This question came to my mind after reading the positions of Riyadh and Qatar. The Arab stance is well known: these states have operated under the American umbrella for decades to contain Iran, while displaying toward it what they do not truly harbor. Arab political hypocrisy is well known; they pursue a policy of de-escalation not out of solidarity with Iran, but because what matters to them above all is the stability of the region. They know with absolute certainty that any aggression against Iran would inevitably affect them as well.
The question remains: do these states possess sufficient weight and influence to push Washington to retreat—especially given that “the Sons of Zion” are determined to wage war on the Islamic Republic, and it does not appear that anyone is capable of persuading them otherwise?
The problem is that current assessments speak of the weakness of the Iranian regime, of its alleged irreformability, and of extensive corruption; yet these justifications are exaggerated*. Whatever the internal situation may be, no one there wants their country to face American or Israeli aggression.
Once again, we are confronted with a disregard for the nature of the Iranian popular stance. It is not easy to devise a new plan of aggression and bet on Iranians welcoming the supposed “liberators.” This formula did not succeed in Iraq, and it will not succeed in Iran. The Iranians’ decision is sovereign; they alone decide their destiny. And whatever the mistakes of their state, they are the ones entitled to correct them and to review the performance of a state besieged on all sides.
* World Bank and International Monetary Fund reports, while acknowledging severe economic imbalances due to sanctions, do not speak of an imminent collapse of the state. Moreover, long experience with sanctions has produced an adaptive society, not one welcoming an invasion.
