Will the US War on Iran, Aimed at Regime Change in Tehran, Result in Regime Change in Jordan and the GCC?

Will the US War on Iran, Aimed at Regime Change in Tehran, Result in Regime Change in Jordan and the GCC?

    Thursday, July 23, 2026   No comments

In the annals of modern geopolitical irony, few developments are as stark as the current trajectory of the US war on Iran. Initially championed by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu with overt calls for the Iranian people to overthrow their government, the conflict has undergone a profound and dangerous shift. The stated objective is no longer regime change in Tehran, but rather the forced reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the degradation of Iran’s military capabilities.

To achieve this, the United States is launching continuous attacks from military bases embedded within the territories of Jordan and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. In doing so, Washington has inadvertently placed its most vulnerable allies—non-representative monarchies with long-standing grievances among their own populations—directly in the crosshairs. Now, Iran is skillfully exploiting this dynamic, driving a wedge between these regimes and their people, and raising the very real specter of regime change in Amman, Kuwait City, and beyond.

The Sovereignty Paradox: Iran’s "Hearts and Minds" Offensive

Tehran’s strategy has evolved beyond mere military retaliation; it has launched a sophisticated psychological and information warfare campaign directed squarely at the Arab street. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has issued direct, impassioned statements to the peoples of Jordan and Kuwait, reframing Iran’s strikes not as violations of national sovereignty, but as legitimate acts of self-defense against an occupying force.

In a recent statement addressed to the "honorable and noble people of Jordan," the IRGC justified its lightning strikes against US bases on Jordanian soil—which reportedly destroyed a THAAD radar, a Patriot air defense system, and set ablaze fuel storage and helicopter maintenance hangars. The message was unequivocal:

"What is a US military base inside another country? It is a place where Americans, and anyone they choose, can enter and leave without the oversight of your border authorities... Order there is enforced by the US military police, not yours. Crimes committed there are judged by American judges, not your own... Therefore, it is the United States, not us, that has violated your territorial integrity and sovereignty."

To anchor this argument in raw emotional resonance, the IRGC invoked the tragedy of Minab, stating:

 "Yesterday, the grieving people of Minab buried the remaining body parts of their schoolchildren... 168 students who were martyred on the first day of this war in an attack carried out by the child-killing US military. It is our legal, religious, and rational right to target the aggressor against our country and the killer of our children wherever it launches its attacks from."

A parallel message was delivered to Kuwait, where the IRGC claimed drone strikes on a large US military equipment depot, a Patriot system, and an MQ-9 drone hangar at Ali al-Salem Air Base, alongside troop housing at Camp Udairi (Camp Buehring). Once again, the narrative was carefully calibrated: Iran respects Kuwait’s sovereignty; it is the unchecked US military footprint that violates it.

The Jordanian Powder Keg

Nowhere is this dynamic more volatile than in Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom’s government has long been perceived by its populace as helpless to alter US policy, particularly regarding Israeli violence against Palestinians. This impotence has severely weakened the regime’s legitimacy, a fact exacerbated by the demographic reality that roughly 65% of Jordan’s population has Palestinian heritage or direct connections to Palestine.

The disconnect between the Jordanian street and the palace was laid bare following recent Israeli provocations. When Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, alongside Knesset members and settlers, stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque under Israeli police protection, the Jordanian Foreign Ministry issued a stern condemnation, calling it a "blatant violation" of the mosque’s historic and legal status. For the average Jordanian, verbal condemnations ring hollow while US military assets in their country continue to facilitate a broader regional war, and while their government remains unable to protect Islamic holy sites from desecration. By hosting US forces that Iran now actively targets, the Jordanian monarchy is increasingly viewed not as a protector of national sovereignty, but as a complicit facilitator of foreign aggression.

The GCC Dilemma

The GCC states face a similar, if not more complex, vulnerability. Countries like Kuwait and Bahrain host significant Shia communities and populations in the GCC generally are deeply, historically sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The presence of US bases has always been a quiet source of domestic tension, managed through a combination of economic patronage and political suppression.

Iran’s messaging directly punctures this fragile social contract. By framing US bases as extraterritorial colonies where "American law prevails, not your national law," Tehran is handing local opposition groups a powerful nationalist and religious narrative. If US bases are the launchpads for attacks on Iran, and Iran retaliates against those bases, the resulting collateral damage, economic disruption, and perception of humiliation will inevitably be directed at the monarchs who permitted the bases to exist in the first place.

The Crumbling US Domestic Front

This geopolitical boomerang effect is being accelerated by a rapid collapse in US domestic support for the war. President Trump, who once boasted of unwavering backing from his base, is now facing a severe political reckoning.

