By Qamar Bashir

In a shocking revelation that sent ripples across global diplomatic circles, U.S. President Donald Trump recently vetoed a covert Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The plan, reportedly hatched by Israeli intelligence and pushed forward by Prime Minister Netanyahu, was seen by many as a desperate move to provoke a full-scale regional war under the pretext of nuclear containment—a narrative Israel has been nurturing for over thirty years. Iran, notably, does not possess nuclear weapons, a fact verified time and again by international watchdogs.

Israel’s obsession with Iran has little to do with nuclear fears and more to do with Tehran’s refusal to bow to Israeli supremacy. Since its inception, Israel has either dismantled or neutralized regimes that dared challenge its military and political dominance. Iran remains the last ideological adversary. Netanyahu’s dream of bringing down the Iranian regime was merely an extension of this hegemonic vision. The “nuclear threat” was a convenient excuse—much like the WMD hoax used to obliterate Iraq.

As a Muslim bearing the wounds of a broken Ummah, one cannot help but feel a deep, bitter sense of despair, humiliation, and abandonment. Wherever Muslims have been oppressed—be it Kashmir, Burma, Bosnia, Palestine, or Sub-Saharan Africa—they have been silenced, murdered, and exiled with brutal impunity. And tragically, no Muslim nation has risen to their aid—not militarily, not diplomatically, and not morally.

Kashmir remains under siege by India’s military. The region is a shadow of its former self, where people are deprived of political rights, economic liberty, and even the basic right to movement or speech. India has converted it into a prison, and the world, especially the Muslim world, has turned a blind eye.

The same holds true for the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, driven from their homes, raped, and murdered in droves. Stateless and impoverished, they continue to suffer in camps. In Bosnia, the genocide carried out by Serbians left millions of Muslims dead or displaced. Gaza has become a permanent warzone where generations have grown up knowing only fear, hunger, and death. The death toll in Gaza alone has surpassed 75,000 civilians, yet the Muslim world’s silence is deafening.

Meanwhile, Israel flourishes with impunity. Encircled by silent Arab nations rich in oil and influence, it bombs Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon without pause or consequence. The October 7 attack by Hamas, widely condemned, was immediately used as a moral blank check by Israel to raze entire neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. Its justification? That Hamas hides among civilians. But no civilized legal or moral system would condone the mass killing of civilians as retribution.

Israel brands itself as the “most moral army in the world,” a claim that collapses under the weight of its actions. When it bombed civilian targets in Gaza, it declared them legitimate; now, when Iranian missiles strike military targets in Israel, it cries foul. The hypocrisy is stunning.

But for the first time, that myth of Israeli invincibility has been shattered. Despite being crippled by over three decades of Western sanctions, Iran mustered the will, technological capability, and national unity to retaliate forcefully. Its missiles evaded Israel’s prized defense systems—Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Patriot batteries—hitting strategic sites and exposing the hollowness of Israeli arrogance. Iran’s defiance was not just military; it was moral and symbolic.

What startled observers was the response—or lack thereof—from the international community. When Israel called for help, no nation rushed to its side. Even President Trump held back, declaring that America would not intervene unless U.S. interests were directly threatened. This marks a tectonic shift in America’s blind allegiance to Israel.

And now, Trump’s strategy is becoming clear.

In hindsight, Trump’s game was brilliantly Machiavellian. First, he encouraged both Israel and Iran to pursue nuclear negotiations. When Israel sabotaged that process with its reckless airstrikes, Trump remained publicly aloof. He let Israel bear the brunt of Iranian retaliation while quietly calculating the diplomatic fallout. Israel, intoxicated by power and assured of international backing, assumed Iran would not respond. But it did—and with deadly precision.

The result? Israel is isolated. Its defense narrative is crumbling. Its allies are retreating. And now, with its arrogance bruised and its invincibility myth destroyed, Israel is finally talking about returning to negotiations. Trump is again hinting that a diplomatic resolution is not only possible but likely. And this time, it might work.

Why? Because Iran never left the negotiation table. It was Israel that walked away and triggered the escalation. Iran, despite the provocations, held its ground diplomatically while defending itself militarily. Now, with leverage restored and deterrence firmly established, Iran is negotiating from a position of strength. This shift could offer the most fertile ground for a lasting resolution in years.

However, settling the issue won’t be easy. The U.S. and Israel’s demands extend far beyond nuclear non-proliferation. They want Iran to cut ties with Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Syrian regime, and most importantly, Hamas. These demands are aimed at dismantling Iran’s ideological and strategic support for resistance groups that defend oppressed Muslim populations. But Iran is the only Muslim country that refuses to yield. It supports the oppressed not just rhetorically, but financially, diplomatically, and militarily.

This is Iran’s real “crime” in the eyes of the West—not its nuclear ambitions, but its unwavering support for Palestine and other subjugated Muslim communities. That is the red line for Israel and the U.S., and it is why they have waged an endless campaign to contain or destroy Iran.

Iran’s resilience should now serve as a beacon for the Muslim world. For decades, Muslims have watched their brethren suffer while their governments remained spineless. Iran, despite its economic isolation, stood firm. It not only survived but demonstrated that it could hurt those who believed themselves untouchable.

