Israel-Iran conflict: What the rest of the world has to say

Iran launched a massive barrage of over 300 drones and missiles at Israel on 13 April, in retaliation for Israel's strike on an Iranian diplomatic complex in Syria on 1 April. 

This is Iran's first direct attack on its regional foe from Iranian soil, even though nearly all of the weapons were intercepted by Israel and its allies, including the United States. 

Funnily enough, once again Israel and its allies, as well as the vast majority of Western media, are trying to portray Iran as the aggressors here, further exposing the Western hypocrisy and adding fuel to the fire for a potential wider war. 

By depicting Iran in the wrong, they are distracting attention not only from their failure to achieve a ceasefire, but also from the fact that it was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who authorised the airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, a clear violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Ironically, in the aftermath of the attack in Damascus, the international response to the brazen Israeli defiance of international law was muted. But once Iran retaliated, there seemed to be a flurry of criticism directed at Tehran.

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak strongly condemned the Iranian regime's "reckless attack" on Israel, emphasising that it once again has shown that Iran was "intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard". 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed concern over Iran's "disregard for peace and stability in the region," reiterating the slogan about "Israel's right to defend itself." 

Germany's Ambassador to Israel Steffen Seibert took to social media to declare German solidarity "with all Israelis tonight whom Iran is terrorising with this unprecedented and ruthless attack."

The US President Joe Biden also announced that his government's "commitment to Israel's security against threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad."

This raises the question of whether, rather than working towards achieving a lasting ceasefire in Gaza as has been called for over the past six months, the recent escalation between Iran and Israel would be used as an excuse to plunge the Middle East into a wider war, potentially with tacit approval from Western powers.

A balanced response from the rest of the world

The answer to the previous question can be found in the way some other countries, who are not in general pro-Israeli but concerned about the overall situation, reacted to Iran's retaliation. 

Colombia's President Gustavo Petro called the attacks "predictable", adding that the world is now on the brink of World War III at a time when humanity should be focused on rebuilding the economy with the urgent aim of decarbonization.

"The support of the US, in practice, for a genocide, has ignited the world. Everyone knows how wars start, no one knows how they end. If only the people of Israel were high enough, like their ancestors, to stop the madness of their ruler," he said in a statement.

China also expressed concern about escalation by saying, "China calls on relevant parties to remain calm and exercise restraint to avoid further escalation of tensions."

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim dubbed Iran's attack as a "consequence of the Israeli government breaking international laws" by bombing the Iranian consulate on 1 April.

Russia too indicated the "provocative actions" when it said, "We have repeatedly warned that the numerous unresolved crises in the Middle East, primarily in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, which are often fuelled by irresponsible provocative actions, will lead to an increase in tension."

These contrasting responses, compared to reactions from Western countries such as the US, the UK, Canada, and Germany, highlight how there is a clear concern about a potential escalation from the rest of the world, while the Westerners are instead adding fuel to the fire for a regional war. 

Influential Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are also pushing to stop a full-blown regional war, as they are fearing that new escalation could put them on front lines of a conflagration and ruin plans to reshape the region.

But of course, there are still some parties who are downright supporting Iran's latest move on Israel. 

Lebanese group Hezbollah praised Iran's attack on Israel, describing it as a "brave" decision. Iran-backed Hezbollah added in a statement that Iran had exercised its legal rights despite "threats, intimidation and pressure".

Yemen's armed Houthi movement also said on Sunday that Iran's attack on Israel was a legitimate act in response to a suspected Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus on 1 April.

Why this contradiction?

The contradicting global responses to the latest developments in the Middle East have their roots in the 1917 Balfour Declaration in which Britain promised the Jewish people a national home in Palestine, in the hope of having their support for Allied powers in World War I. The war marked the end of four centuries of Ottoman rule over Palestine and the land came under British control. 

The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by major Allied Powers and was formally approved by the League of Nations in 1922. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a plan to partition Palestine into an independent Jewish state and an independent Arab state.

The next year Israel declared itself an independent state and was immediately admitted to the United Nations, but a Palestinian State was not established. Since then, there were wars—in 1948 and in 1967-- and accords—such as the 1978 Camp David accord and 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, but peace continued to elude the region. 

The land continued to remain a regional playground of nation-states involved in a tangle of diplomatic, political and economic interests.

