Najmuddin A Farooqi.
Wisdom demands that we rise above personalities and propaganda. Neither Donald Trump nor Benjamin Netanyahu can be simplistically portrayed as heroes, just as Iran cannot be treated as a “holy cow,” immune from scrutiny or criticism. The foundation of any serious analysis must rest on scientific facts, verified data and objective evidence these are non-negotiable and beyond debate. Discussions may differ on subjective or ideological matters, but facts must remain sacrosanct.
When examining the current conflict, it appears evident who initiated hostilities. Equally, there seems to be no immediate or compelling justification for the United States to undertake direct strikes. However, a critical look at the Iranian regime reveals a stark and uncomfortable reality: its leadership structure has repeatedly suffered precise and devastating blows.
From the assassination of Qasem Soleimani to the reported elimination of numerous high-ranking commanders in recent confrontations, the pattern is consistent targeted operations executed with remarkable precision, often within Iranian territory itself. In the ongoing conflict, this trend appears to have continued, with significant attrition among senior leadership and military command.
In contrast, it is difficult to identify a comparable loss of top-tier leadership figures from the United States or Israel at the hands of Iranian forces. This asymmetry raises serious questions about capability, preparedness and the gap between perception and reality.
It is important to clarify that this critique is not rooted in sectarian bias. Viewing Iran critically is not about it being a Shia-majority nation rather, it stems from the sustained narrative built around it. This narrative projects Iran as possessing unmatched military sophistication and as uniquely righteous or representative of “true” Islam. At the same time, it often delegitimizes other Muslim nations portraying them as compromised, subservient or even outside the fold of authenticity.
Such sweeping claims not only distort reality but also deepen divisions within the Muslim world. In truth, several countries, including Qatar and other regional actors, have consistently pursued diplomacy and mediation to prevent escalation. These efforts highlight that dialogue, not confrontation, remains both possible and necessary.
A further and deeply troubling dimension arises when force is directed toward countries that are not even parties to the conflict. How can it be justified that missiles and drones are launched against nations that have neither attacked Iran nor supported aggression against it ? On the contrary, many such countries have advocated restraint and encouraged diplomatic engagement. The United Nations acknowledges as serious war crimes to the attacks by Netanyahu led Israeli troops or by American forces under the direction of Trump, killing innocent civilians in Iran. But does this crime authorises a license to kill innocent population by a pure Islamic regime.
Is it morally or legally defensible to target non-belligerent states, especially when such actions result in the loss of innocent civilian lives ? This question goes beyond politics it strikes at the very core of ethics, justice and international law. Any use of force that fails to distinguish between combatants and civilians or that targets those not involved in hostilities, raises profound moral concerns and challenges the very principles of lawful conduct.
At this juncture, it is instructive to reflect on a profound historical precedent: the Treaty of Hudaibiyah concluded by Prophet Muhammad with the Quraysh of Mecca. This agreement, though seemingly unfavorable to Muslims at the time, was accepted with patience, foresight and strategic wisdom. Many of its terms appeared unjust, even harsh, yet it ultimately paved the way for peace and long-term success.
For Muslims, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ represents the highest standard of wisdom, patience and moral authority. It is therefore worth asking, can any contemporary regime claim a position superior to his judgment ? If not, then the lesson is clear restraint, negotiation and long-term vision often achieve what force cannot.
In conclusion, the present conflict must be viewed through the lens of facts, not fervor; through balance, not bias. Hero worship and blind allegiance obscure reality. True strength lies not merely in rhetoric or perception, but in accountability, strategic clarity and the willingness to choose peace when it remains within reach.
