The current reality opens the door for a broader reading of Iran’s behavior in the region, raising questions about whether the declared conflict with Israel masks a deeper hostility toward stable Arab states.
Former Jordanian Minister of Media Samih al-Ma’aytah noted that recent weeks have clearly revealed this trend. He stated that Iranian hostility toward Gulf states and Jordan is not new, but rather a longstanding issue spanning decades.
Al-Ma’aytah explained that historically, Iranians have not maintained good relations with Arab states, including Jordan and the Gulf. He pointed out that even before the Islamic Revolution, there was an attitude of superiority and attempts to interfere in the security and stability of these nations.
He added that Iran did not limit itself to political influence; it sought to build regional power through unconventional tools such as militias and sectarianism. “Iran spent a lot building claws in the region via militias and sectarianism and influence-making, while its people live in difficult economic conditions,” he remarked.
A striking paradox exists in the recent escalation, as Iran targeted Gulf and Jordanian states with greater frequency than it targeted Israel itself.
“The level of Iranian hostility toward Gulf states, Arab states, and Jordan is much higher than the story of Israel,” al-Ma’aytah said. He noted that missile confrontations between Iran and Israel in recent years were not linked to defending Palestinians, but to direct Iranian interests, citing the consulate in Damascus, assassinations within Iran, and US escalation.
Regarding the contradictory narratives Iran promotes about the source of attacks on some Arab states, al-Ma’aytah considered these narratives to reflect clear political confusion.
“Iran initially acknowledged the strikes and apologized to Arab states, claiming it was targeting American interests, then later came out to say that Americans and Israelis were striking Arab cities with Iranian weapons,” he explained. He criticized this narrative as an attempt at mockery, stating that every country can determine the path of missiles landing on its territory. “The talk that others are using Iranian weapons to strike the Gulf is an attempt at mockery, but in reality, it reflects confusion in crisis management.”
Turning to the targeting of Gulf states, particularly the UAE, al-Ma’aytah argued that Iran bet on the inability of these states to handle military strikes or their civil consequences. “The Iranians believed that Gulf states, especially the UAE, could not bear military strikes or deal with their civil impact, but this bet was lost,” he said.
He added that Gulf air defense systems successfully intercepted most attacks, confirming that these countries possess strong defenses and continue to handle these strikes without disrupting normal life.
Regarding the “Palestine” slogan Iran has raised for decades, al-Ma’aytah views this rhetoric as a political tool rather than a genuine commitment. “Palestine has always been a tool for Iran to win public opinion, while the real project is a Persian influence project in the region,” he stated.
He added that Iran did not take real steps against Israel during the war in Gaza, noting that “during the war on Gaza, Iran did not bomb Israel, and did not even provide humanitarian aid, despite having influence in Syria and Lebanon.”
Al-Ma’aytah concluded that Iranian policies during this war may have cost the country a great deal of sympathy in the region. “Iran has lost relationships and sympathy with many countries and peoples after dragging Gulf and Jordan into the circle of targeting,” he said. He added that these developments have clearly revealed the contradiction between Iran’s declared rhetoric and its actual practices in the region, where missiles are directed toward Arab states while the conflict with Israel remains within narrow Iranian calculations.
