Najm us Saqib<\/p>\n
It was obvious. It was coming. It was inevitable. As American armadas gathered near Iranian waters and threats intensified, the Middle East could only watch with crossed fingers. Regional experts clung to hope: this was coercive diplomacy, not a prelude to war. This was the danger President Donald Trump had warned of hours before Israel\u2019s deadliest-ever missile attack on Iran.
\nExperts had pinned hopes on Geneva talks between American intermediaries and Iran. According to FM Araghchi, an agreement was within reach. But before any announcement could be made, Israel attacked while keeping its powder dry.
\nWhy was Iran struck just as a successor to the defunct JCPOA was about to be concluded? Conversely, if the military option was already on the table, why the Geneva parleys? This contradiction exposes a bitter truth: for Iran, the negotiation table has become an antechamber to the battlefield. Having been bombed before while being coaxed to negotiate, Iran\u2019s scepticism was earned. So, when the latest strikes came, the response was not a matter of if, but of when.
\nIran\u2019s missiles triggered a coordinated assault on nearly every US base in the region and on Israel itself. Yet even Tehran was not prepared for the unthinkable: an attack that martyred its Supreme Leader and his family. This was the ultimate red line. Hypersonic projectiles, held in reserve for precisely such an eventuality, were unleashed.
\nIn the aftermath, Gulf states rightly protested the breach of their territorial integrity after Iranian strikes on US bases within their borders. But to Tehran, their protest rings hollow against years of Iranian warnings. International law experts may construe Iran\u2019s actions as a violation of sovereignty. Yet does anyone hold the same regard for international bodies when the transgressors are the powerful?
\nThe emergency UN Security Council meeting exemplified this hypocrisy. It debated whether to call the situation a \u2018threat to international peace\u2019 or merely \u2018the situation in the Middle East\u2019, rather than halting the missile attacks. The theatre of diplomacy continued, but the play was a tragedy.
\nAmid this diplomatic theatre, Washington delivered its ultimatum. President Trump gave Iran a choice: surrender your nuclear and missile programmes, or face death. When both paths lead to the same end, the choice is an illusion. Tehran did not bother responding. Washington then laid bare a sweeping charge sheet against Iran before declaring \u2018enough was enough.\u2019 This litany forces a chilling conclusion: the attacks were never about neutralising a nuclear programme. They were about destroying the country itself, in response to all the \u2018crimes\u2019 that Iran has committed since 1979.
\n\u2018Annihilation\u2019 was the word used. The entire Iranian Navy was the target. The only exception was the Iranian people, seemingly gifted a chance to \u2018liberate\u2019 themselves by seizing Tehran. They did not take the bait. As they mourned a leader of thirty-six years, they delivered their own verdict. Whatever their internal grievances, they would not be instruments of foreign-powered overthrow.
\nThose who draw parallels between the fiction of Iraq\u2019s WMDs and Iran\u2019s nuclear programme miss the point. Whether the threat is real is immaterial. Propaganda clears the path for every war; truth is always its first casualty. Since when are wars fought through moral arguments? Ultimately, power prevails among nations. Those who believed other powers would offer more than lip service, or that the UN Secretary-General holds authority over the powerful, have been sadly mistaken \u2014 once again. This time, he could not go beyond declaring that the two-state solution was being undermined.
\nThe fact remains: diplomacy is pursued only when it suits the powerful, either after their objectives are met, or when the aggressor has been struck so hard it can barely breathe. This harsh calculus applies not only to Iran but to its neighbours as well. The UAE warned Iran that it stands alone should it continue hostilities against its neighbours. But was Iran not already standing utterly alone when its nuclear installations were first attacked? Is it not standing alone now?
\nPerhaps neighbours should reconsider hosting foreign military bases. These installations, ostensibly for host countries\u2019 security, cost billions annually. The attack on Iran proves they do not guarantee security; instead, they offer only entanglement. They transform host nations into launchpads, making them targets in wars not of their making.
\nHistory\u2019s great strategists understood this dynamic long before modern missiles flew. Sun Tzu wrote: \u2018The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.\u2019 The United States and Israel attempted to subdue Iran through pressure. When that failed, they resorted to war. Clausewitz observed: \u2018War is a continuation of political commerce by other means.\u2019 The attack was not a breakdown of diplomacy. It was diplomacy by other means, a clear signal that for the powerful, negotiation is merely another phase of conflict.
\nThe lesson is now proven beyond doubt: each nation must carry its own cross. No alliance guarantees protection when the powerful decide their interests no longer align with yours. No multilateral forum answers to moral arguments; they respond to those who pay in currency and might. Every nation that has believed itself sheltered by a larger power\u2019s embrace now watches from the periphery. The question is not whether the embrace will be withdrawn. The question is when.
\nThe bells toll: Either you are with us or else.
\nIran discovers that over four decades of revolutionary continuity meant nothing to powers that had decided on annihilation. The Gulf states are discovering that billions in military purchases mean nothing when missiles fly. The entire region has been forced to confront a sobering truth: the United Nations carries little weight when a permanent member has its own objectives to pursue. The absence of any serious move to impeach President Trump signals that the American people still stand behind their President\u2019s vision of making America great again. So, what truly matters in the end? Only what you can defend. Only what you can decide for yourself.
\nThis is not a call for isolation. Nations need friends. But there is a profound difference between a friend and a protector. A friend walks beside you, as the United States walks with Israel. A protector walks ahead, until one day, they do not. And when the lightning strikes, you may find yourself standing exactly where Iran stands today: utterly, perilously, and irrevocably alone.<\/p>\n
The writer is a former Ambassador of Pakistan and author of eight books in three languages. He can be reached at najmussaqib1960@msn.com<\/p>\n
Courtesy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Najm us Saqib It was obvious. It was coming. It was inevitable. As American armadas gathered near Iranian waters and threats intensified, the Middle East could only watch with crossed fingers. Regional experts clung to hope: this was coercive diplomacy, not a prelude to war. This was the danger President Donald Trump had warned of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[12978],"class_list":{"0":"post-535379","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-najm-us-saqib"},"yoast_head":"\n