Ahmadinejad in the Cycles of History

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Reality does not remain reality, and the strong do not remain strong forever, just as the weak do not necessarily remain weak forever — history is in a state of constant change. Historians have spoken at length about the phases of history and their failure to settle into any fixed pattern, and political philosophers have explained the struggle of contradictions and the clash of opposites, saying that every reality carries its own negation within it, or that every thesis has an antithesis struggling against it, and that this struggle produces a new condition which itself carries its own negation, or a challenge to its own continuation. The Noble Qur’an contains many verses that speak of the ways of those who came before and the upheavals that befell them and transformed them radically. The Qur’an speaks of the struggle between truth and falsehood, which continues until the Day of Judgment — a struggle that in the end uncovers further truths which act upon reality and change it.

The Arab-Islamic region is no exception to the course of history, and this is perhaps what explains the rising pace of internal conflict in so many Arab and Islamic societies and states. Awareness of this historical moment, from its various social, economic, religious, and political angles, is spreading and intensifying, and it has no choice but to express itself in one way or another; and whenever it meets an impenetrable wall blocking that expression, violence comes to dominate the character of the struggle between the existing order and the forces of change. Permanence is not a feature of history, and the movement of change must inevitably take its turn and set its wheel in motion; if you are not the one driving it, then someone else will drive it, and if you are not pleased with what someone else is doing, all that is left for you is to lament your luck, because the wheel will carry you along in its path regardless.

The Forces of Change Are Rising

After the Second World War, voices calling for unity, change, and progress rose across the Arab-Islamic region, and rulers ascended their thrones speaking to people’s hopes and aspirations; some of them managed to capture minds and hearts, in the hope of raising the nation’s level of civilization and fulfilling what they had promised it. But this phase perished under the weight of defeats of every shape and color, and a new generation emerged, rethinking earlier methods and approaches, and considering new means and approaches for changing the existing order. Some sacrificed themselves and were ground down by the Arab and Islamic regimes; some retreated, disheartened and despairing; some failed outright; and some persisted in their attempts. The Muslim Brotherhood stood at the head of those forces that persisted in slow, patient effort, still hoping to change reality smoothly and without bloodshed, while the nationalist movements were struck severe blows that continue to limit their capacity to rise again. As for the Palestinian national resistance, it failed and reached the point of accepting reality as it stands, and the unionist movements withdrew into themselves.

Failure gave rise to reassessments of approaches, means, and methods, and al-Qaeda emerged, producing events that ultimately led to major wars in the Arab region and forced Western states to adopt domestic and foreign policies that affected the whole range of their economic, military, and security activities and their external alliances. Jihadist movements emerged in Afghanistan that changed the existing political order, and the Taliban developed into a force still fighting a superpower to this very day; and the Iraqi resistance emerged, spoiling America’s colonial projects there. The issue here has nothing to do with one’s personal assessment of these organizations, whether they were right or wrong, but rather with their capacity to make history, and with the role that repression, tyranny, exploitation, and enslavement played in their emergence and in the growth of their strength and their supporters.

At the level of states, there have been those who remained uneasy with the Arab and Islamic situation, such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Syria today, and Sudan, and Malaysia — but without that unease escalating to the point of outright defiance, for reasons there is no need to go into here. Only Iran has witnessed major developments marked by a spirit of defiance toward the traditional powers ruling the Arab-Islamic region and dominating at the global level. This is why, back in 1979, as I wrote in my book titled The Fall of the King of Kings, I assessed that Iran would be subjected to conspiracies and wars aimed at toppling its new ruling system and turning the clock backward, because the dominant and controlling powers, both domestically and internationally, do not permit change and will not remain silent in the face of defiance. This is the way of history: the powers that benefit cling to the existing reality, and they stand ready to wage wars and shed blood so that the status quo remains in place. And indeed, Iran has been subjected to wars and blockades, and continues to face a blockade of escalating severity, and continues to face the threat of war, including nuclear war.

As a result of Iranian support, Hezbollah emerged in Lebanon, adopting organizational, security, and military methods the region had never known before; it managed to overturn the Lebanese equation in 1983 and 1984, to expel the Israeli occupation in 2000, and to withstand the Israeli army in 2006, thwarting Israel’s objectives.

Historically speaking, positions of love or hatred toward Iran or Hezbollah ultimately have no value; historical significance stems solely from the capacity to shape events and bring about real change on the ground. Is Hezbollah capable of defiance and of making history, or is it not? Is Iran capable of making history, or is it not? The answer is certainly known to the powers that fight to keep the past present both now and in the future, and it is evident in their policies aimed at erasing the present and steering the future back toward the past. And if there is anyone who sees Iran and Hezbollah as enemies, he must develop his own methods and means so as to be capable of smothering their development at birth; and whoever sees good in them should join their ranks.

