By Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
There is a well-known proverb in Urdu which says that a thief may abandon the act of theft, but he rarely abandons the habit of manipulation and deceit. This old saying feels strikingly relevant in the unfolding drama of contemporary geopolitics. In the Gulf today, a dangerous confrontation has emerged. The United States and Israel seem engaged in a direct contest with Iran, while simultaneously applying indirect pressure across other countries in the region. The stated and unstated aim appears to be the weakening, or even the eventual collapse, of Iran’s political order. Yet, despite sustained political, military, and psychological pressure, that objective remains out of reach.
Instead of producing internal fragmentation, the crisis has had the opposite effect. The martyrdom of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has sparked a wave of emotional and political unity across Iranian society. Reports circulating in the region suggest he had been advised by his security team to move to a fortified bunker for safety. He is said to have refused, stating he could not abandon his people in their hour of trial. Whether interpreted as symbolism or sacrifice, the narrative has strengthened national solidarity within Iran and complicated the strategic calculations of its adversaries.
As the anticipated political collapse failed to materialize, the theatre of conflict began to expand. In recent weeks, missile and drone strikes have been reported in several countries, including Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, as well as other states across the Gulf and Middle East. Immediate accusations pointed to Iran as the orchestrator, creating an atmosphere of suspicion and alarm. If accepted without scrutiny, such claims could push regional powers into broader military alignments against Tehran, potentially transforming a limited confrontation into a wider war.
Yet in the age of digital surveillance, satellite intelligence, and advanced communications, the narrative is starting to unravel. Investigations using technological tools suggest Iran may not have been responsible for these attacks at all. Emerging indications point instead to a calculated attempt to fabricate evidence and manipulate regional perceptions. If these findings hold, the strikes were not acts of retaliation by Iran but components of a strategic deception designed to provoke neighboring states into entering the conflict.
History often repeats itself in geopolitics—not as farce, but as a chilling reenactment with familiar motives. A historical episode from nearly six decades ago offers a striking parallel. On 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War, the American naval intelligence ship USS Liberty sailed in international waters near the Sinai Peninsula. Clearly marked and not configured for combat, the vessel came under a devastating assault by Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats.
The attack lasted over an hour. By the end, thirty-four American servicemen had died and 171 were wounded. Despite the visible American flag and repeated identification signals, the assault continued with precision. The survival of the vessel owed much to the extraordinary courage of its captain, Commander William L. McGonagle. Severely wounded early in the attack, he remained on the bridge, directing the crew while the damaged ship struggled to stay afloat. His leadership ultimately prevented the vessel from sinking.
Commander McGonagle was awarded the Medal of Honor, the United States’ highest military decoration. The ceremony, however, took place quietly at the Washington Navy Yard rather than at the White House—a decision widely seen as an attempt to minimize diplomatic tensions with Israel. Survivors of the attack have consistently maintained the strike was deliberate. Petty Officer Ernie Gallo famously remarked that the ship’s identity was unmistakable, while another survivor, Joe Meadors, described it as cold-blooded murder. For decades, these voices have challenged the official narrative that it was merely a tragic mistake.
A third parallel concerns the silence that follows such controversies. Governments often subordinate uncomfortable truths to diplomatic expediency, while media narratives are shaped by alliances and political calculations. In the Liberty case, survivors’ pursuit of justice faded as administrations chose not to reopen the issue. Today, international institutions appear hesitant to question powerful narratives that could disrupt geopolitical partnerships.
History also offers warnings. Manufactured crises, however expertly orchestrated, rarely remain contained. The Liberty incident left lasting scars on trust between American servicemen and their political leadership. Allegations of orchestrated attacks across Turkey, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and neighboring states have already rekindled tensions that could destabilize the entire region.
When truth becomes the first casualty of strategic deception, the consequences stretch far beyond immediate battlefields. Nations in the Middle East—and the wider international community—must approach the current crisis with caution, transparency, and independent investigation. Otherwise, the world risks repeating a tragic pattern, where suspicion breeds confrontation, confrontation breeds war, and the lessons of history are learned only after irreparable loss.
(The writer is a parliamentary expert with decades of experience in legislative research and media affairs, leading policy support initiatives for lawmakers on complex national and international issues, and can be reached at editorial@metro-Morning.com)
#MiddleEast #Conflict #IranCrisis #Geopolitics #USIsraelIran #StrategicDeception
