Positions of support for the Islamic Republic of Iran in its confrontation with the Zionist American alliance can be classified into two levels.
First: A Practical Principled Level
This is the stance adopted by resistance forces in the region, as active parties within an axis that brings together allied forces aligned with a state that, since its establishment, has raised the slogan of liberating Al Quds, considers the occupying entity a “cancerous tumour that must be uprooted”, and regards the United States as the “greater Satan”. It has not hesitated to provide various forms of support to different resistance factions, as acknowledged by their leading figures.
These forces have declared a principled position of standing alongside the Islamic Republic in its confrontation with the American-Israeli alliance. The leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the spokesperson for Ansar Allah in Yemen, and representatives of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces have all expressed a clear position that support would be operational should Iran face an American-Israeli military aggression.
These forces are doctrinally connected to the Islamic Republic of Iran and are fully aware that they are collectively targeted because they represent المقاومة and embody a state of organised cohesion that transcends temporary solidarity. It is a form of structured alignment characterised by doctrinal harmony, unified objectives, shared positions, and coordinated methods of action. This alignment possesses its own decision-making authority and operates from a central locus carrying spiritual authority, symbolic resistance, legitimacy, and historical affiliation.
Palestinian resistance factions form part of this axis, yet they maintain their own distinct circumstances and operate within a unique environment shaped by geography and history. These factions fought the Battle of Al Aqsa Flood, achieving what the author describes as genuine miracles and causing a global political and moral earthquake at the level of awareness and values. They now confront cautiously what is described as the “Peace Council” plan, which the American president is said to be attempting to impose upon official Arab regimes.
Russian and Chinese support may take a practical form, but it is not considered principled in this framework. The objectives of the Islamic Republic of Iran do not necessarily align with those of Russia and China. Rather, strategic interests compel both states to adopt positions aimed at preventing further expansion of American influence in areas vital to their own interests. Such dominance, if unchecked, could affect their sovereignty and potentially generate internal instability aimed at weakening or even fragmenting them.
Second: Moral Principled Positions
There is a second level of support, described as theoretical and principled. It does not extend beyond statements and, at times, slogans raised during marches and demonstrations by unorganised masses who reject injustice and stand with the oppressed. These efforts seek to generate broad global sentiment capable of exerting pressure on American decision makers to reconsider what are viewed as aggressive policies and military options.
However, according to the article, such positions are unlikely to have a practical impact. History, it argues, demonstrates that American military decisions are shaped by interests and governed by balances of power rather than ethical considerations. The wars in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003 are cited as examples where interests alone determined outcomes. Popular marches, condemnatory statements, poetic verses, and speeches did not halt aircraft engines or tank columns, nor did they awaken a humanitarian conscience within operational rooms of war or in detention facilities marked by abuse.
Those who adopt principled moral positions do not calculate profit and loss, victory and defeat. They act from fixed principles centred on upholding truth, whether its adherents are strong or weak, victorious or overpowered. Truth, in this view, is not nullified by military outcomes, nor does it perish with the killing of its advocates. It remains alive, especially when those who defend it fall as martyrs, thereby immortalising their just causes across generations.
According to this perspective, principled supporters do not declare their backing for the Islamic Republic because they assess that it will prevail militarily. Those who base their stance on such calculations, it is argued, do not endure and may later accuse the Iranian leadership of recklessness, as occurred with the leaders of Al Aqsa Flood. Rather, support is grounded in a conviction that injustice is a crime that cannot be tolerated, and that the American-Israeli alliance represents an aggressive force threatening global peace, the lives of people, their cultures, beliefs, and resources.
The article asserts that the Zionist American alliance has grown more emboldened in confronting Arab countries and even Turkey, despite its membership in NATO. Statements by prominent officials in the occupying entity are cited as evidence of expansionist intentions and claims of historical and scriptural rights they intend to reclaim, under the belief that the current US president represents an opportunity to realise these ambitions.
Arab and Islamic regimes that refrained from supporting Gaza, believing themselves shielded from targeting through silence and financial concessions to Trump, are now described as expressing surprise at statements by a US official. Media outlets recently reported that 14 Arab and Islamic states, alongside the Gulf Cooperation Council Secretariat, the Arab League, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, issued a joint statement condemning remarks by the US ambassador to Israel suggesting acceptance of Israeli sovereignty over territories belonging to Arab states, including the West Bank.
The reported signatories included Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Oman.
The article concludes by posing a question: Will the Zionist American offensive against the region create a shock comparable to Napoleon Bonaparte’s campaign in Egypt in 1798, prompting Arabs and Muslims to revisit, with greater clarity and bitterness, the enduring question: Why are we consistently defeated and humiliated?