According to a POLITICO / Public First poll published on July 22, 2026, support for the war on Iran has fallen sharply among Trump’s core MAGA supporters. Just over a third now believe the economic price of the war is justified—a precipitous 13-point drop from 50 percent in May. Another 37 percent of self-identified MAGA voters stated they would back continued US involvement only if costs stop rising, while around one-fifth said the US should end the war no matter the costs. Opposition is even deeper among Trump voters outside the MAGA bloc.

The primary catalyst for this disillusionment is economic pain and mounting casualties. With gas prices having climbed to over $4 per gallon since Trump returned to office, 57 percent of MAGA voters and 63 percent of non-MAGA Trump voters directly blame the war.

The human cost is also becoming impossible to white-wash. At least 18 US soldiers have been killed since the start of the war, with wounded personnel surpassing 500. Just days ago, Trump attended a dignified transfer ceremony at Dover Air Force Base for four US soldiers killed in Iranian attacks: three in a missile strike on the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, and a fourth at Erbil Air Base in Iraq. Right before the ceremony, Trump warned that Iran would "pay a big price," but the rhetoric increasingly rings hollow against the backdrop of American coffins.

Behind closed doors, the playbook of endless escalation has been replaced by White House panic. A source close to the administration told POLITICO that the government is at a "maximum level of frustration," with senior figures accepting that "the victory Trump wants cannot be won because the public will not back the escalation required. We've got more dead Americans and a politically impossible situation." With Trump’s approval ratings hovering near the lowest levels of his political career, the Republican Party faces the very real risk of losing its House majority and possibly the Senate in the upcoming November midterms.

The Irony of Hegemony

The United States entered this conflict with the maximalist goal of regime change in Iran, openly encouraging the Iranian people to rise up. The mechanics of modern warfare and the realities of regional geography have turned that logic on its head. By relying on the territories of non-representative, deeply unpopular monarchies to wage war, the US has transformed those regimes into strategic liabilities.

Iran, far from being isolated, has seized the narrative high ground. By positioning itself as the defender of regional sovereignty against American imperialism, Tehran is successfully weaponizing the legitimate grievances of the Jordanian and GCC publics. If the war continues to drag on, exacting a heavy toll in American lives, regional infrastructure, and economic stability, the ultimate irony may be realized: the US war intended to topple the Islamic Republic could instead become the catalyst that brings down the very monarchies Washington relies upon to project its power in the Middle East.

Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

Media Review, Media Bias: War and Language

    Sunday, July 19, 2026   No comments

How Arab State Media Narrate Conflict and Risk Their Own Survival

In the theater of modern warfare, language is a weapon of geopolitical alignment. Since the Arab Spring of 2011, state-controlled and state-aligned media across the Arab world have increasingly functioned as extensions of foreign policy. By carefully curating their lexicons, these outlets signal bias, legitimize certain military actions, and delegitimize others. Today, as the region grapples with the fallout of the US and Israeli war on Iran, the selective outrage embedded in Gulf media narratives is not only distorting reality but also planting the seeds of domestic instability.

The blueprint for this linguistic weaponization was clearly established during the Yemen conflict and the subsequent 2017 Gulf diplomatic crisis. When the Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen, a stark divergence in media framing emerged. Saudi-aligned outlets consistently employed highly charged, valorizing terminology: Saudi casualties were exclusively referred to as "شهداء" (martyrs), while Yemeni casualties were described as "أشخاص قُتلوا على يد القوات السعودية العادلة" (persons killed by the righteous Saudi forces).

In contrast, Aljazeera, based in Qatar, adopted a more neutral, journalistic lexicon, consistently using the word "قتلى" (killed) for casualties on all sides. This seemingly minor semantic difference carried immense political weight. It challenged the moral absolutism of the Saudi narrative. The threat this posed to Riyadh’s geopolitical project was so profound that, in 2017, Saudi Arabia and its allies issued a list of demands to Qatar to end the blockade, prominently featuring the immediate and permanent shutdown of Al Jazeera. That demand, as history has shown, went nowhere, but it established a lasting precedent: in the eyes of certain Arab states, neutral language is an act of political defiance.

This pattern has reached a dangerous apex in the current US and Israeli war on Iran, a campaign executed and supported by US troops stationed in Gulf States and Jordan. A review of recent headlines from Saudi-aligned and Gulf-centric media outlets, such as Asharq Al-Awsat, reveals a meticulously crafted narrative of selective outrage.

