The Condemnations of Israel Are Half-Hearted

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
The countries surrounding Iran have condemned Israel's attack today. Some statements were more florid than others, and some were more convincing. Bahrain, whose monarchy Iran has repeatedly attempted to topple, urged Israel to de-escalate. Azerbaijan, whose secular government is constantly at odds with Iran, 'resolutely' reproached Israel for its attack but gave no indication that it would cease being a resolute ally of Israel and the United States. Iraq, whose Shiite-led government in many ways owes its existence to the Iranians, vowed that it would help Iran retaliate by sending a sternly worded letter to the United Nations. Among the quicker and more vigorous denunciations was Saudi Arabia's. 'The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia expresses its strong condemnation and denunciation of the blatant Israeli aggressions against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran,' it said, adding that the attacks were 'heinous.'
Green's Dictionary of Slang notes that the word heinous, when used by American teens, has at times meant fantastic, and it is no secret that among the countries that have issued denunciations are many senior officials who would consider the destruction of Iran's nuclear program heinous and rad indeed, an extreeeeeme escalation in the Harold and Kumar sense. Almost all of the countries surrounding Iran have reasons to prefer a weak Iran and to dread a nuclear one. Diplomacy often takes the form of elaborate, staged meetings and statements whose plain meanings differ from what the country's leaders actually feel. What they actually feel is not usually difficult to discern.
This lineup of eager denouncers is like the cast of a drawing-room murder mystery, where everyone is a suspect because everyone has a motive. The fact that Israel actually plunged the dagger into the deceased is incidental. Bahrain is ruled by Sunnis and has a mostly Shiite population permanently restless over its servile condition. Azerbaijan, too, is mostly Shiite, but it is proudly secular in orientation, and welcomes Iranians who come across its border to escape theocracy, get drunk, and take off their veils. Aykhan Hajizada, the spokesperson for the Azerbaijani foreign ministry, told me in Baku last year that Iran would sometimes conduct aggressive military drills across the border and complain about Azerbaijan's friendships with Iran's enemies. 'We are very open with them,' Hajizada said. 'We are building relations based on our national-security interests, and not based on the interests of the neighboring country.' A nuclear Iran would effectively end that independence.
[Read: What Trump knew about the attack against Iran]
But the clearest case of this duplicity (denunciation in public; You know, he kind of had it coming in private) is Saudi Arabia's. 'We don't look to Israel as an enemy,' Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, told me in 2021. 'We look to them as a potential ally' with many common interests. By contrast, he referred to Iran as a neighbor that he 'could not get rid of,' and with whom he would realistically be forced to find a modus vivendi. In 2023, Saudi Arabia and Iran made a deal, brokered by China, that restored diplomatic relations and in theory healed the long-standing divisions between the countries.
But the fundamental facts of their relationship are irreconcilable. Theirs is not a love marriage. Iran's drones and missiles are aimed at Saudi Arabia's oil fields, and the biggest threat to the kingdom is, and has been for at least three decades, the possibility that Iran would destroy or disrupt its energy industry. Saudi Arabia on its own has no way to counter or deter that threat—which is why the United States and Israel are its natural allies. Iran has additionally fomented open revolt against the Saudi monarchy. In cities in the Shiite-majority Eastern province of Saudi Arabia, where much of the oil industry is, one can still see bullet-pocked walls and collapsed buildings where Saudi security services fought and ultimately crushed an Iranian-backed revolt in 2017.
None of these countries wants all-out war. And they certainly do not wish to volunteer themselves to be attacked, should Iran decide that Israel itself is too hard a target, and its allies are safer to pick on. Iran's neighbors have plenty of beef with Israel too, and have populations that would be pleased to watch the Jewish state humbled. But Israel's humiliation, if it must come, can wait. Iran has been unique among regional powers in its tendency to cultivate and arm allies abroad, and to aid those allies in their efforts in order to make trouble for incumbent autocracies, from Cairo to Baku to Sanaa. For Iran to go nuclear, and be able to dictate the terms of these relationships under the leisurely protection of an atomic umbrella, would be catastrophic for them all. Just don't expect them to say so.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

33 minutes ago

• New York Post

Homeland Security warns of possible terrorist attacks in US following strike on Iran

The Department of Homeland Security issued a terrorism alert on Sunday — warning of possible Iranian attacks against the US following the American airstrikes against Tehran's nuclear program. DHS warned officials to be on the lookout for Iranian-led attacks over the next three months by terror cells inspired to retaliate following Saturday night's strike. 'The likelihood of violent extremists in the Homeland independently mobilizing to violence in response to the conflict would likely increase if Iranian leadership issued a religious ruling calling for retaliatory violence against targets in the Homeland,' DHS said in a statement. Advertisement Iranians at a rally in Tehran after the US airstrikes on three of the countries nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS Along with the possibility of extremist attacks on US soil, officials warned that the chances of both cyberattacks and antisemitic acts are likely to increase. The advisory comes after the NYPD put out its own alert last night, with Gov. Hochul upping security at the MTA and Port Authority.

Boston Globe

33 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble

The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. Advertisement For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Advertisement Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' Advertisement In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Advertisement Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. Advertisement That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Los Angeles Times

36 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

Iran accused of abducting journalist's family in retaliation for war coverage

DUBAI — Iran detained the family members of an Iran International journalist Saturday in retaliation for the channel's coverage of the country's war with Israel, threatening to hold them until the journalist resigned from her position. The London-based Persian-language news channel said in a statement that it strongly condemns the abduction of its journalist's family, calling it 'an appalling act of hostage-taking aimed at coercing our colleague into resigning from their post.' 'This deeply reprehensible tactic marks a dangerous escalation in the regime's ruthless campaign to silence dissent and suppress independent journalism,' the news channel said. The detainment marks the latest example of Iran's long-standing effort to crack down not only on Iranian journalists inside the country but also those abroad who still have family and friends living in Iran. The Islamic Republic is one of the world's top jailers of journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and in the best of times, reporters face strict restrictions. The broadcaster said that Iran's paramilitary Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps took the presenter's mother, father and younger brother to an unidentified location. The journalist, whose name the outlet did not disclose, then received a phone call from her father early Saturday, urging her to resign from her role, according to Iran International. The voices of security agents could be heard in the background telling her father what to say. 'I've told you a thousand times to resign. What other consequences do you expect?' Iran International said her father told her. 'You have to resign.' Persian-language broadcasters such as Iran International and BBC Persia have long been targets for the Islamic Republic, given that they broadcast in the native language and many Iranians, both domestically and abroad, rely on them for news, especially of the most recent Iran-Israel war amid an official internet blackout. Iran International in particular has become a target of Tehran in recent years over its programming that is critical of the theocratic government in Tehran. The Iranian government has called the news outlet a terrorist organization. One of its journalists was stabbed in 2024 in an attack suspected to have been carried out by Iran, while men were arrested in a suspected plot to target others at the channel. Amiri writes for the Associated Press.