Why did Iran do what they did?

So, the question that now needs to be answered is whether Iran is really looking to lead the escalation of a regional war? Evidently, its response to Israel's attack didn't bear any such intention.

Clearly, it was quite calculated in an attempt to avoid any major escalation, as the Iranian foreign minister Amir Abdollahian said that Tehran had informed the US of the planned attack 72 hours in advance, adding that the strikes would be "limited" and for self-defence.

Iran's permanent mission to the United Nations also justified Tehran's response to Israeli aggression as a "legitimate defence" in accordance with the UN charter.

Later, on Sunday, Iran warned of a "much bigger" assault on the country should Netanyahu decide on a tit-for-tat attack.

"Our response will be much larger than tonight's military action if Israel retaliates against Iran," said the Iranian armed forces' chief of staff, Maj Gen Mohammad Bagheri. 

It is worth mentioning that since the war in Gaza began six months ago there had been near-daily exchanges of fire between Israeli forces and Hezbollah along the Israel-Lebanon border, which had often threatened to escalate into full-blown conflict.

Still, a direct attack by Iran on Israel was never really believed to be on the cards. Tehran's leaders had always maintained that they were not seeking a war with Israel, which could also draw in the US.

And quite rightly, it was Israel who made the first major blow on 1 April, regardless of what Westerners want us to believe. 

Israel likely to cling onto the prospect of wider war

While speaking by phone with Netanyahu following Iran's retaliation, Joe Biden made it clear that the US would not participate in any offensive operations against Iran. 

Biden told Netanyahu he should consider the events of Saturday night a "win" as Iran's attacks had been "largely unsuccessful", and instead demonstrated Israel's "remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks."

But it doesn't look like Netanyahu – motivated by his self-interest of gaining back his countrymen's faith that he lost on 7 October last year – will pay heed to Biden for long.

Israel has already pledged that it will "exact a price" from Iran.  Israel's war cabinet has been authorised to respond to the attack and met on Sunday, with one of its members, Benny Gantz, saying the "event is not over." He cited the need to "build a regional coalition and exact a price from Iran, in a way and at a time that suits us."

Of course, Netanyahu is not a fool to not know that time is one thing that might run against him with one single misstep. Also, the potential of a full-blown war, and not a ceasefire, is exactly what can buy him some precious time until the next US elections. 

Also, it is now an open secret that far from moving toward the two-state solution being promulgated by Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Netanyahu has been calling for an increased and time unlimited Israeli occupation not only of Gaza, but also of the West Bank, and all other areas of what otherwise would constitute an independent Palestinian state. 

In effect, Netanyahu is calling for the total conquest by Israel of the remains of Palestine - the exact opposite of what Biden and the rest of the world are suggesting.

And if he can play out the next six months or so thanks to the escalation of the war, he may well have a much more supportive and compliant Trump administration with which to possibly deal in the future. 

One might wonder why. Because, Netanyahu's approval among the people in Israel is dwindling, and the day the war comes to an end, Israel will surely be swept by an unprecedented wave of protests. And after that, Netanyahu's governing coalition will have very little chance of surviving.

Palestinians clutching at a straw

Meanwhile, Iran's involvement in the war is indeed receiving applause from the Palestinians, and the supporters of Gaza. 

The Palestinians are seeing a ray of hope in it, describing it as a rare payback for the Israeli offensive on their enclave. They are hopeful that if Iran or any other country enters the war, a solution for Gaza might be nearer than ever, as the Americans may have to resolve Gaza to end the roots of the problem.

"Whoever decides to attack Israel, dares to attack Israel at a time when the whole world acts in its service, is a hero in the eyes of Palestinians, regardless of whether we share their (Iran's) ideology or not," a man named Majed Abu Hamza from Gaza City has been quoted as saying by Reuters. 

"We have been slaughtered for over six months and no one dared to do anything. Now Iran, after its consulate was hit, is hitting back at Israel and this brings joy into our hearts," said another person named Abu Hamza. 

This, in effect, reminds us about the age-old proverb that "a drowning man will clutch at a straw." Palestinians, given their circumstances, are definitely in the right to think that Iran might very well be their saviour. 

But it will actually be Israel, and its allies in the West, who will be the real responsible party, should Iran's retaliation really lead to a wider war across the Middle East.