By Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attaché to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Michigan, USA
An aviation emergency should produce an investigation before it produces threats of war. Yet the September 30 incident aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 has already entered the machinery of geopolitical accusation. Before investigators have publicly established the alleged attacker’s motive or connections, Iran has been placed under suspicion and threatened with American retaliation. The passengers deserve justice and a complete account. The Middle East deserves protection from another escalation driven by assertions that move faster than evidence.
President Donald Trump threatened to hit Iran “very hard” if investigators established its involvement. Associated Press reporting noted that he suggested a connection without publicly presenting supporting evidence. Such statements carry consequences beyond a press conference. They prepare audiences for retaliation and introduce an unresolved allegation into the political case for military action.
That accusation also raises a question of strategic logic. Iran possesses substantial conventional and asymmetric means of retaliation. Why would it choose an operation against civilian passengers that could bring international condemnation, damage its diplomatic position and provide its adversaries with an additional justification for attack?. These allegations demand a serious answer before speculation becomes accepted truth.
An attack on a civilian aircraft would be an indefensible atrocity, whoever organized it. Washington must establish responsibility through evidence rather than invoke Iran’s name as though suspicion settles the matter.
The danger is that the distinction between “if Iran was involved” and “Iran was involved” will disappear through repetition. A conditional presidential accusation can become a headline, the headline a political assumption, and the assumption an argument for bombardment. Civilian lives must never become ammunition in a campaign to expand a war.
The controversy arrives amid mounting demands for accountability over the warnings preceding October 7, 2023. Haaretz reported that UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed warned Netanyahu approximately ten days before the attack that Hamas was preparing a major operation. Separately, reporting summarized by The Times of Israel alleged that Israeli intelligence officials and Egypt had repeatedly warned him that Qatari funds were strengthening Hamas’s military wing.
Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, challenged attempts to assign responsibility to Doha, maintaining that its $30 million monthly assistance program operated through arrangements coordinated with Israel, the United States and the United Nations, with recipients vetted by Israeli security agencies. He accused Netanyahu of deflecting scrutiny of his government’s conduct while explicitly condemning the October 7 massacre.
These competing accounts demand an independent inquiry with access to intelligence assessments, diplomatic communications and decision-making records. What warnings reached Netanyahu? What action followed? Were the consequences of existing policies knowingly disregarded?.
Against this background, the Flydubai incident has generated competing explanations and widespread distrust. Some commentators question individual details. Others allege staging, intelligence involvement or a manufactured pretext for escalation.
A renowned American podcaster Mike Dean argued that the footage suggested staging. He pointed to dark entertainment screens, the absence of deployed oxygen masks and visible debris, and apparent differences between cabin interiors. He questioned the reported descent, the passengers’ ability to overpower an armed co-pilot, the absence of publicly circulated footage identifying the suspect, and changing descriptions of the weapon. His conclusion was that the public narrative did not adequately explain what happened.
Another, credible postcaster advanced an explicit false-flag theory. He connected Netanyahu’s reported September 27 visit to Abu Dhabi with the aviation incident three days later, suggesting an operation intended to blame Muslims, implicate Iran and justify military escalation. The speaker interpreted differing descriptions of cockpit access and the presence of additional pilots as signs of a constructed account.
A separate geopolitical commentator proposed that the aircraft’s descent and diversion toward Tabuk could have served an intelligence purpose: exposing limitations in Saudi radar coverage and revealing defensive reaction times. The speaker speculated that the information might facilitate a later attack on Saudi infrastructure, potentially using a weapon resembling an Iranian drone to direct blame toward Tehran. Another geopolitical analyst described claims of Israeli and Mossad orchestration intended to manufacture a pretext for war.
The political danger, however, does not depend on proving fabrication. A genuine attack can be exploited to pursue objectives far beyond bringing its perpetrators to justice. Whether anyone organized the incident and how governments subsequently use it are separate questions. Both deserve scrutiny.
The possibility of further escalation is already being discussed openly in American military commentary. According to the Fox News report, additional naval and Marine deployments would bring approximately 10,000 additional personnel to the Middle East, with arrival expected by the end of November.
Retired General Jack Keane described renewed joint American-Israeli combat as an option available to Trump, envisaging a shorter but substantially more destructive campaign capable of placing Iran’s government on a path toward collapse.
Keane also explicitly speculated that the CIA and Mossad were working to weaken the Iranian leadership, encourage internal fractures and assist resistance. Those remarks were not an announcement of an approved operation. They nevertheless reveal the scale of military action and political transformation being advocated in influential American commentary.
My prediction is that the approach of elections will sharpen pressure for a dramatic demonstration of military power. The Flydubai incident could become part of that argument, alongside other security allegations. The pursuit of an alleged attacker could then be absorbed into a much broader campaign against Iran’s leadership, military capabilities and infrastructure.
A weaker and fractured Iran and fractured and downgraded and weakened middle east on several fronts could create opportunities for advocates of Israeli predominance. Netanyahu’s expressed attachment to a “Greater Israel” vision has already drawn condemnation from Arab governments. Those statements justify scrutiny of expansionist ambitions. Military dominance and territorial expansion are distinct objectives, but weakened neighboring states could find themselves less able to resist coercion.
The strategic danger is that American force weakens Iran, Iranian retaliation destabilizes neighboring countries, and the resulting imbalance creates conditions that proponents of Israeli hegemony seek to exploit. This is the regional consequence I fear—not a demonstrated explanation of who organized the Flydubai attack. A catastrophe can serve an expansionist agenda with every event leading to it having been secretly planned.
That distinction strengthens the warning. There is no need to prove an elaborate conspiracy to demand that governments stop turning unfinished investigations into arguments for war. The responsibility lies with those proposing military action to establish the facts, explain their objectives and account for the consequences.
Investigate the attack completely. Identify and prosecute those responsible through lawful processes. Protect the passengers’ right to truth. But refuse the leap from suspicion to collective punishment.
If this emergency becomes a justification for devastating Iran and destabilizing its neighbors, it could bring the ambitions associated with “Greater Israel” closer to realization. The time to challenge that course is before accusation becomes authorization, before retaliation becomes regional destruction, and before another generation is left to live among the ruins.
