circulated videos show unidentified individuals urging bazaaris to vandalize property and block streets. In one instance, a young woman addressing a crowd fled after protesters refused to escalate into violence. In another, a man attempted to set a municipal trash bin ablaze before bystanders intervened and security forces arrested him. None of the bazaaris recognized him afterward.

Simultaneously, an online influence campaign has emerged, editing videos and fabricating audio to falsely suggest protesters are demanding the return of the deposed Shah’s son. A widely circulated image symbolizing the protests was later exposed as AI-generated.

Israel has openly admitted deploying agents to steer these peaceful demonstrations toward chaos. Mossad’s Persian-language account urged Iranians to “hit the streets,” while an Israeli television reporter openly called for organizing protests to justify a wider war. Iran International echoed similar narratives, promoting escalation as a pathway to foreign military action.

Political figures joined in. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared his readiness to help Iranians achieve “freedom,” while US President Donald Trump warned Iran of further “turmoil,” without acknowledging that Iran’s economic distress stems largely from the “maximum pressure” sanctions he imposed in 2018.

Iranian authorities acknowledged the protests and announced steps to stabilize the Rial. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf both described the demonstrations as legitimate while cautioning against foreign exploitation.

Ultimately, these events reveal a clear double standard - peaceful assembly is praised in one context yet exploited when it occurs in a country opposed by Western and Israeli interests. The true measure of these protests lies not in sensationalized narratives from abroad, but in the legitimate and orderly spirit shown by the Iranian people themselves.

Gaza disaster exposes double standards

Saudi Arabia emphasized on Wednesday that the Gaza disaster has exposed the double standards and selective application of international laws and UN resolutions by the global community.

In his speech, on behalf of Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, at the virtual summit of the leaders of the G20 countries, Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan said the Israeli military escalation and violence are raging in the besieged Gaza in flagrant violation of international laws and it had resulted in one of the history’s worst humanitarian catastrophes.

“The Gaza conflict would inevitably lead to consequences that go beyond this crisis and jeopardize the credibility of the current international system, which will have a negative impact on the world’s future ability to maintain international peace and security,” he said.

Al-Jadaan stressed Saudi Arabia’s categorical rejection of targeting civilians, infrastructure, residential and medical facilities, and displacing Palestinians from Gaza. He reiterated the Kingdom’s demand to spare bloodshed and stop Israeli military operations immediately.

He underlined the need for urgent and safe access of relief and medical supplies to the residents of the Gaza Strip, and create conditions to restore stability and achieve a peaceful solution that guarantees the Palestinian people’s access to their legitimate rights and the establishment of their independent state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The virtual meeting comes as a continuation of G20 summit of leaders, held in New Delhi, India in September, and it aimed to discuss the outcomes of its final statement and a number of topics, including the role of multilateral development banks, climate action and green finance, technical transformation, digital infrastructure, and the role of women in development.