Lessons from Iran’s Resistance for Arab World
This is according to an article by Ihab Shawqi, an Egyptian political analyst, who added that this resistance and the victory achieved through it can have lessons for the Arab world:
Iran’s victory over the United States and its allies did not await a memorandum or agreement. It is a clear victory whose characteristics became apparent when Iran contained the shock and bewilderment, seized the initiative, and the Iranian people gathered around their revolutionary leadership and system by declaring resistance and stability.
The memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States, with the terms and generalities of the agreement, is a declaration of a historic victory that proclaims the virtue of resistance to colonialism and its barbarity. If resistance to tyranny includes courage, strength, and unity, it would not be important how full of collusion and betrayal the surrounding atmosphere is.
Iran has announced that it will engage with the American enemy based on how Washington acts, negotiating and signing agreements in an atmosphere of distrust, its hand on the trigger, and any retreat, betrayal, or aggression will return it to the battlefield. Iran neither begs for a false peace nor retreats from its principles, beliefs, and allies for the sake of security and personal salvation. Given the intertwining of issues, files, and historical challenges between the Arab nations and Iran, it is necessary to examine this Iranian victory from the perspective of the Arabs, who have experienced the same challenges and whose response was different from Iran’s. This is a lesson that Arabs who do not belong to the axis of resistance must learn so that the Arab Ummah can also wake up, because the new balances may remove from the scene all those who do not adhere to the doctrine of national independence and resistance. This can be summarized in the following brief points:
First: The Arab mentality, colonialism and its comparison with the perspective of the Islamic Revolution:
For centuries, Arab nations have suffered more from tyranny than from colonialism, because the ruling governments, such as the Ottomans and others, were not considered colonial. It was tyranny and corruption that brought colonialism to the region, and the Arab nation inherited this perspective of colonialism, considering it a fate beyond its ability to cope with. Some movements even sought help from colonialism to escape tyranny with false promises of independence and autonomy.
At the same time as there was growth of national liberation movements and their success in gaining power and initiating resistance against colonialism, other countries, such as the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf, remained loyal to colonialism and became enemies of resistance. Moreover, national liberation movements, in the midst of their struggles, failed to instill a culture of resistance that would protect their achievements and maintain a revolutionary approach in the event of a coup against them, because the people were ideologically more dependent on leaders and individuals than on resistance.
On the other hand, the Islamic Revolution of Iran, while based on confronting arrogance as part of religious teachings, did not consider colonialism as an inevitable fate, but rather as an aggression that must be resisted. It did not associate resistance with a person, but with a doctrine and a right that was the reference for evaluating individuals based on their commitment, in such a way that they are recognized by the right and the right is not recognized by them.
Read More:
This distinctive feature of the Islamic Revolution prevented many deviations from the line of resistance and formed a solid wall against colonialism and broke down the psychological barriers of resistance. This led to the Islamic Republic’s success in avoiding many of the Arab mistakes and benefiting from historical lessons, and the United States failed to use the methods that empires had successfully tested with weak nations, such as “carrot and stick” politics, “divide and rule,” and other methods.
Second: The Arab mindset in negotiations and Iran’s decisiveness and precision:
The Arabs have not had much experience in negotiations, but in most cases (their engagements in talks) have been more like (accepting) agreements and dictates. Perhaps the experience after the 1973 war (the Yom Kippur War or the Arab-Israeli War) revealed the lack of unity of vision and purpose, which divided the ranks and turned the negotiation into an individual and weak position rather than a desire to hold power cards.
In their negotiations, the Arabs were subordinate to pursuing immediate gains and ignored the strategic perspective of promises of prosperity and deferred dreams.
The Arabs also did not exercise due care in drafting and terminology, leaving vague clauses that later led to profound advances (from enemies).
What is more dangerous is that the Arabs allowed these breaches to develop without any response, while we found the Iranian negotiators neither begging for negotiations nor rushing to them, neither yielding to compromise nor passing a breakthrough, which sends a serious and disappointing message to the enemy that he will not achieve through politics what he could not achieve in war.
Third: The role of strong faith in victory:
The Iranian victory was based on a firm and unshakable doctrine of rejecting humiliation and not being stingy in sacrifice as a duty and obligation, as well as on a civilizational treasure based on science, organization and taking possession of the means of power, which included the experience of resistance based on institutions, continuity and a scientific strategic perspective to describe conflicts, a deep reading of the enemy, recognition of his sources of strength and weakness and a successful strategy to confront him.
Fourth: Loyalty to allies:
There is no doubt that the spiritual values of the Islamic Revolution were alien to the political and strategic vocabulary of the West, and America and its Zionist proxies and even their Arab proxies who followed their path failed in the face of these spiritual and human values due to their involvement with Machiavellian pragmatic schools and considering them only as definitions of politics.
These human values, and above all loyalty to allies, were the main factor of victory, linking the battlefronts, uniting them and making the best use of force.
Fifth: Breaking psychological barriers and pursuing deferred dreams:
The most important aspect of the Iranian experience is courage, audacity and belief in the sanctity of the battle for honor and confronting arrogance and a true belief in victory. This is what broke the psychological barriers and overturned the enemy's bets and made liberation, the rejection of colonialism and becoming a world power an achievable goal, not a deferred dream that points to an uncertain future and an unknown time with uncertain bets on changing conditions and developments. Rather, Iran and the resistance believed that it was the weapons and will of the resistance fighters that changed the balances and brought about developments.
Read More:
The experience of Iran's strategic victory and its transformation into a major regional power with significant global influence should be a lesson for all oppressed people, increasing their self-confidence and faith, and interpreted as a cautionary tale for the vile and domineering regimes, because their master, whom they considered a god on earth, can now, regardless of the difficulties and challenges, be subject to the will of resistance fighters and individuals that have dignity and honor.
4360541