When reporting on Iranian military actions, these outlets deploy a lexicon of moral condemnation. Recent headlines from July 2026 describe Iranian actions as:

• "العدوان الإيراني الآثم" (The sinful Iranian aggression)
• "اعتداءات إيرانية جديدة" (New Iranian assaults)
• "نهج عدواني ممنهج" (A systematic hostile approach)
• "اعتداءاتها الجوية الإيرانية الغادرة" (Treacherous Iranian air assaults)

These phrases are designed to frame Iran as a rogue actor violating international law and threatening Arab sovereignty. However, when these same media outlets report on US and Israeli military actions against Iranian territory, the vocabulary shifts dramatically. US and Israeli bombardments are routinely sanitized as "غارات" (strikes) or "هجمات" (attacks). The word "عدوان" (aggression) is conspicuously absent.

This linguistic sanitization serves a clear political purpose: to normalize the presence of US military forces in the region and to frame the US-Israeli campaign as a legitimate, defensive, or corrective measure, rather than what international legal experts have identified it to be.

The Gulf media narrative stands in direct contradiction to the consensus of the international legal community. The war on Iran has been widely documented as lacking proper legal authority and factual justification.

In March 2026, UN Human Rights experts issued a stark press release, explicitly denouncing the US and Israeli military assaults on Iran and Lebanon as "flagrant violations of international law" and unequivocally labeling them an "act of aggression." The experts warned that the unprovoked attacks, carried out while negotiations were ongoing, constitute a dangerous precedent of impunity.

Furthermore, a landmark letter published by Just Security, signed by over 100 prominent US-based international law experts and professors, condemned the US role in the conflict. The letter detailed how the initiation of the campaign was a "clear violation of the United Nations Charter" (jus ad bellum), as it lacked Security Council authorization and was not an act of self-defense against an imminent threat. The experts also raised alarms over jus in bello violations, citing strikes on civilian infrastructure, including schools and energy facilities, and condemned dangerous rhetoric from US officials dismissing the rules of engagement as "stupid."

While UN experts and legal scholars universally apply the term "aggression" to the US-Israeli campaign, Gulf state media remain silent on this legal reality, choosing instead to act as a linguistic shield for their powerful allies.

The Domestic Boomerang: When Populations Stop Listening

This deliberate cognitive dissonance carries severe domestic risks. The Arab landscape has changed dramatically since 2011. Populations are no longer captive audiences to state-controlled media. With widespread access to satellite television, social media, and independent digital journalism, citizens can easily compare the hyperbolic condemnation of Iran with the sanitized coverage of US actions.

This selective outrage is eroding the credibility of state institutions. Nowhere is this more acute than in Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom has found itself in a precarious position, hosting US troops and participating in air defense efforts against Iranian projectiles, such as the recent rocket attacks on the Muwaffaq al-Salti airbase. While the Jordanian government frames its actions as defensive sovereignty, a significant majority of the Jordanian public views this blind support for a foreign-led military campaign as fundamentally misaligned with national interests.

By aligning its media narrative and military posture with a war that is widely perceived as illegal and unjust, the Jordanian government is risking severe domestic backlash. The potential for public uprising is no longer a fringe theory; it is a tangible consequence of a populace that feels its government is sacrificing its well-being for geopolitical patrons who do not reciprocate the loyalty.

The Ultimate Strategic Blunder

Language matters, especially during times of war. Words shape perception, and perception dictates political legitimacy. The Gulf states and Jordan, by weaponizing language to show selective outrage, are engaging in a dangerous gamble. They risk losing what is left of their standing among their own people, who are increasingly adept at seeing through the propaganda.

There is a profound, tragic irony at the heart of this conflict. The US and Israeli war on Iran was explicitly designed, in part, to foment regime change in Tehran. Yet, by acting as complicit enablers—both militarily and linguistically—the supporting Arab states are exposing their own populations to the radicalizing effects of war, economic strain, and perceived national humiliation.

When the outcome of this war is not regime change in Iran as now stated by even those who started the war, but rather the destabilization, weakening, or even the fall of regimes in the Gulf and Jordan, it will stand as the biggest strategic blunder in modern Middle Eastern history. The supporters of this war may find that the linguistic and political tools they used to target their adversaries have ultimately written the epitaph of their own rule.

  

The Aftermath of the Iran Conflict is Redrawing Southwest Asia and North Africa

The Aftermath of the Iran Conflict is Redrawing Southwest Asia and North Africa

    Thursday, June 25, 2026   No comments

 Forging a New Equilibrium

In the wake of the recent US-Israeli war on Iran, the geopolitical tectonic plates of the Middle East are shifting once again. According to diplomatic sources, Saudi Arabia is preparing to host a landmark summit aimed at reconciling Gulf states with Tehran. Crucially, these talks are being organized independently of the ongoing negotiations between Washington and the Iranian government.