President Ahmadinejad in Lebanon

2

⑁愁̤摧洖õ

⑁愁Ȥ摧Ɠ¶

⑁愁Ĥ摧Ɠ¶

h

h

⑁愁̤摧ଋ

…fully in keeping with the idea of the region’s independence, whether as a whole or in parts. It was clear that the Iranian president was deliberately courting defiance, and wished to convey a message that the phase of reticence and hesitation had ended, and that the will for change was now fully available and backed by a show of material force plain for all to see. This defiance can be broken down into the following points:

The visit is to Lebanon, which is considered a strategic link in the regional balance of power — a balance the United States, Israel, and various Arab regimes have been working for many long years to tip in their own favor. Lebanon has constituted an important arena of cultural, intellectual, security, military, and political interaction for the various regional powers ever since it was established as a state, and it still retains this standing, drawing to itself all manner of conflicts, bloody and non-bloody alike. Official Lebanon came under great pressure not to allow this visit to take place, but the pressure exerted by the forces seeking change, backed materially or morally by Iran, overcame the wishes of the other side. This is a major point the Iranian president has scored in his favor on the field of conflict.

The Iranian president brought with him a piece of scientific equipment specific to nanotechnology research, a clear signal that Iran has reached a level of scientific and technical progress placing it among the ranks of scientifically and technologically advanced states. Whoever is capable of developing such equipment has reached a high level of scientific and technical development that qualifies him for a wide range of military and civilian electronic industries, and enables him to develop weapons capable of standing up to the weapons of the Western states. It appears the Iranian president was content to bring this piece of equipment rather than missiles, tanks, or radiological weapons. Physics professors and politicians attuned to the global scientific movement know full well the strategic value of this piece of equipment.

If Iran were weak, the Iranian president would have come to Lebanon on a timid, rabbit-like visit (in the manner of a rabbit’s behavior), marked by a few ceremonies, protocol banquets, and rhetorical flourishes. And had he gone on to visit South Lebanon, he would have done so like a docile sheep searching for a bit of grass to graze on. Instead, his visit to South Lebanon took on a popular dimension, and he was received by crowds who felt united with him emotionally and politically, and it was marked by an unconventional speech directed against Israel, which for its part had to content itself with releasing a few empty balloons.

There were those who blamed or criticized the Iranian president over what was described as a violation of Lebanese sovereignty and a departure from the customary protocol of state visits. Strategically speaking, this blame or criticism has no value, because the visit expressed an inseparable part of the historical struggle, which cannot simply step aside in favor of musical ceremonies and honor guards. This is quite apart from the fact that talk of sovereignty is meaningless amid deteriorating Arab conditions that lack both human freedom and state sovereignty.

The Discontent of Arab Regimes

A number of Arab regimes were displeased by the Iranian president’s visit, and those who orbit within their sphere shared that displeasure; the media directed its barrages at Iran and its president, and Arab writers did not hold back from criticizing the visit, portraying what they saw as an ugly Shiite assault on the Sunnis. This too has no value from the standpoint of strategic conflict, because most Arab regimes are tethered to the tail of the traditionally dominant Western powers. The visit’s messages are directed at the people of the West, not at Arab regimes that cannot survive without Israeli and American security, military, economic, and financial support. And if America decides tomorrow to engage with Iran and sit with it at a table of understanding over the region, these Arab regimes will be nothing more than a chorus singing America’s praises.

It falls to the Arab regimes to study this visit and decide whether they wish to march with the caravan of change, or to help rein it in and preserve the status quo. If they decide to march with the caravan of change, they thereby sentence themselves to death, since they represent the past and have no connection to the future; and if they wish to remain a tail, they must continue draining Arab energies for the benefit of foreign powers, which only strengthens Iran’s ability to win over the Arab public. Whatever choice they make, they lose — and this is the fate of anyone who possesses no free will of his own.

Sectarian Strife

Since the forces of change in the Arab-Islamic region are exerting real pressure, the forces working to preserve the status quo are laboring hard to stop the wheel of history. This is evident in the attempts by America, Israel, certain Arab regimes, and some Sunni and Shiite clergy to manufacture sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shiites. Such strife is extremely important tactically, because it does not merely stop the wheel of history — it turns that wheel back many centuries. Sunni and Shiite Muslims are made to return to the battles of the Camel, Siffin, and Karbala to settle their internal scores, and in doing so they fall further behind the levels of civilization the world has now reached in every field. Of course, the Arab regimes do not belong to the present at all, and there remain Sunni and Shiite Muslims who still live submerged in history’s depths, believing that progress can only be achieved by marching backward.

Resorting to the idea of sectarian strife poses a real danger to the general public, but the leaders of change, whether at the Iranian or the Arab level, are fully aware of this matter and always try to avoid a sectarian clash, given the great dangers it poses to the nation and the enormous benefit it would bring to Israel and America. Moreover, strife only serves a purpose where awareness is absent, and it is evident that the region has moved beyond that absence, and that awareness is now the essential engine driving the forces of change.

The Bleeding

There are those who try to appear “rational” in their analysis, saying that Palestinian blood would never have been shed were it not for the Palestinian resistance, and that Iraqi blood would never have been shed were it not for the Iraqi resistance. They add that Iran is leading the region into a state of bloody instability. The implication is that attempts at change are extremely costly, and that it is better to accept reality as it stands, while trying to persuade the powerful of the rights of the weak. This is the argument of those who follow the dominant powers and who usually benefit from them both materially and morally.

This is an argument that history has already discredited, because the strong do not practice injustice in order to establish justice, and the oppressor’s rod is never broken by pleading. It is difficult for any rational person to sanction bloodshed, but the wheel of history must nonetheless complete its course. And if there is anyone who grieves over blood that is spilled, let him also grieve over a nation living in the submission of the abased.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “أحمدي نجاد في حلقات التاريخ” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.