What terrifies Israel now is not Iran’s missiles—it is Iran’s example. If one sanctioned, isolated, Muslim-majority country can rise and challenge the status quo, what happens if others follow? What if other Muslim nations find the courage to defy oppression and injustice with action rather than silence?

This fear is precisely why Israel is ramping up its propaganda campaign, trying to portray Iran as the global threat. But the narrative is failing. Even former allies are growing wary of Israel’s endless wars. The old equation—Israel attacks, the world supports—no longer holds.

Let this moment be remembered not just as a military confrontation, but as a moral awakening. Iran has reminded the world that the oppressed are not voiceless. That dignity, when paired with courage, can upend even the strongest empires. The centers of power are shifting—China is rising, Europe is reasserting its independence, Russia remains potent, and now, Iran has emerged as a formidable power of resistance.

Let this also be a lesson to Muslims everywhere: silence is complicity. Action is the only antidote to oppression. The world may not hand over justice—but it respects those who demand it. And for once, a nation did. Iran did.

By Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister at the Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC

Macomb, Michigan, USA

Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

University of Okara

AUKUS, a landmark security agreement valued at approximately £176 billion (US$239 billion; A$368 billion), entails the transfer of nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to Australia a significant development given that, aside from the United Kingdom, no other nation has previously been granted access to the United States’ nuclear propulsion technology. The arrangement is widely interpreted as a strategic countermeasure to the growing assertiveness of the People’s Republic of China in the Indo-Pacific region. Initially, the United States is expected to provide Australia with three second-hand Virginia-class submarines, with an option for two additional vessels, followed by the collaborative design and construction of a new class of nuclear-powered submarines incorporating technologies from all three-partner nations.

Despite the far-reaching implications of this agreement, the current U.S. administration has signaled its intent to re-evaluate the pact, in terms of both its strategic utility and the degree to which it adheres to American defense priorities. According to a senior U.S. defense official, the review is being conducted to ensure that “this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the President’s America First agenda,” emphasizing operational readiness, the optimization of military resources, and equitable contributions from allies. This review is being spearheaded by Elbridge Colby, a prominent defense strategist who has previously expressed skepticism regarding the advisability of transferring such advanced capabilities to allies at a time when U.S. military assets are already under considerable strain.

The review emerges amidst growing pressure from the U.S. for its allies to increase their defense expenditures. The Biden administration has urged partner nations to allocate no less than 3% of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defense. While the United Kingdom has committed to reaching 2.5% of GDP by 2028 and aims to hit 3% in the subsequent parliamentary term, Australia’s defense budgetary commitments remain below Washington’s expectations. Despite Canberra’s assurances of increased spending, it has yet to pledge alignment with the 3.5% target advocated by U.S. defense officials.

Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles has sought to downplay concerns arising from the review, expressing confidence that the agreement will proceed as planned. In remarks to local media, Marles reaffirmed the strategic necessity of a long-range submarine capability for Australia, particularly given the country’s geographic positioning within the Indo-Pacific theater. He emphasized the importance of adhering to the existing blueprint, noting the political and strategic complexities that emerged following the cancellation of a prior submarine agreement with France in favor of AUKUS.

From the Australian perspective, the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines represents a transformative enhancement of its military capabilities. These platforms will allow the Australian Defense Force to project power over significantly greater distances and durations than is currently possible with its diesel-powered fleet. Furthermore, the pact enhances Australia’s capacity for strategic deterrence and grants access to elite defense technologies components often described in U.S. defense circles as the “crown jewels” of national security assets.

The review also draws attention to broader strategic concerns, particularly regarding the alignment of operational doctrines among the trilateral partners. Dr. Jennifer Kavanagh, a defense analyst at the American think tank Defense Priorities, has highlighted two core issues underpinning the U.S. reassessment: first, the existing constraints on America’s own submarine production capabilities, and second, the uncertainty surrounding how Australia would deploy these assets in the event of a regional conflict, notably one involving Taiwan. As such, the review may consider revising the partnership’s focus from direct submarine transfers toward broader technological cooperation in long-range strike capabilities.

Both Australia and the United Kingdom have characterized the review as a routine and expected development under a new U.S. administration. Official statements from both governments have emphasized continuity and mutual commitment to the strategic partnership. A UK defense spokesperson reaffirmed that AUKUS constitutes one of the most strategically consequential partnerships in recent decades, underscoring its significance for maintaining peace and stability in both the Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic regions.

Notably, any substantive shift in the AUKUS framework such as a delay or diminution in the transfer of nuclear propulsion technology would have considerable geopolitical ramifications. A U.S. withdrawal or significant recalibration of the agreement would likely be met with approbation from Beijing, which has consistently condemned AUKUS as a destabilizing force and a potential catalyst for a regional arms race. For China, the pact symbolizes the consolidation of a military bloc aimed explicitly at containing its rise.

From a broader geopolitical perspective, the review could lead to sustained or enhanced cooperation and help reinforce deeper technological and strategic collaboration among the countries. Conversely, any retreat from the pact could undermine perceptions of U.S. reliability among its allies and embolden adversarial actors in an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific security environment.