Usama Shehzad Cheema
The recent Israeli missile and airstrikes on Iran are not isolated military maneuvers, they are part of a deliberate and escalating strategy to dismantle any meaningful opposition to Israel’s regional ambitions. Iran, a sovereign state, was struck openly and with impunity. This attack sends a clear message: the space for independent Muslim resistance, whether ideological, political, or military, is rapidly shrinking.
Iran’s response, though restrained, was resolute. It maintained national discipline and refrained from impulsive retaliation, signaling both deterrence and control. Yet in mainstream Western discourse, the provocation is deliberately erased, and Iran continues to be portrayed as the aggressor. This narrative inversion has become standard in cases where Muslim-majority states reject the imposed order.
The airstrikes on Iran are not just tactical, they are strategic. Iran has long been viewed by Israel as the core node of resistance in the region. But if Iran were to be fully destabilized or dismantled militarily, Israel would gain direct geographical and political leverage in South and Central Asia. The implications for Pakistan, in particular, are grave. With Iran neutralized, Israel’s reach could extend to the borders of Pakistan, a nuclear Muslim state whose defense posture would instantly become more precarious.
The illusion that this is a contained conflict should be abandoned. The structure of the region is under reformation, and any Muslim country with independent foreign policy, strategic depth, or defiant ideology is potentially next in line. The doctrine of “preemptive security” now has no limits.
For years, Gaza has stood as the clearest symbol of this reality. Now entering nearly two years of constant bombardment and siege, Gaza has suffered one of the most sustained and brutal campaigns in modern history. Hospitals, schools, and refugee shelters have been flattened. An entire generation is being buried, physically and politically.
And yet, Gaza remains unbowed. Its resistance, whether through arms or survival, is not terrorism, it is political agency. That agency, more than any military threat, is what draws such disproportionate violence. The resistance threatens the myth that Palestinians have been defeated, and so, the punishment continues.
In solidarity, Yemen, devastated by a near-decade-long war and blockade, launched symbolic missiles toward Israel. The act was immediately punished with airstrikes. Again, not because Yemen posed a real military threat, but because it dared to express solidarity. This is the new red line, not weapons, but defiance.
It is in this environment that Saudi Arabia’s latest statement expressing solidarity with Iran carries unexpected significance. Historically aligned with American and Israeli regional strategies, Riyadh’s shift, however measured, may signal a recalibration. If Saudi policy begins to prioritize regional sovereignty over external alignment, it could reintroduce a semblance of collective deterrence. The potential for a reconfigured Middle Eastern bloc, one that transcends sectarian divides and stands against external militarism, is emerging, albeit slowly.
Meanwhile, the roles of Russia and China are increasingly consequential. Both have condemned Israeli aggressions and called for adherence to international law, but neither has taken decisive action. However, with China’s expanding economic footprint in the Middle East, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative, and Russia’s military and strategic investments in Syria and Iran, both powers are now deeply embedded in the region’s future.
Should the conflict escalate into full-scale war, China and Russia will likely use it to challenge Western monopoly over global security narratives and institutions. Their strategy is not direct confrontation, but structural realignment, a multipolar world where the U.S. and its allies no longer dictate the rules. The growing irrelevance of the UN Security Council in restraining Israeli action further underscores this shift.
The Freedom Flotilla, recently blocked from delivering aid to Gaza, symbolizes the total criminalization of humanitarian efforts. It carried no weapons, only medicine and food, yet was treated as subversive. This reflects a deeper truth, dissent, even in its softest form, is now an existential threat to the status quo.
And still, the deepest betrayal lies not in foreign aggression, but in regional silence. Egypt and Jordan, neighbors of Palestine with historic responsibilities, continue to close borders, restrict aid, and quietly allow Israeli overflights. Their compliance turns every Israeli missile into a regional act of consent. This is no longer apathy, this is collaboration.
The patterns are clear, dissent is being isolated, punished, and criminalized, whether it is military, symbolic, humanitarian, or even diplomatic. The international system, paralyzed by double standards, has failed to uphold its own legal framework. What remains is resistance, raw, unfiltered, and increasingly decentralized.
This is not a war on terrorism, it is a war on disobedience. It does not end in Gaza, it will not stop in Iran, and if the Muslim world continues to outsource its sovereignty, the next target may already be mapped.
