BEIRUT—The potential collapse of the Islamic Revolution in Iran is not a distant theoretical conjecture!
It is an impending geopolitical rupture whose shockwaves would reverberate across West Asia, with devastating consequences for the Arab world and Turkey alike.
Those who welcome the prospect of a post-Iranian order are either dangerously naïve or willfully detached from the realities of power and history.
The fall of Iran would not herald stability, peace, or prosperity.
On the contrary, it would fling open the gates of chaos, redraw regional maps through violence, and leave the region exposed to unchecked American–Israeli domination, stripped of any effective strategic counterbalance.
For decades, Iran has been deliberately misrepresented—particularly within Persian Gulf discourse—as the primary source of regional instability, vilified more aggressively than extremist organizations and, at times, even more than the Israeli colonial occupation regime itself.
This demonization was neither spontaneous nor incidental; it was a calculated strategy designed to divert attention away from Israel, fracture regional consciousness, and isolate Iran until it stood alone.
Rather than being engaged through regional integration and collective security frameworks, Iran was subjected to systematic isolation.
This policy did not moderate Iranian behavior; it entrenched its independent strategic orientation and reinforced its resistance-based posture.
Contrary to prevailing narratives, Iran was not intrinsically hostile to its neighbors, nor did it reject dialogue as a matter of principle.
On multiple occasions, Tehran advanced proposals for regional cooperation and security arrangements grounded in mutual interests and non-intervention. These overtures were consistently ignored, undermined, or blocked under direct Western pressure.
Iran’s involvement in Syria must also be understood within this broader context. It was neither the defense of an individual nor blind allegiance to a regime, but a strategic intervention aimed at preserving the sovereignty of a state targeted by Takfiri terrorism and externally sponsored fragmentation projects.
What unfolded in Syria was not an isolated internal conflict, but a coordinated campaign to dismantle a central state and reengineer the region through controlled chaos.
Martyr General Qassem Soleimani emphasized the gravity of the situation in Syria in his memoirs, warning that the collapse of the country would unleash a catastrophe across the region:
“Should this dam [Syria] collapse, a calamity would sweep across these lands and engulf these peoples—so vast and devastating that, by comparison, the terror of the Mongol invasions would amount to nothing. Yet what recourse do I have, when even some within our official government, and certain pseudo-intellectuals, respond with laughter? They imagine that we are fighting merely to preserve the rule of a single individual, ‘Bashar’ [al-Assad]. They fail to grasp that this front is a front for the defense of humanity, not of Islam alone; a front for the defense of Islam, not of the Shiites alone; and a front for the defense of Iran, not of the Shiites alone. It is a front for the protection of all those ordinary people who live in safety in their homes, their streets, and their marketplaces…”
This statement illustrates Haj Qassem’s perspective that the fight in Syria was not simply about supporting a regime, but about defending humanity, regional stability, and the safety of ordinary people.
Geopolitics, therefore, is not a moral performance staged for media consumption; it is a hard calculus of power, deterrence, and survival.
Within this unforgiving reality, the collapse of the current Iranian system would not correct misconceptions nor clarify distorted narratives. It would usher in a far more perilous order—one entirely shaped by American and Israeli hegemony, with catastrophic implications for the entire region.
Should the Iranian system collapse—God forbid—the alternative will not be neutral, democratic, or sovereign. It will be a client structure fully aligned with American–Zionist strategic objectives: unrestricted access to Iranian energy resources, control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the eradication of any remaining resistance movements in West Asia.
The repercussions would be existential. Persian Gulf states—already vulnerable within fragile security architectures—would face unprecedented coercion. Some may not endure in their present form.
Economic warfare would intensify, military intimidation would escalate, and sovereignty would be reduced to a hollow façade.
Turkey, too, would find itself encircled by an increasingly hostile strategic environment, trapped between NATO constraints and an unleashed regional disorder.
This warning is issued not from ideological affinity, but from the standpoint of cold self-interest. History offers a brutal lesson: those who believe themselves immune are often the first to be struck.
Today, West Asian leaders may find themselves compelled—reluctantly and bitterly—to acknowledge that the current Iranian system, despite its flaws, functions as a barrier against a far greater deluge. A fractured dam, after all, still offers more protection than open plains before a tsunami.
The region now stands between bad and worse. There are no pristine choices left—only survival calculations. Either a rock that resists the flood, or sand scattered by hurricanes. Either a bitter compromise, or states dissolving in the inferno of foreign domination.
Decades ago, the late Egyptian thinker Mohamed Hassanein Heikal warned:
“The greatest mistake the Arabs committed against themselves in modern history was opposing the Islamic Revolution that triumphed in Iran, instead of forming an alliance with it.”
However, no one listened. Today, the harvest of that mistake stands before us.
This is not a call for affection, justification, or romanticized alliances. It is a final warning: when Tehran falls, the fire will not stop at its borders.
Protests in Iran reflect legitimate social and economic demands that no outsider has the right to deny. Yet what demands urgent attention is the scale of external exploitation surrounding them.
The ferocity of media, political, security, and cyber campaigns reveals a coordinated attempt to fracture Iran, dismantle its unity, and reduce it to warring entities—an outcome that would annihilate both rights and nation alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment