Israel "preemptive strikes" raise tensions in Middle East

Editor's note: Anthony Moretti, a special commentator for CGTN, is an associate professor at the Department of Communication and Organizational Leadership at Robert Morris University in the U.S. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of either CGTN or Robert Morris University.

In the early morning hours (Tehran time) on Friday, Israel launched what it described as "preemptive strikes" against Iran, a move that will further raise tensions in the always volatile Middle East. Israel's defense minister announced an immediate state of emergency across the country, while a state-run media agency in Iran reported multiple explosions around Tehran.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in a statement read on state television, said that Israel "should anticipate a harsh punishment. The strong hand of the Islamic Republic will not let them go," and added that a number of senior military commanders and nuclear scientists had been killed. The Associated Press said that reports from inside Iran suggest that the Chief Commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Hossein Salami was killed in one of the strikes. 

Not surprisingly, the Israelis said that the attacks were necessary in order to damage Iran's nuclear and military capabilities.

There was a significant hint about 48 hours earlier that something might be unfolding; U.S. President Donald Trump ordered non-essential staff to leave the U.S. Embassy in neighboring Iraq, although he did not offer a reason. The State Department expanded on the decision, suggesting that "keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad" was the administration's primary concern. 

Both Israel and Iran would be wise to take a deep breath before deciding what to do next. More bombs, more missiles, more death, and more war would benefit neither country, nor the region. 

Complicating whatever moves are made next is the challenging position in which both nations find themselves. Israel's actions in Gaza since October 2023 have infuriated citizens throughout the region and the world, with condemnations coming from organizations such as the United Nations and some countries amid charges of carrying out genocide. But Iran has been unable to maintain its generally thin support across the globe. Viewed another way, neither country at the moment is enjoying global respect; that means neither can claim a moral high ground.

Of course, diplomacy would be the preferred next step; however, the evident affinity the White House has for Israel and the corresponding enmity it has for Iran damages the attempts the U.S. might make to bring the two sides together. One hopes in this chaotic time that President Trump avoids a grandstanding moment that will allow him to stake a claim to be a man of peace that will fool no one. On the other hand, it would behoove the president to insist that legitimate conversations with Iran about its nuclear capabilities continue. Along those lines, the president took to social media on Thursday to state his "entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran."

Leadership from the U.S. right now will also be strained because support for the country throughout the Middle East is suffering. In fact, China is viewed more favorably. 

Could China become the essential diplomatic actor? Let's not forget that it was only two years ago that China brokered a peace deal involving Iran, the world's preeminent Shia Muslim nation, and Saudi Arabia, the world's preeminent Sunni Muslim nation. The two countries soon opened embassies in the other's land, a significant indication that they wanted to continue to pursue peaceful solutions to complex problems. At the same time, Iran has moved closer to China in recent years, and China has also been willing to work with Israel. In addition, earlier this year multiple Arab diplomatic envoys asked China to be a more influential player in the region.

At the end of the day what must be paramount is not which third party brings the sides to the negotiating table. Rather, the priority is to get officials from both nations talking. Action across the diplomatic table is good; any action equating to war is bad. The global community must rally as one to press for open and detailed conversations. 

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)