The Arabian and secular media have gone berserk over Islamic Iran’s influence in Iraq. We look at the reasons behind their angst.
The Arab media and press have gone berserk. They have picked up on two statements from two individuals in the Islamic Republic of Iran. One of these statements is from an adviser to President Hasan Rouhani and the other is from the head of Mehr news agency. So what did these individuals say that caused some talking heads in Arabdom to go off their rockers? Well, the first statement from Mr. ‘Ali Younesi says — more or less — that today’s Iran is once again an empire and that Baghdad is its capital. The other statement by the chief editor of the Iranian Mehr news agency, Hasan Hani-zadeh, said — more or less — that Arabian regimes (or countries) are crude and atavistic. He went on to call for a unity between Iraq and Iran. He is reported to have called on Arabians to do away with their robes and headdresses and a phony pre-Islamic Arabianism. These two statements from the two individuals caused the Arabian press and media to go into a fit saying, in effect, that the Persians are beginning to show their true colors: they are hiding behind a façade of Islam; they, having been harboring expansionist policies since the beginning, are exporting their Shi‘i revolution; they are sectarians; and they were and always have been people of taqiyah, deceit, and doublespeak — almost as it to add “who said the Persians are not racist,” and “we told you so,” etc, etc.
Don’t these Arabian talking mouths have anything else to do besides fabricating commentaries and opinions that are as delusional as they are disconcerting? It should be noted here that many “Islamic” types have bought into this ‘asabiyah scenario. Let us put aside our emotions — or as much as we can — for a moment and see whether this issue deserves all this Arabian inspired media fuss.
Let us clarify from the beginning that we do not agree with the choice of words used by these two personalities, even as they came to us through translation sources: English and Arabic. And we also are uncomfortable with the fact that such statements have made their way into the public arena at a time when there is a master-plan to fuel the fires of nationalism, sectarianism, and ethnicism all over the Muslim world. But then our poor brothers in Islamic Iran are caught between a rock and a hard place: if they say what is on their mind they are interpreted — especially by Arabians — as sectarians and/or racists. If they don’t say what’s on their mind they are accused of taqiyah!!
The painful truth of the matter is that Islamic Iran has an ideological glue to it. It appeals to the underclass. It supports the liberation of Palestine and it stands for justice; whereas, the Arabian ruling classes are repulsive. They have no ideological content, they are fascinated by the upper class, and they do not (for all practical purposes) support the liberation of Palestine.
Here is the issue. Should there be a type of unity between Iran and Iraq? Any Muslim who understands the word ummah will tell you of course there should be unity between Iran and Iraq, and between all Muslim countries and peoples for that matter. Are we not one Ummah, as the Quran teaches us? So why are some reporters and observers so obnoxious when they hear a person promoting agreement and accord between Tehran and Baghdad? They tell you that Iraq is “Arab” and Iran is “Persian.” OK. Muhammad (pbuh) was an Arab and Salman was a Persian; should they not have been in harmony and in agreement with each other?
Second, the word “empire” (if the translations are correct) does not belong in the Islamic vocabulary; it is peculiar to European history. We Muslims never had an emperor. We had unjust rulers, yes; but not emperors. And if the consolidation of the Muslims begins from Islamic Iran then let it begin from there. No one else in their royal palaces and with their praetorian guards — from Arabia central to Afro-Asia peripheral — are practically and operationally concerned with bringing the Muslims together as a formidable bloc of peoples. The painful truth of the matter is that Islamic Iran has an ideological glue to it. It appeals to the underclass. It supports the liberation of Palestine and it stands for justice; whereas, the Arabian ruling classes are repulsive. They have no ideological content, they are fascinated by the upper class, and they do not (for all practical purposes) support the liberation of Palestine.
What would the Iraqis lose if they and Iran worked out a plan of political, economic, and military integration on the basis of Islam? How would that harm other Muslims? And what if Syria was to join in this integration? The secular and anti-Islamic Ba‘th party would cease to exist. Wouldn’t Muslims in both Iraq and Syria be relieved if they were governed by elected and representative officials? Who could argue with that? The bitter truth is that Arabian regimes have been ruling for decades and they were never capable of political, economic, and military integration. Who does a committed Muslim prefer: the Arabian model of fragmentation or the Islamic model of integration? We think the answer is obvious.
The Islamic types in their Arabian habitat have not shown enough maturity to rise to the occasion… The Arabian Peninsula sexaholics who are pulling the strings of certain “Islamic” parties have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt their servitude to any power that perpetuates the divisive status quo. So let the people who are serious about Islamic brotherhood, integration, and unity begin this journey to reconsolidate the Ummah.
Then we have the other statement that calls on the Arabians to basically shed their ‘asabiyah and all manifestations of that ‘asabiyah: traditional, cultural, and local. This is basically a call to action for pre-Islamic modern-day ruling Arabians to cast off their false pride in their “jahiliyah.”
Let us alert our readers that there is a background element that many Muslims are not aware of; and that element is the official Arabian ostracization of the Iraqi government because it is perceived by Arabian officials as a “Shi‘i” government or because it is classified by these Arabian officials as a surrogate for Iran. So what can Iraq do? Should it stay isolated from mainstream Arabian officialdom or find a position of congruence and coordination with Islamic Iran?
Islamic political brotherhood has to begin somewhere. The Islamic types in their Arabian habitat have not shown enough maturity to rise to the occasion. The glimmer of hope was Egypt in the past few years. Now that hope has faded. The Arabian Peninsula sexaholics who are pulling the strings of certain “Islamic” parties have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt their servitude to any power that perpetuates the divisive status quo. So let the people who are serious about Islamic brotherhood, integration, and unity begin this journey to reconsolidate the Ummah.
What we understand from our brothers in Islamic Iran is that the Arabian rulers are pathetic — they are so inadequate as to be laughable or contemptible. And we have been saying this all along. They cannot put two Arab countries together. And to fudge the whole issue they want everyone to believe that this is a “Sunni-Shi‘i” issue. And any Muslim who believes this is a Sunni-Shi‘i issue has flunked elementary Islam.
The heartache in all of this is that those members of the Islamic movement who — instead of looking at their own context and instead of being inspired by the short history of Islamic Iran to unite among themselves so as to restore Makkah and Madinah as the super amplifier of a worldwide Islamic political, economic, and military consolidation — whine in their articles and scream in their meetings against the magnet of togetherness located in Islamic Iran. In the meantime their secular counterparts use the “empire” statement above to excite and incite a Persian nationalism that does not want to have anything to do with those “Arabs.” “Baghdad, the capital of the Persian empire”, perish the thought!
The former “Saudi” intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan and his former Turkish counterpart Hakan Fidan do not have what it takes to walk the revolutionary course of Suleimani, so they unleash the fury of their mass media and their verbal salvos to compensate for their deficit of manhood. How accurate is the hadith, “Man abta’a bihi ‘amaluhu lam yusri‘ bihi nasabuhu: Whoever is lagging behind in deeds will never catch up by label.”