“The most profound tragedy would be if the Muslim world failed to read the writing on the wall. Unity, not division, is the need of the hour. Because if Iran falls today, the fire may spread—and tomorrow’s target could be much closer to home”

Opinion

Ansar Mahmood Bhatti

As the specter of war looms over the Middle East, the world watches with anxious eyes the unfolding confrontation between Israel and Iran. On the surface, the conflict appears to be a direct military standoff between two long-time adversaries. But dig deeper, and the fingerprints of global powers—chiefly the United States—become unmistakably visible. Former U.S. President Donald Trump, in his characteristic style, declared that the United States was “not involved” in Israel’s military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Yet this statement rings hollow. The notion that Israel could launch such a complex and far-reaching operation without American support strains credulity.

Israel’s military capabilities, though formidable, are heavily reliant on U.S. intelligence, logistics, and high-tech weaponry. The targeting of Iranian nuclear infrastructure—often buried deep underground and protected by cutting-edge defense systems—would require not only precision-strike capabilities but also satellite data, cyber-intelligence, refueling logistics, and advanced radar-jamming support. These are capabilities Israel does not possess independently in sufficient volume.

The question is why the blatant denial from Trump and the cautious language from the current administration? The answer lies in Washington’s balancing act. By denying involvement, the U.S. seeks to preserve its role as a potential mediator in any future Iran-Israel de-escalation effort. Admitting complicity in the strikes would undermine America’s diplomatic leverage not only with Iran but also with many of its regional partners. Moreover, it would open the floodgates of international condemnation and possibly even retaliatory attacks on U.S. assets in the Middle East.

However, Trump’s threat that if “U.S. facilities were attacked, America would respond with full force” reveals the inherent contradiction in Washington’s narrative. If the United States is not involved, why issue such a warning? The subtext is clear: the U.S. is indeed involved—at least tacitly, if not operationally. Washington’s true concern is managing the blowback.

At the core of this conflict is not just Israel’s security, but a broader geopolitical ambition shared by many in the West: regime change in Iran. For decades, the Islamic Republic has been a thorn in the side of both American and European foreign policy establishments. Its clerical leadership, rooted in anti-Western ideology, has refused to integrate into the liberal international order. The U.S. and EU have grown increasingly frustrated with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its support for regional militias, and its suppression of dissent.

Thus, the current military campaign is not just about neutralizing nuclear threats; it is also about weakening the Iranian regime’s grip on power. A destabilized Iran, the thinking goes, might give way to a more liberal, democratic leadership—more amenable to Western interests. Europe’s muted response to Israel’s aggression reinforces this theory. Rather than issuing a strong condemnation, EU leaders have merely called for “non-escalation.” The absence of real diplomatic pressure on Israel suggests tacit approval of its objectives.

Equally concerning for Iran is the presence of internal fissures within its establishment. The success of Israeli strikes has reportedly been aided by intelligence leaks from within Iran—leaks that point to moles embedded in the political and military hierarchy. This internal betrayal hints at a deeper rot: a lack of national cohesion and rising disaffection among segments of the Iranian populace and establishment alike.

Some observers argue that the clerical regime’s dwindling popularity has made it more vulnerable to both foreign attack and internal dissent. Years of economic sanctions, political repression, and broken promises have taken their toll on public morale. The current crisis, therefore, is not just external but deeply internal. Iran’s government finds itself fighting a war on two fronts—against Israel abroad and against discontent at home.

This situation should ring alarm bells across the Muslim world. As Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif rightly pointed out in his address to the National Assembly on June 14, 2025: “If today is Iran, tomorrow it may be Pakistan or any other Muslim country.” His words serve as a stern warning and a clarion call for unity among Muslim nations. It is no longer sufficient to view this as a localized Iran-Israel conflict. This is a broader campaign that could target any Muslim country seen as resisting Western or Israeli interests.

Minister Asif’s suggestion that Muslim countries maintaining diplomatic ties with Israel should reconsider their positions is both timely and urgent. While diplomacy should never be abandoned lightly, engagement with a state that undertakes unilateral military aggression against another Muslim country demands a moral reckoning. Maintaining ties while turning a blind eye to such actions sends the wrong message: that economic and political expediency trumps principles of sovereignty, justice, and solidarity.

The road ahead is fraught with peril. If Iran chooses to retaliate directly against Israeli or U.S. assets, the region could spiral into a full-scale war with global ramifications. Already, regional militias aligned with Iran—such as Hezbollah and the Houthis—have begun mobilizing, and any miscalculation could light the fuse of a wider conflagration. Conversely, if Iran absorbs the blows and avoids a kinetic response, it risks emboldening its enemies and further weakening internal morale.

In either case, the situation is untenable unless addressed through comprehensive regional diplomacy. But for that to happen, the U.S. must first come clean about its role and choose whether it wants to be a participant in war or a broker of peace. As it stands, its current duplicity undermines its credibility.

The Israel-Iran war is not just a regional showdown—it is a flashpoint in a global struggle for influence, ideology, and identity. With America deeply implicated despite its denials, and Europe silently complicit through inaction, Iran finds itself isolated and under siege. Its internal vulnerabilities and external threats have converged into a perfect storm. But the most profound tragedy would be if the Muslim world failed to read the writing on the wall. Unity, not division, is the need of the hour. Because if Iran falls today, the fire may spread—and tomorrow’s target could be much closer to home.