Public condemnation, private interest: Arab world response to Israel's Iran strikes - opinion

The Russian writer Ivan Pavlov wrote about the tendency of humans and animals to respond automatically to external stimuli. This phenomenon, which became known as the “Pavlovian response,” aptly describes the Arab reaction to Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Almost all Arab states that have signed peace or normalization agreements with Israel – or maintain behind-the-scenes ties with it – issued statements of condemnation, nearly identical in wording, against the attack.

Once again, a familiar pattern has emerged, of conflict between their public positions and hidden interests. The Saudi foreign minister spoke with his Iranian counterpart and expressed “the Kingdom’s condemnation of the hideous Israeli aggression.”

Other Gulf states – the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman – also condemned the attack on Iran’s sovereignty and the violation of international law, emphasizing the importance of resolving conflicts through peaceful means.

Jordan’s foreign minister strongly condemned Israel and warned against dragging the region into a full-scale war. Egypt’s Foreign Ministry described the Israeli attack as “a most dangerous escalation,” “a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter,” and “a direct threat to regional peace and security.”

Yet, in essence, most Arab rulers oppose Iran turning into a nuclear power, particularly those geographically close to it, as they view themselves as vulnerable to this threat – one that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Gulf and the Middle East at large.

Therefore, although it is still too early to disclose the full extent of Arab involvement, there are indications that Israel operated over the airspace of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria – the latter likely without its knowledge or consent.

Jordanian fighter jets intercepted Iranian drones over Jordanian territory.

It is also reasonable to assume that the regional air system, established following the Abraham Accords and Israel’s inclusion in the US Central Command (CENTCOM) – known as the Middle East Air Defense – was activated to intercept Iranian drones, as it was during Iran’s two previous attacks in April and October 2024.

Contradiction: Publicly condemning, privately applauding

The second reason relates to the fact that some of these states – certainly those located in the Gulf – are reluctant to rub it in that Iran has been humiliated, as ultimately, they will remain its neighbors.

This logic also led the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to restore their diplomatic relations with Iran, despite their concerns not only about a nuclear Iran but also about its efforts to strengthen its Shi’ite sphere of influence in the Arab world at the Sunnis’ expense, as it has already done in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.

The Arab condemnation of Israel’s strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is reminiscent of the consensual Arab denunciation that followed Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in June 1981 – even though Iraqi president Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the Gulf states and sought to claim the mantle of Arab leadership after Egypt signed a peace agreement with Israel.

The British ambassador to Jordan reported at the time that King Hussein felt compelled to criticize US then-president Ronald Reagan and publicly condemn Israel in order to protect his standing in Jordan and the Arab world.

Moreover, Egyptian president Anwar Sadat felt humiliated and betrayed, as just three days earlier he had met with then-prime minister Menachem Begin in Sharm el-Sheikh – an encounter that gave him the appearance of someone who had collaborated with Israel, secretly sanctioning the operation.

The Arab condemnation of the Israeli strike should not be of grave concern to Israel. The desire to eliminate Iran’s nuclear project is supported by nearly all the region’s states as part of a shared desire to diminish the power and influence of Shi’ite Iran within the Arab-Sunni space.

It is likely that even Turkey will not shed a tear. Nonetheless, the convergence of interests behind the scenes is not sufficient for Israel.

Iran’s weakening, as a result of the blows it and its proxies – Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas – have sustained, presents an opportunity to advance a regional political settlement based on ending the war, releasing the hostages, normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia, and reaching an agreed-upon resolution to the Palestinian issue.

A diplomatic move must follow the military action; if it does not, the military achievements may be diminished or even squandered in the long run, just as happened in the aftermath of the Six Day War.

The writer teaches in the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University, is a board member of Mitvim, and a member of the Coalition for Regional Security.