This diplomatic maneuver signals a profound transformation. The recent war, while devastating, appears to have catalyzed a new era of regional pragmatism. As the dust settles, the conflict is fundamentally altering how SWANA approaches its own security, and in doing so, it is sending ripple effects across the global order.

The End of External Dependence?

For decades, the security architecture of the Persian Gulf was heavily reliant on the United States. However, the recent conflict demonstrated the limits and vulnerabilities of external security guarantees. By organizing a reconciliation summit separate from US-Iran negotiations, Riyadh is sending a clear message: the Gulf states are taking ownership of their immediate neighborhood.

The war underscored a harsh reality for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Regardless of political or ideological differences, a prolonged conflict on their doorstep threatens their coastlines, disrupts vital shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz, and endangers critical infrastructure. For Saudi Arabia, whose ambitious Vision 2030 relies heavily on foreign investment, tourism, and regional stability, a hostile or heavily sanctioned Iran next door is an economic liability.

Similarly, for Iran, the economic and infrastructural toll of the recent conflict has made regional de-escalation an absolute necessity. The upcoming talks in Riyadh represent a mutual recognition among regional powers that they cannot afford perpetual hostility. The imperative for survival and economic recovery has overridden ideological rigidity.

A Shift Toward Regional Realpolitik

The decision to host these talks in Saudi Arabia cements Riyadh’s transition from a traditional US ally into an independent regional broker. Following the Chinese-brokered détente between Riyadh and Tehran in 2023, the recent war tested that fragile relationship. The fact that Saudi Arabia is now stepping up to host a broader Gulf-Iran summit suggests that the 2023 agreement has matured into a more resilient, institutionalized framework for conflict resolution.

This shift toward "regional realpolitik" means that Middle Eastern powers are increasingly willing to compartmentalize their disputes. They are moving away from zero-sum proxy conflicts and toward transactional diplomacy focused on mutual security, trade routes, and energy cooperation. If successful, this could lead to a localized security framework that manages tensions without requiring external military intervention.

Global Ripple Effects: Energy and Multipolarity

The changing dynamics in the Gulf have immediate and far-reaching implications for the rest of the world.

First and foremost is the issue of global energy security. The recent conflict inevitably sent shockwaves through global oil and gas markets, highlighting the world's continued vulnerability to disruptions in the Persian Gulf. A successful Gulf-Iran reconciliation, brokered by the states that sit on the world's largest energy reserves, could lead to a more stable, cooperative approach to energy transit. If regional powers can guarantee the security of the Strait of Hormuz collectively, it reduces the global risk premium on energy and lessens the strategic burden on Western navies.

Secondly, this diplomatic shift accelerates the transition toward a multipolar world order. As Gulf states demonstrate their ability to manage their own post-war reconciliation, the global perception of the Middle East changes. It is no longer viewed solely as a chessboard for superpower rivalry, but as a region with its own agency. This autonomy is likely to attract other global powers—such as China, the European Union, and India—who are primarily interested in trade, reconstruction, and energy stability rather than military entanglements. These nations will likely look to Riyadh and Tehran as the primary gatekeepers for regional access.

A Fragile but Necessary New Normal

The road ahead is undoubtedly fraught with challenges. Decades of mistrust, unresolved territorial disputes, and the lingering trauma of the recent war will not be erased by a single summit in Riyadh. Furthermore, the outcomes of the separate US-Iran negotiations will inevitably cast a long shadow over the Gulf's internal discussions.

Nevertheless, the upcoming talks represent a critical inflection point. The US-Israeli war on Iran, rather than permanently fracturing the region, has paradoxically forced its inhabitants to confront the unsustainability of endless conflict. By choosing diplomacy over continued militarization, and regional autonomy over external dependence, the Gulf states are attempting to forge a new economic and security block. If they succeed, the world will have to adapt to a region that is no longer just a theater for global power struggles, but an independent architect of its own future.

Pakistan’s Strategic Calculus in a Post-Hormuz World

Pakistan’s Strategic Calculus in a Post-Hormuz World

    Friday, May 08, 2026   No comments

The sudden closure of the Strait of Hormuz following the February 28, 2026, military campaign against Iran by the United States and Israel has triggered one of the most severe disruptions to global maritime trade in recent decades. However, for Pakistan, the blockade is not just a security or economic liability; it is a strategic inflection point. Rather than retreating into passive alignment, Islamabad has moved swiftly to transform a maritime crisis into a terrestrial opportunity. By operationalizing overland transit corridors to Iran, Pakistan is pursuing a calculated three-pronged strategy: elevating its regional diplomatic and economic clout, constraining India’s strategic alternatives, and forging a continuous trade artery linking China to Iran, with the long-term ambition of extending this corridor westward into the broader Eurasian network.

