I return to a discussion that began in 1993, when we used to meet at the home of the late Bassam Al-Shakaa in an attempt to rebuild the Arab current, where we were against the Oslo Accords. The late lawyer Saleh Abu Aida (of the Ba’ath Party) viewed the conflict as being against a nuclear Iran, while the late Dr. Abdul Sattar Qassem believed that America’s and Israel’s motivation was religious.
My opinion then, and still is, that the goal is to prevent any country in what is called the Middle East from becoming strong and developed, because that undermines America’s interests in the region or takes a share of the market. This is part of the West’s 300-year-old plan to target the Arab Homeland, with Iran added to the list after the Shah fell, while focus on strengthening Turkey has continued.
Hence, I urge readers to read the theory of Blocked Development. All of this implies the prevention of any advanced capitalism in the region — let alone socialism — and instead keeping capital development confined to the West. Thus, the conflict is capitalist in nature. In this equation, Israel is a strategic investment whose role is to abort Arab development. That’s why spending on Israel is marginal compared to the services it provides in normalization and destruction, which ultimately leads to transferring Arab wealth to the entire West. Just look at how much was offered to Trump from the Gulf a month ago.
Some Palestinian analysts have suggested that Israel is waging a religious war, arguing that Iran is a theocratic regime. But that’s not true. The current Israeli regime is itself a religious-political model — a Zionist version of ISIS. In fact, Zionist religious forces and rabbis have long said they want a religious state like Iran. However, the truth is that Israel is a capitalist creation and servant, using a religious facade. This does not rule out that there are other factors involved beyond economics. To conclude this section, I pose this question:
Is the American aggression against China because it’s nuclear or because it’s not Evangelical, or because it is economically developing and taking a larger share of the global market?
On another note, it seems that Iran is not intending to produce nuclear weapons — even though it has the right to — and even if it did, neither side would use them unless in a moment of suicidal madness. Iran relies on missiles as a counter to airpower, and the last few days may have been proof of that. I believe the U.S. and Israel know this, but the aim has always been and remains to block Iran’s development. That’s why they always said: We will return Iraq and Syria to the Stone Age — not stop them from reaching the nuclear age. Let’s not forget that America was the first to use nuclear weapons, and that Israel attempted to do so in the 1973 October War, were it not for the U.S. airlift of all necessary weapons and even fighting on its behalf, as the West has always done.
In the current war, Netanyahu took an Orientalist and acrobatic approach when he tried to seduce the Iranian people by saying the aggression was not against them, but against the regime. As was observed, he released a photo of himself and his wife next to the son of the Shah and his wife — an attempt to recreate history, which contradicts the logic of history.
This reminded me of what Yitzhak Rabin said during the 1987 Intifada: “I am surprised that Palestinians throw stones at us while we employ them.” He forgot that they hadn’t forgotten that he employed them in their occupied homeland.
Beliefs and changes from this war:
It is truly strange that most Arab analysts, presenters, etc., talk about Israeli aggression — as if they haven’t understood that the war has been with the West since 1948. But since the very first day of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, this has been a war by America, the West, Zionist Entity and Arab Zionism as mere tools. Enough ignorance and deception — this is betrayal.
Also strange is the admiration many have for so-called progressive Jews who denounce the genocide in Gaza, but begin by condemning the Al-Aqsa Flood and evade mentioning that the root is the 1948 occupation of Palestine — making this a war of liberation versus a war of genoside.
For years, I’ve written that the phrase “rules of the game” is a deceitful lie. In antagonistic conflict, the enemy believes in no rules — not even the ones it sets — and only abides by rules forced upon it, which it constantly works to change. The Al-Aqsa Flood war proved that there are no rules for the West, Zionism, or Arab Zionism — yet many still babble on about them.
The same applies to “red lines” set by the enemy and erased by its own hand. I was often puzzled when analysts said, “The assassination of Hass/n na/r/all/ah red line,” as if this gave him safety — only for him to be killed. Likewise, the talk that “no war is coming” is misguided. Whoever believes this is an antagonistic contradiction should expect war at any moment.
It was shameful for some in the Axis to say that America and Israel “deceived us.” Why wouldn’t they? If Iran and the Axis believed them, better not to mention it — this illusion and self-deception contradict the law of contradiction.
Also, some chatter about Trump not being inclined toward war is absurd. He is a racist, fascist capitalist who wages war first — then pursues peace after destruction. He wages war first, as he does with Gaza, and only after the war exhausts itself does he consider peace.
The Arab media has been flooded with the likes of MacGregor and Scott Ritter, saying this aggression would lead to a broader war involving Turkey and Islamic countries on behalf of Palestine and the Axis. But Turkey’s role in destroying Syria and dividing it with the religious-political forces led by Al-Jolani, the Zionist Entity, and the U.S. is clear.
As for Iran — yes, I believe Iran will only enter a war to defend itself. That is right. Our own shortcomings are the issue. That is the difference between Iran and Yemen. Yemen acted out of its Arab identity and Islam, while Iran moved from its nationalism and religion. So, it’s natural that Iran doesn’t fight in Lebanon or Palestine — not only because that’s our duty, but also, in fairness, because Iran won’t risk confronting the Western-Zionist-Arab-Zionist triad.
What is still unclear is: Did Nas/s all/ah try to enter the war on October 8, 2023, but Iran restrained him? That is a matter for history — whether he writes his memoirs or shares his thoughts orally.
Many of us believed that joining the war was the right move, but we did not criticize during the fighting. We justified the middle-ground stance by saying that half of Lebanon opposes Nas/ra/ll/ah.
But the most dangerous event — which we pointed to many times — was the position of the 57 Arab and Islamic countries, which declared on November 11, 2023, that they would not fight, not even diplomatically, and were ready to “relieve themselves” of the Palestinian burden. This paved the way for something worse — the gradual expansion of those condemning the Al-Aqsa Flood, labeling it a reckless adventure or even a conspiracy with Israeli leadership.
Some early conclusions:
· The necessity of overcoming sectarianism between Sunnis and Shiites. The Al-Aqsa Flood and its aftermath confirm this. This means curbing the sectarian sheikhs — a parasitic class living off sectarian incitement under the guise of religion.
· The necessity of overcoming political, economic, cultural, and psychological instability, as the entire region is under threat. Cooperation is impossible while sectarian entrenchment remains. The need to move beyond the error of exporting revolutions. Revolutions grow locally, are nurtured locally, and may cooperate with outsiders — but should not be subordinated to them. Exporting revolutions fuels sectarianism.
· Most dangerously, we must stop the empty talk about Arab-Persian contradictions in the midst of armed conflict, and instead focus on the shared fate — especially as both are under direct attack.
Written 15th of June 2025
:::::
The opinions and views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Kana’an’s Editorial Board.