Who Is the Hidden Player?

Dr. Theeb Al-Qaraleh

In major wars, the scene is not always confined to two clearly defined sides. Often, what can be described as a “third party” emerges—an actor operating in the shadows, investing in chaos and orchestrating ambiguous events whose true perpetrator remains unknown, yet capable of altering the course of the conflict, expanding its scope, or drawing additional actors into it.

With the outbreak of the American–Israeli war against Iran, a series of such incidents has begun to surface. This raises a serious question about the existence of a hidden actor attempting to redraw the map of confrontation: to what extent can it operate in the shadows, and how far geographically might its influence reach?

In recent days, a number of incidents have appeared that are difficult to interpret within the logic of direct warfare. These include the launching of missiles and drones toward Turkey, Azerbaijan, or Cyprus while Tehran denies responsibility; reports of possible strikes targeting sites in some Gulf states without clear Iranian acknowledgment; the targeting of a water facility inside Iran accompanied by unconfirmed accusations against other countries; and reports of rocket launches from within Iraq following Israeli movements on the ground there at night. In a location relatively distant from the theater of war, a Russian gas vessel caught fire and sank in the Mediterranean Sea in an incident whose details remain unclear to this day.

What these scattered events share is a single defining feature: deliberate ambiguity. They are incidents sufficient to provoke tension among several states, yet at the same time they provide no conclusive evidence that would allow clear political or military attribution. It is precisely in such circumstances that the “third party” operates.

The first question concerns the extent of the security breach within Iran itself. The launching of missiles from Iranian territory toward neighboring countries implies several possibilities. Either Tehran is conducting operations it prefers not to officially acknowledge—perhaps to send a message—or elements within the system are acting independently of the central authority. Another possibility is that non-Iranian actors have succeeded in operating within Iranian territory without the authorities’ knowledge.

This last possibility is not implausible. Over the past years, experience has shown that Iran’s security structure has been subject to notable penetrations, whether in the assassinations of nuclear scientists, sabotage attacks on sensitive facilities, or even the launching of Israeli drones from within Iranian territory.

The second question concerns who this third party might be. In strategic analysis, the first step is often to look for the primary beneficiary. From this perspective, Israel may appear a likely candidate for conducting operations aimed at expanding the circle of Iran’s adversaries by prompting other states to believe they have been directly attacked by Tehran. The broader the front of adversaries, the greater the political and military pressure on Iran.

Yet Israel is not the only possibility. History tells us that international intelligence services—or even certain organizations—may resort to such operations to achieve political, economic, or geopolitical objectives.

Some states may view the expansion of the conflict as an opportunity to reshape regional alliances or weaken their rivals without directly entering the war. Transnational organizations may also exploit chaos to consolidate their presence or ignite new conflicts.

This phenomenon is not new in the history of conflicts. The Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which was used as a pretext to expand the war in Vietnam, remains a vivid example of how ambiguous incidents can be employed to shape major decisions. Similarly, the Lavon Affair in the 1950s involved covert operations intended to strain relations between Egypt and certain Western countries.

Perhaps the most intriguing question is this: in an age of satellites, advanced technology, and artificial intelligence, is it really possible for the perpetrator to remain unknown?

The uncomfortable technical answer is yes and no. From a purely technical standpoint, major powers possess the capability to track missile trajectories and determine launch points with high precision. However, the issue is not always technological capability—it is often political will. Many states possess accurate information about certain incidents but choose not to disclose it if doing so serves their interests or prevents broader escalation.

Accordingly, the ambiguous incidents we are witnessing today may represent only the beginning of a new phase of conflict, in which conventional military operations intertwine with shadow wars and covert actions. In the coming days, we may well witness further surprises on this front.

In such unstable environments, the third party becomes a dangerous player, operating outside clearly defined rules of engagement and possessing the ability to ignite new fires at any moment—not only in the immediate theaters of confrontation, but also across the broader network of interests, alliances, and alignments of states around the world.

theeb100@yahoo.com