November 11, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• Attending the international conference hosted by the Islamic Republic of Iran, commemorating forty days since the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, offered an opportunity to view Iran up close. How do Iranian officials interpret current events? Do they see them as an effort to lure Iran into a war it wishes to avoid? Or, do they consider themselves already within the heart of the battle, where calculations are irrelevant, and where the occupying entity and its U.S. ally- regardless of its president – must be the ones to reassess their strategies, gauging the risk of escalation or the desire to avoid it?
• The words of Iranian Vice President and reformist advocate for nuclear negotiations, Javad Zarif, stating that “the Zionist entity and the United States must accept that peace will remain elusive until Palestinian rights are respected and refugees return to their land”, and adds that “the end of apartheid in South Africa is a clear example that can and should be repeated” reflects a commitment to the cause that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Qasem Soleimani, Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, and other leaders of resistance and the path of jihad and martyrdom paid for with their lives. It reflects how Iran’s leadership draws a firm line between internal policy approaches and relations with the West, especially over the nuclear issue. Opinions may differ over internal issues, but there is unanimous alignment on the current confrontation under the banner of Palestine and Iranian sovereignty. Here, even proponents of negotiation recognise that the path to successful negotiations is by victory in this struggle.
• Nasrallah’s martyrdom seems to have marked a turning point for Iran in the regional struggle. With all branches of its leadership and society, Iran recognises that his assassination was a U.S.-Israeli decision aimed at ending regional resistance, and, as American and Israeli sources imply, at ultimately dismantling Iran’s influence. Sayyed Nasrallah’s presence had relieved Iran from having to formulate a specific wartime stance, as it deferred to his vision for necessary action. In his absence, Iran faces a heightened role, knowing that its future is now more interwoven with the fate of the Resistance, even more so than during the war in Syria.
• Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution was itself a historical turning point. In addition to demonstrating the triumph of a peaceful popular revolution against one of the most oppressive regimes supported by global superpowers, it introduced a new understanding of Islam that deeply resonated with people across the globe. This view of Islam often clashed with existing interpretations, which, to borrow from Greek philosophy, can be categorized as: “air-like Islam,” focused only on superficial appearances, often encouraged by rulers for political control; “water-like Islam,” centered on wealth and power, justifying obedience to Western-aligned leaders; and “fiery Islam,” a deviant form represented by extremist terrorist groups, which sows confusion between the spirit of resistance and terrorism.
• The Arab world became a battleground where Western powers, led by the United States, sought to counter Iran’s “earth-like Islam”, one grounded in justice, dignity, and support for the oppressed. They promoted alternative interpretations of Islam to encircle this revolutionary vision. Yet, Iran, led by Imam Khomeini and later by Ayatollah Khamenei, overcome these obstacles and rose as a guiding force for the Islamic world. Iran’s stance on Palestine, despite geographical distance, demonstrated its commitment to Arab causes. Amidst these struggles, the Lebanese resistance, supported by Iran, emerged as a solution to many regional challenges. Through it, Imam Khomeini’s ideology found a firm Arab leader in Sayyed Nasrallah, a figure whose loyalty to Iran’s vision elevated him as a leader of Arab resistance and values.
• Sayyed Nasrallah succeeded in elevating the stature of Imam Khomeini’s doctrine and Ayatollah Khamenei’s leadership, linking the victories and regional rise of the Resistance directly to Iran’s support. His commitment to aiding Gaza demonstrated a philosophy that embraces consequences in existential battles. The ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’ confrontation has thus become a crucial moment, one that requires Iran to follow Sayyed Nasrallah’s perspective. Just as Sayyed Nasrallah defied national, regional, and international constraints to open the support front, symbolising the fall of divisive doctrines like ‘Lebanon First’ or ‘Egypt First’, Iran recognises the dual objective of defending its sovereignty and supporting the Resistance in Palestine.
• Iran, with this understanding, is preparing a decisive response to any Israeli violations of its sovereignty. This response serves two purposes: solidifying Iran’s regional deterrence and sending a powerful message that the occupying entity’s attempts to extend the war are futile. In this, Iran pays little attention to who holds power in the White House, whether Republican or Democrat, as it regards both as adversaries. Only a balance of power that demands respect for Iran’s sovereignty will suffice, an outcome that Nasrallah often reiterated, saying, “The days, nights, and battlefield are between us” – meaning will reveal all. Iran stands resolute in its commitment to reconstruction in Lebanon and Gaza after the war, a responsibility it will assume alone or with others if this stance spurs them to join, simply out of rivalry if nothing else. Nonetheless, all participants in this endeavour are welcomed.
