Silence in Tehran
Iran’s Unanswered Questions After Israel’s Strike.
Dr Noour Ali Zehgeer
Muslim world was always challenged by the West as they saw a formidable opponent in them. It started when leaders like Husni Mubarak, Zulfiqar Bhutto, Col Gaddafi and Sadam tried to unite Muslim bloc. They were so loud in their intentions that America decided to break the alliance with their systematic elimination and casualties were inevitable.
In a region forever suspended between diplomacy and destruction, the recent Israeli airstrike on Iranian soil has done more than escalating tensions — it has exposed deep cracks in Iran’s defensive architecture, signalling a strategic unpreparedness that has confounded military observers and citizens alike. This long-anticipated direct confrontation between Israel and Iran — after years of shadow warfare and proxy entanglements — arrived not with thunderous retaliation, but with a silence that echoed louder than any missile.
Where Was the Defence?
When the Israeli strike occurred, what stood out most wasn’t the magnitude of destruction — but the void. In past conflicts, the skies above targeted states often erupt with anti-aircraft fire, interception trails, radar signals, and defensive flares. But here, there was nothing. No surface-to-air missile systems activated, no night sky lit up with defensive countermeasures, no evidence that Iran’s sophisticated Russian-made S-300s or homegrown missile systems were operational.
This deafening silence raises critical questions. Was Iran’s air defence caught completely off guard? Did technical failure paralyze its response systems? Or — more alarmingly — was there an intentional decision not to react in the moment? Each scenario presents troubling implications. If it was a failure, Iran’s deterrence posture has been deeply compromised. If it was restraint, it reveals internal hesitations and a risk-averse approach that is out of sync with its public rhetoric.
The Open Skies Dilemma
Equally baffling was Iran’s decision to keep its airspace open during a period of heightened threat. Typically, when conflict looms, nations swiftly close their skies — both to protect civilian aircraft and to monitor and neutralize enemy incursion. Iran, however, only restricted its airspace after the Israeli strike had occurred.
This delay suggests either an intelligence breakdown or a political gamble that failed. Was there a belief that Israel wouldn’t dare cross certain red lines? Or was Tehran simply unprepared to deal with the consequences of escalation? Whatever the reason, the world saw not vigilance, but vulnerability. The missed opportunity to assert control over its own skies further dented Iran’s image as a regional heavyweight.
Ethical Illusions in Asymmetric Conflict
Some Iranian analysts have hinted at an assumption — now proven fatally naive — that Israel would act within the bounds of “just war” principles and limit its assault to military targets. But history offers little evidence that Israel, especially with U.S. backing, feels constrained by international norms when dealing with adversaries. From targeted killings in foreign capitals to blockades and bombings of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, Tel Aviv’s actions suggest a doctrine of unrestrained force when “security” is invoked.
If Tehran genuinely believed that Israel would fight a clean war, the leadership grossly misread the playbook. In a region shaped by realpolitik, morality often takes a backseat. This raises the uncomfortable question: why wasn’t Iran ready to respond in kind? Where was the plan to strike back — militarily or covertly — to deter future aggression?
Exposed Figures, Missing Contingency
For decades, Iran has been a target of Israeli covert operations, with high-profile assassinations of nuclear scientists and military commanders carried out in Tehran streets, on highways, and even inside secure compounds. Yet, when this recent attack unfolded, many of Iran’s key figures remained publicly accessible — a lapse that defies logic for a state so familiar with Israel’s assassination doctrine.
Where was the security protocol to shield these high-value individuals? Why weren’t alternative bunkers or mobility plans activated in anticipation of direct strikes? Tehran’s inability to shield its elite during moments of maximum risk highlights a disjointed internal security mechanism — one that looks formidable on paper but appears hollow in practice.
Regional Hypocrisy and Tactical Paralysis
The fallout of this strike also shines an unflattering spotlight on the broader region. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and other Gulf states have invested billions in Western defence systems, yet consistently fail to respond to aggression against their own region. These same states that enthusiastically sign arms deals and defence pacts with Washington have yet to offer tangible solidarity with Iran — or with the Palestinian people facing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
They loudly oppose Iran’s influence, yet remain passive in the face of Israeli provocations. Their rivalry with Tehran seems to blind them to the broader crisis consuming the Middle East. While the U.S. and Israel act with unified intent, the Arab-Muslim world remains fractured, pursuing individual survival over regional justice.
The Myth of Muslim Unity
The fantasy of Muslim unity often resurfaces during crises. There’s a popular saying: “If every Muslim poured a bucket of water, Israel would drown.” And yet, it remains just that — a saying. In practice, divisions, distrust, and dynastic power games have made such unity impossible.
Iran, for all its defiance, stands isolated. Its allies are mostly non-state actors or nations too weakened by sanctions or civil war to meaningfully assist. Meanwhile, powerful Arab regimes offer little more than cautious statements and symbolic outrage.
A Moment of Reckoning
The Israeli strike on Iran may not have triggered a full-scale war — yet. But it has triggered something else: reckoning. Not just for Iran, but for the entire region. It has forced a reflection on how power is exercised, how preparedness is prioritized, and how the myth of deterrence can shatter overnight.
If Iran hopes to maintain its stature as a regional power, it must answer the hard questions raised by this episode: Why was its response so slow? Why were its leaders and airspace left vulnerable? And most importantly, what message has this silence sent to its enemies?
Until these questions are answered — not with slogans, but with strategy — Iran’s credibility, and perhaps its future security, will remain at risk.
And if the Muslim world continues to watch in silence, then the real war may not be the one waged with missiles — but the one already lost in moral courage.
(The views are of the author and not that of the Straight Talk Communications)