To understand Pakistan’s response, one must view the crisis through the lens of historical trade geography. For millennia, corridors like the Silk Road have dictated the flow of wealth, influence, and political alignment across continents. When sea lanes are disrupted, land routes regain their strategic premium. The Strait of Hormuz has long functioned as the modern equivalent of a maritime chokepoint, channeling a critical share of global energy and commercial shipping. Its closure has forced regional actors to reconsider over-reliance on vulnerable sea passages. Pakistan’s decision to pivot toward overland transit is rooted in this historical reality: control of land corridors translates directly into geopolitical leverage, economic relevance, and diplomatic indispensability.

Pakistan’s immediate response to the Hormuz blockade has been to position itself as the primary logistical lifeline for Iran. As of late April 2026, Islamabad has designated six new transit routes and formally cleared the passage of third-country goods to Iran through Pakistani territory. This move addresses a pressing bottleneck: more than 3,000 Iran-bound shipping containers have been stranded in Karachi since the imposition of the US-led maritime blockade. By converting these stranded maritime shipments into an overland pipeline, Pakistan transforms its ports and road networks into critical regional infrastructure. This operational shift elevates Islamabad from a peripheral actor to a central facilitator of Asian trade, granting it diplomatic leverage with Tehran, Beijing, and other regional stakeholders while generating domestic economic activity in logistics, rail, and customs administration.

Pakistan’s overland strategy also carries a clear counterweight to India’s longstanding regional ambitions. Since October 2017, New Delhi has developed the Chabahar Port corridor in southeastern Iran as a direct trade route to Afghanistan, explicitly designed to bypass Pakistani territory. This route has provided India with strategic access to Central Asia and diminished Pakistan’s geographic leverage over regional commerce. The Hormuz crisis, however, fundamentally alters the strategic calculus. With maritime routes disrupted and Iran under severe economic and logistical strain, the reliability and security of India’s Chabahar-dependent supply chains are compromised. Pakistan’s newly activated land corridors through Balochistan and Sindh offer a faster, more contiguous, and geographically integrated alternative for regional trade. By linking Iranian logistics directly to its own port infrastructure, Pakistan not only undermines India’s bypass strategy but also reasserts its indispensability in South Asian and Central Asian trade networks.

At the core of Pakistan’s post-Hormuz calculus is the ambition to seamlessly integrate the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) with Iranian transit infrastructure. CPEC, which links China’s Xinjiang region to the Arabian Sea via Gwadar and Karachi, has long been envisioned as a cornerstone of broader Eurasian connectivity. The current crisis accelerates the practical need to extend this corridor inland. By routing Chinese and third-country goods through Pakistan into Iran, Islamabad creates a continuous land-based trade artery stretching from East Asia to the Persian Gulf. From Iran, this network holds the structural potential to connect westward into Iraq, the Levant, and eventually European markets, effectively reviving and modernizing the western branches of historical trade routes. Such a corridor would reduce regional dependency on vulnerable maritime chokepoints while positioning Pakistan as the central node in a transcontinental supply chain.

This recalibration is not without geopolitical risk. Facilitating trade to Iran under a US-imposed blockade inevitably strains Pakistan’s relationship with Washington, which has historically leveraged financial and security partnerships to influence Islamabad’s foreign policy. However, Pakistan’s calculus appears to prioritize long-term strategic autonomy over short-term alignment. By framing its transit operations as humanitarian and economic necessities rather than overtly political maneuvers, Islamabad seeks to maintain diplomatic flexibility while advancing its regional integration agenda. The bet is clear: sustained transit revenues, infrastructure development, and elevated regional standing will ultimately outweigh temporary friction with Western partners.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has exposed the fragility of globalized maritime trade, but it has also revealed new pathways for regional realignment. For Pakistan, the crisis is a catalyst rather than a constraint. By transforming its territory into a vital overland conduit between China, Iran, and beyond, Islamabad aims to amplify its diplomatic clout, curtail India’s strategic alternatives, and lay the groundwork for a westward-expanding trade corridor. In doing so, Pakistan is not merely reacting to a blockade; it is actively reshaping the architecture of Eurasian commerce, leveraging geography, infrastructure, and transit diplomacy to secure its place in a post-Hormuz order.

How Gulf Resource Wealth Fuels Ambition—and Vulnerability

How Gulf Resource Wealth Fuels Ambition—and Vulnerability

    Friday, March 27, 2026   No comments

 Glass Houses in the Desert

In the geopolitics of the Middle East, few phenomena are as striking as the outsized influence wielded by two small Gulf states: Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Both nations have leveraged immense wealth derived from the rapid extraction of finite natural resources to project power far beyond their borders. As regional tensions escalate, the very strategies that elevated them are exposing profound vulnerabilities. Their glass towers of influence, built on sand and hydrocarbons, are proving fragile when the desert winds of conflict blow hard.

