Likewise, some embrace the idea of conspiracy in its absolute form, as though the world were moved by a single hand, while history reveals that many collapses began from within the herd long before an enemy arrived from outside.

The lion did not begin with the strongest.

Nor did he attack everyone at once.

He started with one.

Then convinced the others that it was none of their concern.

And when their turn came, it was already too late.

Hence the famous saying:

“I was eaten the day the White Bull was eaten.”

Yet what is striking is that most people remember the end of the story.

Very few pause to consider its beginning.

The problem was not the lion’s strength.

It was the bulls’ acceptance of division.

Who Is the White Bull?

In reality, there is no permanent White Bull.

Nor is there a permanent Black Bull.

Colors change.

Roles shift.

And the nations that watch from the sidelines today may find themselves being watched tomorrow.

For this reason, searching for specific names is often less important than understanding the phenomenon itself.

The White Bull in politics is:

The state left standing alone.

The cause abandoned by everyone.

Or the ally whose fall is believed to have no consequences for others.

And every time the rest become convinced of that, the story begins anew.

Who Convinced the Bulls?

This is the more dangerous question.

Because the lion never succeeds alone.

His strength does not lie merely in his claws.

It lies in his ability to convince others that the danger does not concern them.

Sometimes through fear.

Sometimes through interest.

Sometimes through greed.

Sometimes through promises.

And sometimes through small disagreements that grow into great walls.

That is why the greatest strategic victories in history did not begin on the battlefield.

They began in the mind.

Are Nations Defeated by Force?

History says:

Rarely.

Most great powers did not collapse because of the first strike.

They fell through slow erosion.

Empires do not begin to fall when an enemy appears.

They begin to fall when trust among their components erodes.

When a shared vision fades.

And when internal disputes become more important than external challenges.

At that point, the enemy becomes merely an investor in an existing condition.

Not its creator.

Who Benefited from the Bulls’ Distraction?

Throughout history, there have always been forces that benefit from division.

The common mistake is to assume there is only one beneficiary.

In reality, several players often gain from it.

Opponents.

Allies.

Merchants.

Arms manufacturers.

Politicians.

And sometimes even those who claim to have arrived to save the situation.

Thus, the question is not:

Who benefited?

But:

Why did division become so easy to exploit in the first place?

Does the Story Repeat Itself in International Alliances?

The uncomfortable answer is: yes.

But in a far more complex form.

The modern world does not operate on the basis of permanent friends or permanent enemies.

It operates on the basis of permanent interests.

That is why you may see nations that publicly disagree while quietly cooperating on specific issues.

You may see allies who disagree in private more than adversaries do.

And you may see real conflicts that never reach their conclusion because some parties benefit from keeping them under control.

Understanding international politics begins when we stop searching for heroes and villains and start understanding interests.

The Gulf and the Unanswered Question

Here we return to our region.

After decades of tensions and conflicts, one old question remains:

What if the Gulf Union project proposed by the late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud had become a reality?

No one can know for certain what would have happened.

But one thing is clear:

The idea of union was never merely economic.

It was an early reading of a turbulent future.

An attempt to move from cooperation to a bloc.

From coordination to shared decision-making.

And from reaction to balance-building.

Yet the project remained unfinished.

The Gulf remained economically strong, politically influential, and developmentally advanced.

Still, the question of a unified bloc has remained unresolved.

And every new crisis places it back on the table.

Where Is America?

A common public question asks:

If America is such a powerful ally, why does it not eliminate the threat once and for all?

But this question assumes that great powers seek to eliminate every risk.

History suggests otherwise.

Great powers manage risks more often than they eliminate them.

The United States is not a charity.

Nor is it an automatic enemy.

It is a superpower that pursues its interests.

Those interests may align with those of its allies.

And they may diverge.

This is not an American exception.

It is a rule the world has known for thousands of years.

Here, the popular notion of “Mama America” collapses; relations between states are not built on motherhood, but on interests.

Where Is Iran?

The Iranian regime is not an illusion.

Nor is it a media invention.

It is a reality that has existed since February 1979.

A regime governing a state and resting upon a project of its own, regardless of whether one views it as reform or folly.

Anyone seeking to understand Iran must look at the forces shaping its behavior on the ground, not merely at what appears in speeches.

The question is not whether it represents a challenge.

Rather:

How has the region dealt with that challenge?

Has the response always matched its scale?

Have long-term stability structures been built?

Or has the region merely managed crises as they arise?

Where Is Israel?

Israel is not outside the story.

Every shift in the regional balance of power affects it directly.

And every increase in perceived threats opens new opportunities, alliances, and justifications.

Yet one question must remain present:

Can fear alone build a stable regional order?

History says no.

Fear may create a temporary alliance.

But it cannot create lasting peace.

The Black Bull

In the popular tale, everyone sympathizes with the White Bull.

Yet few ask:

Who was the Black Bull?

Was he a traitor?

Perhaps.

Was he foolish?

Not necessarily.

Many tragedies do not begin with betrayal.

They begin with short-term calculations.

When one party believes the danger will affect someone else.

When it assumes it can survive alone.

When it convinces itself that another’s fall may bring greater space or faster gains.

At that point, the Black Bull ceases to be a person or a state.

It becomes a mindset.

A mindset that values immediate interests above a shared destiny.

Throughout history, the problem was not always that lions were strong.

It was that some bulls believed they could make a private deal with the forest.

But the forest does not honor temporary bargains when balance collapses.

That is why the Black Bull was not the last victim.

He was the first loser.

Because he understood the lesson only after finding himself alone.

Who Is Deceiving Whom?

After all this reflection, the surprise may be that the question itself requires reconsideration.

Perhaps no one deceives everyone.

Perhaps there is no secret room controlling the world.

Yet what is certain is that every side seeks to tell its own story.

And every side wants others to view events from its angle.

The greatest deception, then, is this:

To see events as the players want us to see them.

Rather than as they truly are.

What Comes Next?

Perhaps the most important question is not:

What will real or imagined enemies do?

Rather:

What will you do?

Will you continue to focus on colors?

Or will you focus on a shared destiny?

Will you remain trapped by small disputes, stubbornness, and the belief that you alone are right?

That is what might be called:

“The Arrogance of the Bulls.”

Or will you realize that great challenges do not ask about a bull’s color before reaching it?

History does not repeat itself.

But it continually retests those who failed to learn its lessons.

Reflection

In every age, people search for the lion.

And argue about the color of the first bull.

Yet history often whispers a different question:

Who convinced the other bulls that their neighbor’s death did not concern them?

Great defeats do not begin when the adversary attacks.

They begin when temporary interests replace a shared destiny.

From that moment onward, it no longer matters whether the bull is white or black.

Because the forest eventually devours them all.

On the Margin

Some absolute beliefs and perceptions may reveal intellectual rigidity more than they reveal an understanding of reality.

Blind faith in the myth of the bulls, or in conspiracy as an explanation for everything, carries within it a subtle but negative projection.

Yes, parables help simplify ideas and bring understanding closer.

But they do not replace critical thinking, nor do they prove conclusions.

Conspiracy exists in politics, just as it exists in life.

Yet belief in conspiracy in its absolute form is neither a sign of strength nor awareness.

Rather, it may be an implicit admission of weakness, an inability to confront reality, and a search for a convenient excuse upon which failures can be hung instead of being addressed.

And one final question remains:

Was there really a lion in the first place?

Or merely a scarecrow?