Press Review: Israel-Iran Conflict
The unprecedented Israeli airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and high-ranking officials have sparked a wave of intense reactions across the Arab press. With varying tones ranging from strategic analysis to emotional condemnation, the region’s leading newspapers and commentators have attempted to assess the implications of what many see as the most significant military escalation in the Middle East since the Iraq War. This review explores the themes and insights emerging from Arab media coverage of the evolving Israeli-Iranian conflict.
A “Different Kind of War”
Saudi journalist Tariq Al-Homayed, writing for Asharq Al-Awsat, described the conflict as “a different kind of war,” contrasting it with previous regional hostilities such as the Gaza conflicts or the Iran-Iraq War. He emphasized its strategic and intelligence-driven nature, particularly the surgical Israeli strikes that wiped out key Iranian nuclear scientists and military leaders within minutes. Al-Homayed questioned Iran’s capacity to sustain such a campaign, pointing to the exposed vulnerabilities of its air defense systems and leadership structure. He also raised critical questions: What is the ultimate goal of Israel and the U.S.? And how long can this war continue without dragging the entire region into chaos?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
War of Attrition or Calculated Blow?
Elaph columnist Dr. Khaled Zagreet argued that Israel’s military operation is not a tactical maneuver, but rather a deliberate strategy to dismantle Iran’s military and ideological structure. He called it a “prelude to a war of no return,” asserting that Iran has been driven into internal chaos, stripped of both military might and ideological coherence. Zagreet contended that Israel does not aim to share the spoils of victory but expects its regional allies to bear part of the costs, while it alone reaps the strategic benefits. For the Arab states, this means they might be left to deal with Iran’s retaliatory rage without the guarantees of security or political reward.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Intelligence Earthquake
In Al-Ahram, Egyptian political analyst Dr. Abdel Moneim Said portrayed the Israeli assault as a catastrophic intelligence success, revealing Iran’s security apparatus to be deeply compromised. The targeting of nuclear scientists and senior officials in their homes underlined, he said, the surgical precision and depth of Israeli intelligence. Said also argued that Iran had been misled by supposed U.S.-Iran negotiations and wrongly assumed that Israel was too entangled in Gaza to open a second front.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Specter of a Regional Conflagration
Osama Saraya, another Al-Ahram commentator, linked the Israeli offensive to the prolonged Gaza war, warning that it risks dragging the entire Middle East into a larger confrontation. He questioned the strategic logic behind the Israeli attacks, calling them “catastrophic miscalculations” that could backfire. In his view, rather than enhancing regional security, the attacks exacerbate instability and enflame anti-Israel sentiment, potentially sparking broader resistance across Arab and Muslim countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuclear Monopoly and the “Samson Option”
In Al-Khaleej UAE daily, columnist Abdullah Al-Sinnawi framed the assault through the lens of Israel’s historical policy of nuclear exclusivity in the region. Referencing Seymour Hersh’s revelations in “The Samson Option,” Al-Sinnawi argued that Israel’s goal is to maintain its nuclear monopoly by forcibly preventing any regional rival—now Iran—from developing nuclear capabilities. He pointed to U.S. complicity, alleging that Washington’s intelligence and military support enabled the attack, despite its public denials. For Al-Sinnawi, the airstrikes represent a high-stakes gamble to reshape the Middle East, with Iran’s collapse ushering in a new “Israeli era.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diplomatic Urgency from the Gulf
The Qatari press struck a markedly different tone, emphasizing de-escalation and diplomacy. Al-Raya’s editorial firmly condemned the Israeli strikes, labeling them a dangerous violation of sovereignty and a trigger for regional instability. The paper reiterated Qatar’s call for dialogue and reaffirmed Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani’s diplomatic outreach to both Iran and the U.S., advocating for a return to negotiations rather than war.
In Al-Sharq newspaper, Dr. Abdullah Al Shayji highlighted the precarious position of Gulf states caught in the crossfire. He emphasized the urgent need for neutrality and regional mediation, calling on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to reassert its role as a peace broker. Al Shayji warned that GCC countries must not allow their territories to be used in future attacks, as this could invite Iranian retaliation against American bases in the region. He advocated for reviving the Oman-led backchannel talks to contain the conflict and protect vital Gulf interests, particularly oil infrastructure and national security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Collapse of a “False Alliance”
From Kuwait, Al-Jarida columnist Badr Khaled Al-Bahar offered a scathing critique of past U.S.-Iran-Israel maneuverings, labeling them a “false alliance.” He argued that the current escalation reveals the breakdown of decades of clandestine cooperation between these powers, and emphasized the need for Gulf countries—especially Kuwait—to remain vigilant against possible Iranian sleeper cells. Al-Bahar warned that Iran, under immense pressure, might activate loyalist operatives in the Gulf to destabilize the region in retaliation for Israeli aggression.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Between Fire and Diplomacy
The Arab press broadly converges on several key themes: the extraordinary nature of the Israeli assault, the strategic implications for Iran and the wider region, and the real danger of all-out war. While some commentators frame the operation as a necessary check on Iranian ambitions, others see it as reckless brinkmanship that could ignite a regional inferno. Across the board, however, there is an urgent call for diplomatic intervention to halt the slide toward full-scale war—one that few in the region believe will spare any nation, big or small.
As the fallout continues, the role of the Gulf states—balancing between military caution, economic interests, and strategic diplomacy—could prove pivotal in shaping the next chapter of this high-stakes confrontation