Qatar's transformation from a modest peninsula emirate into a global diplomatic player rests largely on its vast natural gas reserves. Since the 1990s, Doha has channelled this wealth into a sophisticated strategy of soft power projection, with the Al Jazeera Media Network as its centerpiece. Founded to give Arab audiences a platform free from state-controlled narratives, Al Jazeera quickly became something more: an instrument of Qatari foreign policy, amplifying voices and stories that aligned with Doha's strategic interests.

For decades, the network shaped Arab public opinion, particularly during the Arab Spring, when its coverage of Islamist movements resonated with Qatar's political alignments. But this instrumentalization of media has increasingly drawn scrutiny. In early 2026, Al Jazeera faced a significant credibility test during heightened tensions between Iran and the United States. The channel was accused of sidelining voices supportive of Tehran while platforming analysts who called for targeting Iranian civilians—a stance that sparked widespread criticism across the Arab street.

The controversy forced a visible recalibration. By late March, Al Jazeera began restoring previously muted voices and reducing its focus on Iran-focused content, signaling an attempt to repair its reputation as an impartial platform. Analysts who had made inflammatory remarks defended themselves by claiming their comments were taken out of context, but the episode underscored a broader dilemma: when a media outlet is perceived as an instrument of statecraft rather than journalism, its credibility becomes collateral damage in geopolitical disputes.

As one commentator observed, the contemporary Arab consciousness has moved beyond the era of untouchable icons. For Qatar, the lesson is clear: media influence built on perceived bias can backfire, eroding the very soft power it was meant to generate. When audiences sense that "the opinion and the other opinion" is merely a slogan rather than a principle, trust evaporates—and with it, influence.

Most recent coverage show the trend of selective reporting by aljazeera persists: it shields the Guld states and Qatar rulers.

Noramlly, media organizations bear a fundamental responsibility to provide audiences with complete, contextualized information. When coverage systematically omits facts that conflict with the interests of a network's funders, that responsibility is compromised. Al Jazeera's reporting on former President Trump's recent speech regarding Iran offers a compelling case study in how state-funded media can shape narratives through strategic omission.

According to multiple social media reports and regional coverage, Trump explicitly praised Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE as "excellent" and "incredible" partners during his remarks at the Future Investment Initiative summit in Miami. He reportedly acknowledged their support for U.S. military attack on Iran—a significant geopolitical development given these states' desire to avoid public association with what many international observers deem an illegal war. Al Jazeera Arabic article summarizing the speech highlighted Trump's criticism of NATO allies while making no mention of his gratitude toward Gulf partners. This selective framing is not incidental; it aligns precisely with Qatar's diplomatic interests in maintaining plausible deniability regarding its regional military posture.

This pattern reflects broader structural realities. Al Jazeera receives the vast majority of its budget from the Qatari government, and while the network asserts editorial independence, former correspondents have publicly cited Qatari influence over coverage decisions. Research from independent media watchdogs notes that Al Jazeera's English-language coverage has routinely engaged in narratives that question U.S. strategic motives while promoting perspectives aligned with Doha's foreign policy. When reporting on Gulf-U.S. coordination against Iran, the network faces an inherent conflict: acknowledging overt Gulf support for American military action would undermine Qatar's carefully cultivated image as a neutral mediator.

The consequences extend beyond a single omitted quote. By emphasizing Trump's NATO criticisms while silencing his Gulf acknowledgments, Al Jazeera's coverage subtly reinforces a narrative that isolates Western alliances while normalizing Gulf states' behind-the-scenes military involvement. This serves Doha's foreign policy objectives but deprives audiences of the full picture necessary for informed judgment about regional power dynamics.

Media bias is rarely about fabrication; it is more often about curation—what to include, what to emphasize, and what to omit. In an era of complex geopolitical conflicts, audiences deserve transparency about the interests shaping their news. When state-funded outlets like Al Jazeera omit facts that inconvenience their patrons, they do not merely report the news; they participate in its construction. Recognizing these patterns is not an attack on any single network, but a necessary step toward demanding journalism that serves truth over patronage.

The United Arab Emirates has pursued a different, more militarized path to regional influence. Like Qatar, the UAE's wealth stems from hydrocarbon extraction—but at a pace that raises serious sustainability concerns. The rapid depletion of finite oil and gas reserves, without adequate investment in post-hydrocarbon economies, risks mortgaging the future for present-day ambition.

