(DDM) – A senior Iranian lawmaker has stirred controversy across the Middle East after declaring that Iran’s recent military strikes on United States bases in the region are ultimately in the interest of Muslim countries.
Diaspora Digital Media (DDM) reports that Mohammad Esmail Kowsari, a member of Iran’s parliamentary national security and foreign policy committee, made the remarks amid escalating regional tensions following coordinated U.S.-Israeli military operations targeting Iranian assets.
Kowsari was quoted as saying that “Muslim countries should know that Iran’s attack on US bases is to their benefit,” framing the strikes not as isolated retaliation but as part of a broader ideological and strategic confrontation.
He further underscored Tehran’s long-standing hostility toward Israel, stating, “Our goal is dismantling the Israeli regime,” a declaration that reflects Iran’s entrenched geopolitical position over decades.
To understand the significance of these remarks, it is important to examine the broader regional context.
Tensions between Iran, the United States, and Israel have intensified in recent months, particularly after joint U.S.-Israeli military operations reportedly targeted Iranian-linked infrastructure.
Iran has consistently described such actions as violations of its sovereignty and as part of a coordinated effort to weaken its regional influence.
In response, Tehran has launched strikes on bases in the Middle East hosting American forces, arguing that the attacks are defensive measures designed to deter further aggression.
Kowsari characterized the current confrontation as “much tougher” than previous rounds of hostilities, signaling what Iranian officials suggest may be a prolonged and more intense phase of conflict.
Iran’s leadership has long positioned itself as a champion of resistance against Western military presence in Muslim-majority countries.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Tehran has adopted a foreign policy doctrine that combines national security objectives with ideological opposition to Israel and American influence in the region.
Iran’s support for proxy groups across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen has been a central feature of this approach, often bringing it into direct or indirect conflict with Washington and its allies.
By claiming that attacks on U.S. bases serve the broader interests of Muslim countries, Kowsari appears to be advancing a narrative aimed at reshaping regional perception.
The argument suggests that weakening U.S. military infrastructure in the Middle East reduces external influence and creates space for regional autonomy.
However, this interpretation is not universally accepted across the Muslim world.
Several Gulf states host U.S. military installations under formal defense agreements, viewing American presence as a stabilizing deterrent against regional threats.
Others fear that escalating confrontation between Iran and the United States could trigger wider instability, disrupt oil markets, and endanger civilian populations.
Security analysts note that rhetoric of this kind may also be intended for domestic audiences, reinforcing Iran’s image as defiant and strategically assertive in the face of Western pressure.
The risk, however, is that such statements deepen polarization in an already volatile region.
If retaliatory cycles continue, military escalation could expand beyond targeted strikes into broader interstate conflict.
For now, Kowsari’s comments highlight the ideological dimension of the crisis as much as its military one.
The central question facing the region is whether this confrontation will evolve into sustained warfare or whether diplomatic channels can contain it.
As tensions rise, the balance between deterrence and escalation remains fragile, and the coming weeks could prove decisive for Middle Eastern stability.
