By Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
There is a well-known proverb in Urdu which says that a thief may abandon the act of theft, but he rarely abandons the habit of manipulation and deceit. This old saying appears strikingly relevant in the unfolding drama of contemporary geopolitics. In the Gulf region today, a dangerous confrontation has emerged in which the United States and Israel appear engaged in a direct contest with Iran while simultaneously pursuing indirect pressure across other countries of the region. The declared and undeclared objective of this confrontation seems to have been the weakening or eventual collapse of the Iranian political order. Yet, despite sustained political, military, and psychological pressure, this objective has so far remained beyond reach.
Read also: How a surprise visit averted war
Instead of producing internal fragmentation, the crisis has produced a contrary effect. The martyrdom of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has generated an emotional and political wave of unity across Iranian society. According to accounts circulating in the region, he had been advised by his security advisers to relocate to a fortified bunker for safety. He is said to have rejected that suggestion with the words that he could not abandon his people in their hour of trial. Whether interpreted as symbolism or sacrifice, the narrative has strengthened the spirit of national solidarity inside Iran and has complicated the strategic calculations of its adversaries.
As the expected political collapse failed to materialize, the theatre of conflict began expanding in other directions. In recent week missile and drone strikes have been reported in several countries including Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other states situated around the wider Gulf and Middle Eastern region. The immediate accusations pointed toward Iran as the orchestrator of these attacks, creating an atmosphere of suspicion and alarm among neighbouring states. Such accusations, if accepted without scrutiny, could easily push regional powers into a broader military alignment against Tehran, thereby transforming a limited confrontation into a far wider war.
Yet, in the age of digital surveillance, satellite intelligence, and advanced communication technologies, the narrative has begun to unravel. Investigations conducted through various technological means have suggested that Iran may not have been responsible for these attacks at all. Instead, emerging indications point toward a calculated attempt to fabricate evidence and manipulate regional perceptions. If these findings prove accurate, they would imply that the strikes were not acts of retaliation by Iran but rather components of a strategic deception designed to provoke neighbouring states into entering the conflict.
In the shadows of geopolitics, history often repeats itself—not as a farce, but as a chilling reenactment with different actors and familiar motives. A historical episode from nearly six decades ago offers an unsettling parallel. On June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War between Israel and several Arab nations, the American naval intelligence ship USS Liberty was sailing in international waters near the Sinai Peninsula. The vessel, clearly marked and not configured for combat, suddenly came under a devastating assault by Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats.
The attack lasted more than an hour. By the time it ended, thirty-four American servicemen had lost their lives and one hundred seventy-one others were wounded. Despite the presence of a clearly visible American flag and repeated signals identifying the ship, the assault continued with remarkable precision. The survival of the vessel owed much to the extraordinary courage of its captain, Commander William L. McGonagle. Severely wounded early in the attack, he remained at his command post on the bridge and continued directing the crew while the damaged ship struggled to remain afloat. His leadership ultimately prevented the vessel from sinking.
Commander McGonagle was later awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest military decoration in the United States. Yet the ceremony was conducted quietly at the Washington Navy Yard rather than at the White House, an unusual decision widely interpreted as an attempt to minimize diplomatic tensions with Israel and avoid public controversy. Survivors of the attack have consistently maintained that the strike was deliberate. Petty Officer Ernie Gallo famously remarked that the ship’s identity was unmistakable, while another survivor, Joe Meadors, described the event as cold-blooded murder. For decades these voices have continued to challenge the official narrative that the assault was merely a tragic mistake.
The parallels between the USS Liberty episode and the unfolding developments of 2026 are difficult to ignore. In both situations, an initial act of violence served to shape public perception and justify broader strategic objectives. In 1967 the attack removed a potentially inconvenient witness and risked drawing the United States deeper into the regional conflict. In the present crisis, alleged attacks attributed to Iran appear to be aimed at mobilizing neighbouring countries against Tehran and widening the battlefield.
A second similarity lies in the manipulation of information. In the Liberty case, the explanation of mistaken identity persisted despite substantial evidence to the contrary. In the current situation, the narrative attributing the missile and drone strikes to Iran has begun to face serious technological and investigative challenges. When information becomes an instrument of strategy rather than a reflection of truth, the boundaries between defense and deception become dangerously blurred.
A third parallel concerns the silence that often follows such controversies. Governments frequently subordinate uncomfortable truths to diplomatic expediency, while media narratives are shaped by strategic alliances and political calculations. In the Liberty incident, the pursuit of justice by survivors faded into the margins of public attention as successive administrations preferred not to reopen the issue. Similarly, today’s international institutions appear hesitant to question powerful narratives that could disrupt existing geopolitical partnerships.
Yet history also offers warnings. Manufactured crises, however skillfully orchestrated, seldom remain contained. The Liberty incident left a lasting scar on the trust between American servicemen and their political leadership. The present allegations of orchestrated attacks across Turkey, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, and neighbouring states have already rekindled tensions that could destabilize an entire region.
When truth becomes the first casualty of strategic deception, the consequences extend far beyond immediate battlefields. Nations of the Middle East—and indeed the wider international community—must therefore approach the present crisis with caution, transparency, and a commitment to independent investigation. Otherwise the world risks witnessing once again the tragic pattern in which suspicion breeds confrontation, confrontation breeds war, and the lessons of history are learned only after irreparable loss.