Abu Dhabi has deployed this wealth to build an extensive network of military and political influence across the Middle East and Africa. The UAE has been deeply involved in conflicts in Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia, often backing proxy forces to advance its strategic interests. In Libya, it provided critical air support and equipment to eastern-based factions. In Sudan, it faces repeated allegations—denied by officials—of arming and funding paramilitary groups accused of atrocities. Sudan has even filed a case against the UAE at the International Court of Justice, accusing it of complicity in grave human rights violations.

These interventions have yielded mixed results. While the UAE has secured strategic footholds, such as ports and military bases, its activism has also generated significant backlash. Traditional Gulf partners have grown uncomfortable with Emirati policies that appear to undermine regional stability. In Yemen, Saudi-backed forces actively curtailed advances by UAE-aligned militias, demonstrating that Gulf partnerships are not immune to friction.

Moreover, when Iran's foreign minister accused Gulf states hosting U.S. forces of covertly encouraging attacks on Iranians, it underscored how entangled these small states have become in great-power conflicts. When Iran launched drone strikes against Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE in early 2026, it highlighted the vulnerability of even the wealthiest Gulf capitals to asymmetric retaliation. Power projection, it turns out, invites counter-pressure.

Glass Houses at the Mercy of Regional Security Fractures

Both Qatar and the UAE have built literal and figurative glass houses—spectacular skylines, global business hubs, and diplomatic networks that project an image of invincibility. These achievements rest on a foundation of regional stability that is increasingly precarious.

Dubai, marketed as the business center of the world, exemplifies this paradox. In early 2026, as tensions with Iran escalated, the emirate faced an unprecedented economic shock: stock markets were suspended, hotel bookings plummeted, and critical port operations halted after missile debris caused fire damage. An estimated tens of billions in wealth that flowed into Dubai in recent years now faced the risk of exodus, with charter jets reportedly sold out as wealthy residents sought safer havens.

The attacks on iconic locations directly challenge the security narrative that attracted global capital. While Dubai's economy is heavily diversified—with oil accounting for a minimal share of GDP—its reputation as a safe, neutral hub depends on perceptions of stability that conflict can quickly erode. When investors weigh risk, glass towers can cast long shadows.

The sustainability question extends beyond economics. Gulf states' rapid extraction of oil and gas, without sufficient investment in renewable alternatives or economic diversification, poses long-term risks. While natural resource rents boost short-term growth, they can exacerbate inequality and delay necessary structural reforms. For nations whose populations are predominantly young, the intergenerational equity implications are profound: wealth generated today may come at the cost of environmental degradation and economic fragility tomorrow.

Both Qatar and the UAE appear to be learning that influence projection carries inherent risks. Al Jazeera's editorial adjustments in early 2026 suggest an awareness that perceived bias can undermine media credibility. Similarly, the UAE's public denials of involvement in sensitive conflicts and its emphasis on humanitarian aid reflect an effort to manage diplomatic fallout.

Adaptation requires more than rhetoric. For Qatar, it means grappling with the tension between state interests and journalistic integrity. Can a media network truly serve as a global beacon of free expression while advancing a single government's agenda? For the UAE, it entails reassessing whether military interventions in distant conflicts truly serve long-term national interests—or simply entangle the country in intractable disputes that drain resources and generate enemies.

The broader lesson for resource-rich small states is that wealth alone cannot guarantee security or influence. When regional order fractures, the very assets that symbolize power—skyscrapers, media networks, overseas bases—can become liabilities. Ambiguity in foreign policy invites escalation; perceived partiality erodes trust; and economic hubs dependent on perceptions of stability are vulnerable to regional shocks.

Qatar and the UAE have achieved remarkable feats: transforming desert outposts into global nodes of finance, media, and diplomacy. Their use of natural resource wealth to punch above their weight is a masterclass in strategic statecraft. But the events of early 2026 reveal the limits of this model.

Media influence built on perceived bias invites backlash. Military interventions in fragile states can generate blowback. Economic hubs dependent on perceptions of stability are vulnerable to regional shocks. And the rapid extraction of finite resources, without sustainable planning, mortgages the future.

The glass houses of the Gulf are not destined to become ruins of the desert. But they will endure only if their builders recognize that true resilience requires more than wealth—it demands legitimacy, sustainability, and a commitment to the stability of the region they seek to lead. In an era of escalating tensions, that lesson may be the most valuable resource of all.

For two small states that have leveraged hydrocarbon wealth to shape the fate of nations, the path forward is clear: influence without accountability is fragile; power without prudence is perilous. The desert remembers what the glass forgets—that foundations matter more than facades, and that lasting influence is built not on extraction, but on trust.

