TEHRAN — The massive U.S.-Israeli campaign of aggression that began on February 28—targeting Iranian leadership, residential homes, command centers, and civilian-adjacent infrastructure—did not emerge from a vacuum.

It was the outcome of a systematic architecture of encirclement that most Arab states in the Persian Gulf and Jordan had willingly constructed.

For decades, the Islamic Republic practiced a principled neighborhood policy—siyasat-e hamsayegi—rooted in Islamic unity, shared geography, and a genuine desire for regional peace without outside interference.

From Rafsanjani through Raisi to Pezeshkian, Tehran extended the hand of brotherhood again and again: the 2023 China-brokered reconciliation with Saudi Arabia, repeated offers of non-aggression pacts, trade goals exceeding one billion dollars a year, and public calls for a Persian Gulf security framework free of foreign bases.

That stance has been met with betrayal after betrayal. During the Ba'athist Iraq's brutal campaign of aggression against Iran in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE funneled an estimated $30-40 billion to Saddam Hussein—money that paid for chemical weapons, mercenary pilots, and logistical lifelines through their ports.

These were calculated investments in Iranian suffering.

Before and after Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran, Arab states provided backing to separatist militants like the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz (ASMLA) and the DRFLA, whose campaigns of violence aimed to destabilize Khuzestan.

This was coupled with covert funding for the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO/MEK) terrorists who struck inside our borders, and support for groups such as "Jundallah" and "Jaysh al-Adl" to destabilize Sistan-Baluchistan in southeast.
Many argue that these maneuvers, underscored by a military partnership with Washington and later Tel Aviv, serve as a clear indictment of a singular underlying agenda—regime change in Iran.

Tehran watched every move with open eyes. We were never blind, never naive.

The double game unmasked

The hypocrisy reached its peak in 2025-26.

While Arab leaders issued fiery public condemnations of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, leaked CENTCOM documents published by The Washington Post on October 11, 2025, revealed the truth: six states—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan—quietly expanded military cooperation with Tel Aviv under a U.S.-orchestrated “Regional Security Construct.”

Secret planning sessions in Bahrain, Qatar, and Jordan. Joint exercises focused on "countering Iranian missiles." Israeli military officers slipping into Al Udeid Air Base through back entrances to avoid cameras. Radar networks integrated into a single anti-Iran shield.

Public mourning for Palestinian suffering paired with private facilitation of aggression against Tehran.

Muslim money and Muslim soil were used to protect a genocidal entity destroying a Muslim population in Gaza.

The pre-war lobbying was equally shameless.

In January 2026, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman traveled to Washington and privately urged U.S. officials to strike Iran hard, warning that restraint would only "embolden" Tehran.

UAE officials pushed even further, discussing regime change and seizure of Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf.

During the war, reports from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Guardian showed the pressure never let up.

Trump recently confirmed the transactional reality with his trademark bluntness: “He didn’t think he’d be kissing my ***… He better be nice to me.”

Netanyahu boasted without shame: “We are in talks to form an alliance with Arab nations to help fight alongside us… They now realize this threat.”

 The kill chain in the hangar and international law

Despite repeated vows that their soil and airspace would never facilitate aggression against Iran, the betrayal was clear when the assault hit. The enabling infrastructure across the Persian Gulf was unmistakable.

In modern warfare, the kill chain begins at the hangar, and the hangar is therefore part of the weapon.

Hundreds of U.S. combat aircraft operated from Al Udeid in Qatar, Muwaffaq Salti in Jordan, and Prince Sultan in Saudi Arabia.

F-35 stealth fighters, F-15E Strike Eagles, EA-18G Growlers jamming our radars, KC-135 tankers keeping the strikes airborne.

Jordan’s AN/TPY-2 X-band radars fed live data directly into Israel’s Arrow system.

The UAE hosted secret Israeli signals-intelligence equipment overlooking the Persian Gulf. 

Commercial satellite imagery from Airbus and Maxar, combined with OSINT trackers, showed the nonstop flow of C-17 Globemasters and refuelers.

They supplied the runways, the fuel, the secure perimeters, and the real-time coordination that made the aggression possible.

Under international law, Iran possessed—and exercised—the clear right to respond.

Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the inherent right of self-defense against an armed attack until the Security Council acts.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, Article 3(f), defines aggression as a state allowing its territory to be placed at the disposal of another to attack a third state.

The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility, Articles 16-18, hold that knowingly aiding or assisting an internationally wrongful act makes the aider complicit.

By failing to prevent—or actively enabling—the use of their soil, airspace, and radar networks, these states forfeited neutrality under the Hague Conventions and entered de facto co-belligerency.

Iran’s formal UN letters, including document S/2026/453, placed them on official notice long before any strike.

 Measured retaliation and the revealing mirage

Tehran’s response has been measured and lawful.

Missiles and drones struck military enablers: radar domes and communications tents at Al Udeid, radomes at Bahrain’s Fifth Fleet headquarters, command nodes at Kuwait’s Ali Al Salem and Camp Arifjan, facilities at Prince Sultan and Muwaffaq Salti.

New York Times satellite analysis confirmed damage limited to seven to seventeen key coordination nodes.

President Pezeshkian offered an off-ramp a week into the war: “No more missiles will be fired at these countries unless an attack on Iran originates from those countries.”

This was necessity and proportionality in action, fully consistent with ICJ precedents in the Nicaragua and Oil Platforms cases.

The Abraham Accords, marketed as peace, were always a military pact against Iran and Palestine.

Arab signatories deepened ties with Tel Aviv even as Gaza burned and Iranian cities came under fire.

They traded the Palestinian cause—what academia once called the “Arab-Israeli conflict”—for a mirage of protection that proved worthless.

U.S. bases did not shield anyone; they invited retaliation. Ports and airports were disrupted, economies rattled.

Oman refused aggressive assets—proof that genuine independence brings genuine security.

Iran did not seek this. Far from seeking escalation, Iran exhausted all diplomatic options in the pursuit of regional unity.

While neighboring states sought normalization with the genocidal Israel, Tehran remained the sole anchor for Palestinian resistance and sustained the Axis of Resistance.

The Persian Gulf must stop being a launchpad for wars against Muslim neighbors.