Israel, in blatant violation of all international principles, launched a direct attack on Iran. Simultaneously, alongside numerous countries, several groups also condemned the attack and adopted a clear and opposing stance. However, contrary to expectations, the Resistance Front and the Resistance Council—groups currently projecting themselves on the international stage—remained largely silent, issuing only a single statement.
The absence of a more explicit stance by the Resistance Front, its silence, and reliance on a minor declaration revealed another hidden aspect of the group’s ties with the Zionist regime. A more vocal condemnation or broader media response from this group regarding Israel’s attack could have jeopardized the support enjoyed by Ahmad Massoud and his group. For the Resistance Front, cautious and self-interested policies take precedence over values, Islam, international norms, and all principles.
Likewise, for the Resistance Council, values and principles seem to have been lost amid political dealings. No strong voice of condemnation was heard, nor any firm position seen. This group, too, under the banner of resistance, prioritizes pragmatism and personal interests, and for this reason, cannot afford to upset either Israel or Iran, nor risk permanently closing doors with either side.
Following a brief and dismissive statement, the deep silence of these groups indicates yet another political project—one that speaks only when opportunities arise but retreats into silence when faced with danger or potentially damaging political entanglements.
In your point of view, why have these groups and factions chosen to remain deeply silent regarding the Israel–Iran conflict at this time? These same groups often release long statements about much smaller or even unfounded issues, so why has their reaction to the recent Israel-Iran tensions been so muted?