  

Media review: When Western Powers Abandon the Human Rights Norms They Champion

Media review: When Western Powers Abandon the Human Rights Norms They Champion

    Friday, March 27, 2026   No comments

 

This week's cascade of headlines from Geneva, Washington, and Tehran reads less like routine diplomatic reporting and more like a case study in the unraveling of a foundational post-war promise: that Western democracies would serve as the steadfast guardians of universal human rights and international law. Instead, a disturbing pattern emerges—one where the very nations that built the architecture of global accountability now appear willing to dismantle it, brick by brick, when strategic interests collide with principle. The danger is not merely in individual actions, but in the corrosive incoherence that threatens to render the entire human rights framework meaningless.

The week opened with a stark appeal from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, who urged the United States to conclude and publicize its investigation into the strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, Iran. Turk's words carried the weight of visceral horror: "Differences between countries will not be solved by killing schoolchildren." He called for an investigation that is "prompt, impartial, transparent and thorough." Yet, the very need for such a public urging underscores a crisis of trust. When the nation that champions "rules-based order" becomes the subject of urgent UN debates over civilian casualties, the gap between rhetoric and reality yawns wide.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, speaking at the same emergency Human Rights Council session, framed the attack not as an isolated incident but as part of a "broader pattern of systematic strikes on civilians and infrastructure." He described the school bombing—which reportedly killed over 175 students and teachers—as a war crime and a crime against humanity. Whether one accepts every characterization, the core question remains: if the principles of distinction and proportionality under International Humanitarian Law are negotiable when applied to adversaries, what legitimacy do they retain anywhere?

The linguistic contortions from Washington this week were particularly revealing. President Donald Trump explicitly stated he would refer to U.S. strikes on Iran as a "military operation," not a "war," because the latter term "needs approval" through democratic processes. This is not mere semantics; it is a deliberate strategy to circumvent constitutional and international legal safeguards designed to prevent unchecked executive warmaking. Similarly, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's declaration that America is "negotiating with bombs" reduces diplomacy to coercion, elevating force over law.

This evasion of legal terminology mirrors a broader avoidance of accountability. When asked about Israel's nuclear arsenal—a program shrouded in deliberate ambiguity—Ambassador Danny Danon simply labeled Israel a "stabilising force in the region." This assertion, made while the U.S. and Israel face accusations of targeting civilian infrastructure, highlights a profound double standard: nuclear capabilities are deemed destabilizing when possessed by some nations, but a source of "stability" when held by allies, regardless of transparency or non-proliferation commitments.

The human toll is matched by a cultural one. Reports indicate over 120 cultural sites across Iran, including historic palaces and museums in Tehran, have suffered serious damage. The deliberate targeting of cultural heritage is prohibited under international conventions, yet these strikes proceed with little apparent consequence for the perpetrators. This destruction is not collateral; it is an erosion of shared human history, underscoring how quickly norms dissolve when political will falters.

Perhaps the most symbolic moment of the week came at the UN, where the U.S. and Israel were among only three nations to vote against a resolution condemning slavery as a crime against humanity and calling for reparations. The U.S. deputy ambassador argued that while the slave trade was wrong, there is no "legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time." This legalistic argument, deployed to avoid moral responsibility, stands in jarring contrast to the fervent demands for accountability directed at other nations. It signals a selective morality: human rights are universal when invoked against others, but contingent when they implicate Western historical or contemporary conduct.

The cumulative effect of these actions is not lost on observers worldwide. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's condemnation of U.S. rhetoric as "moral depravity" is easily dismissed as geopolitical posturing. But the more damaging critique comes from the erosion of trust among allies and the global South. When Western powers abandon consistency, they do not merely weaken their own moral authority; they empower authoritarian narratives that dismiss human rights as mere tools of Western hegemony.

The greatest danger lies here: the international human rights system is fragile. It depends on the perceived legitimacy and consistent application of its norms by its most powerful architects. When those architects treat international law as a menu—selecting accountability for adversaries while claiming exemption for themselves—they do not just break specific rules. They undermine the very idea that rules matter. This incoherence invites a world where might makes right, where civilian protections are conditional, and where the language of human rights becomes an empty instrument of propaganda.

This week's events should serve as a urgent reckoning for Western capitals. Reaffirming commitment to human rights cannot be a rhetorical exercise reserved for condemning rivals. It requires transparent investigations into civilian harm, adherence to legal definitions of conflict, protection of cultural heritage, and a willingness to confront historical and contemporary injustices with the same vigor applied to others.

The alternative is a downward spiral. As Iranian officials warn that "inaction only invites further violations," they articulate a truth that applies globally: norms unenforced are norms abandoned. The world is watching not just the strikes and the statements, but the consistency of the response. The credibility of the entire human rights project now hinges on whether Western nations choose coherence over convenience, and principle over power. The stakes, as the children of Minab remind us, could not be higher.