On July 3, 1988, the US Navy's USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air 655 civilian airliner with 290 passengers over the Persian Gulf in an act of brazen military overreach. The Navy's justification that it was an 'unintentional mistake' belies a harsh reality: it was not a mistake, but rather a symbolic example of Western indifference to the lives of those deemed expendable.
The Navy mistook a commercial flight for an enemy fighter, fired two surface-to-air missiles, and killed everyone on board. The US response, however, was not to acknowledge the moral failing, but to double-down and offer no real apology or compensation to the families of the victims. This tragedy was a grim reminder of the long-standing practice of the West dehumanising the peoples of West Asia in its relentless pursuit of geopolitical domination. For the Iranian people, it was not just a military blunder, but a gross rejection of their humanity that reinforced the deeply held belief in Western circles that the lives of people beyond its borders are, at best, collateral damage in the pursuit of power.
The reverberations of this tragedy persist to this day, compounded by the volatile relations between the US and Iran. Just days after Donald Trump's re-election, the US Government claimed to have uncovered an Iranian plot to assassinate the President. Iran has strongly rejected these allegations, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi dismissing them as a 'third-rate comedy' and accusing the US of fabricating a story to justify further aggression. Araqchi's taunt - mocking the absurdity of an assassin "sitting in Iran talking online to the FBI" - has rekindled the deep distrust that defines US-Iran relations.
Now that Trump has secured a second term and will become the 47th President of the US, it is clear that his foreign policy, especially towards Iran, could be much more aggressive, with disastrous consequences. His planned appointments of hawkish figures - such as Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, Steven C. Witkoff as special envoy for West Asian affairs, and Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel - suggest that peace in West Asia is more distant than ever. These choices reflect a growing alignment with Israel's interests, further heightening tensions and setting the stage for catastrophic conflict - a conflict that could lead to war against Iran as the ultimate culmination of decades of Western intervention.
This looming catastrophe cannot be separated from the historical legacy of Western intervention in West Asia. Iran's relations with the West have been shaped by centuries of betrayal and manipulation. The defining moment in this turbulent history was the 1953 CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he sought to nationalise Iran's oil industry. This act, orchestrated by the Western powers, restored the Shah's brutal regime and sowed the seeds for the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This history of interventions, driven by oil and geopolitics, instilled in Iranians a deep sense of betrayal that still defines Iranian foreign policy today.
Iran's neighbours, divided along sectarian lines and often opportunistic in their foreign policy, have repeatedly failed to prioritise regional unity over external pressures. But the geopolitical manipulations that have shaped the history of the region are part of a broader pattern: the West refuses to recognise the sovereignty of nations it considers strategically unimportant. The Iranian people are increasingly resolute in their refusal to capitulate to external demands. This isolation, which was originally born out of necessity, has also turned into a profound existential struggle.
In response, Iran is seeking alliances with countries such as China and Russia, and forging relationships with non-state actors in the region. These alliances, born not out of ideology but out of pragmatic necessity, have allowed Iran to exert regional influence and change the balance of power in a way that the West never envisaged. In his first term in office, Trump used a two-pronged strategy to weaken Iran: firstly, he allied other Arab countries in favour of Israel through the Abrahamic Accords, a treaty engineered by his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner; and secondly, he targeted key figures who enabled Iranian influence in the region, while funding the efforts of Iranians living abroad who work against Iran.
In his second term, which could be more refined and polished thanks to the experience he has gained over the past eight years - both in office and outside the White House - his actions could be much more unpredictable. The possibility of war against Iran is therefore no longer a distant fear but a fast-approaching reality. It would confirm the West's view that the lives of Iranians, like those of people throughout the global South, are expendable in the interests of geopolitical domination, making this war a war of choice, not necessity, with existential stakes for Iran.
In this context, the responsibility for preventing war does not lie only with the US or Iran, but with all the nations of the region, including the Arab world.
Despite differences in beliefs, history and alliances, it is incumbent upon the Arab nations to take a united stand against the specter of war. The voices of Arab leaders, especially those who have long been caught in the geopolitical fire of the US-Iran conflict, must rise in defence of peace and stability in the region. Differences must be set aside in favour of a collective approach that prioritises the protection of life and sovereignty over ideological differences. The world, and especially the nations of West Asia, must seek to find a path of diplomacy and dialogue in order to avoid another devastating war that would further unravel the very fabric of the region.
(The author is a journalist and writer; opinions are personal)
dailypioneer.com / gnews.cz-jav
English 
Czech 
Spanish 
French 
Italian 
Russian 
Chinese 
German