Region faces ‘Organized War’ against Iran and Shias

: Egyptian political expert

An Egyptian political expert has described the recent regional developments surrounding Iran as an “organized war against the Shias and Iran,” framing the events within a religious and historical context in a sharply critical analysis.

Dr. Rasem al-Nafis portrayed Iran’s adversaries as presenting themselves as courteous advocates of freedom of thoughts and champions of a civil state that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or religion, at least in their media narrative.

He argued, “They (adversaries) are steeped in sectarian hostility toward the Prophet’s household and their followers, and harbor an intense desire to eradicate Shias and bring an end to their existence.”

“This is their shameful reality,” he wrote, “one that must be exposed, away from the diplomatic niceties of politicians skilled at turning angles and averting greater harm with lesser damage.”

Al-Nafis continued that more than a decade ago, the Daesh terrorist attack against Iraq began, threatening the very existence of Shias in the country. Although that campaign ultimately failed, he said, it did not force its backers into final retreat. The “dream of eliminating the Shias” continues to drive them, pushing repeated attempts, albeit through different methods.

He noted that a direct U.S. assault on the Islamic Republic of Iran has long been an ambition of certain Gulf Arab states and their allies, who, he alleges, “paid trillions” to then-President Donald Trump in pursuit of that objective and continue to bank on him to see it realized.

According to al-Nafis, the region is now grappling with deep-seated psychological complexes accumulated over centuries, shaping the conduct of what he calls the “most hardline and hypocritical” Arab actors.

He also pointed to remarks by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, saying they laid bare the nature of the current confrontation.

Lindsey Graham exposed them when he declared that the war now underway is a religious war — that is, a war against what he describes as true Muhammadan Islam in favor of a belief system he calls “Abrahamic,” which is associated with the Antichrist (Dajjal). This historical moment, he argued, is decisive: either the Dajjal prevails, or he suffers a final defeat.

Finally, he contends that expressions of concern or caution by some Arab states do not stem from principled, moral, or religious positions. Rather, he argued, they reflect an understanding — reinforced by what he described as a recent 12-day conflict — that a U.S. victory is neither certain nor guaranteed.

Those states, he asserted, are aware of the fragility of their political systems and fear that Iran’s mere resilience in the face of confrontation could upend regional equations, while a U.S. failure would signal the decline of their own rule and the collapse of their monarchies.