Ghamidi's Lack of Nuance in Geopolitical Analysis

by Dr. Ammar Ali Jan

Like every scholar, there are many things one can learn from Ghamidi sahib as well. However, his political analyses have absolutely no connection with history or facts. Sitting in the United States, he offers mild criticism of resistance movements in the Middle East, and liberals begin celebrating this so-called “analysis.” Recently, in a podcast with Shehzad Ghias, he went so far as to hold Iran’s foreign and “Islamic” policy responsible for the destruction of the region, even claiming that before the revolution Iran had no conflicts with any country.

This kind of discourse, detached from history and politics, may appear philosophical on the surface, but in reality it is rooted in ignorance and a regressive mindset. Modern Iran had long been dominated by a small elite, against which constitutional uprisings had already begun in the early twentieth century. This struggle reached its peak in 1951, when nationalist and socialist organizations jointly won elections and elected Mohammad Mossadegh as Prime Minister. To liberate a society drowning in poverty and constrained by imperial control, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, taking it out of British hands, and declared that its revenues would now be used for the welfare of the people rather than flowing into American and British banks.

Author William Blum, in his book Killing Hope, explains in detail how the CIA orchestrated a coup against Mossadegh’s government, overthrowing it and restoring power to the Shah of Iran. In other words, the first act of aggression did not come from Iran; it came from the United States and Britain, who imposed a brutal dictatorship there. With CIA backing, an organization called SAVAK was established, which systematically tortured pro-democracy activists.

Even in global affairs, the Shah’s Iran was not neutral; rather, it contributed to destruction in the region at the behest of the United States. For example, Iran supported Israeli aggression and occupation of Arab lands and developed close relations with it. It also emerged as one of the closest Asian allies of apartheid South Africa, which had arrested Nelson Mandela in 1962, supplying it with cheap oil used in the oppression of Black people. Alongside this, the Shah’s regime acted as a frontline force in suppressing popular uprisings in Oman, Yemen, and elsewhere in the region. Yet Ghamidi sahib does not consider this foreign policy aggressive, even though it inflicted severe harm on oppressed peoples and strengthened reactionary forces in the region.

After the Iranian Revolution, the foreign policy that emerged differed significantly. Instead of assisting Israel in the destruction of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and other states, Iran supported resistance movements in these countries. In Yemen, rather than participating in what is described as an American-led genocide, it supported resistance. In Iraq, despite deep hostility toward Saddam’s regime, Iran continued to back resistance forces during the American military occupation. Similarly, it supported Nelson Mandela’s party in South Africa as well as its armed wing. It also assisted the anti-imperialist leader Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso. When Yasser Arafat capitulated to Israel in 1993, Iran became the sole supporter of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements. This is why Nelson Mandela referred to Khamenei as “my leader.” Likewise, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and other leftist anti-imperialist leaders viewed Khamenei and Iran as pillars of resistance, as Iran had provided them significant support in difficult times.

It should be remembered that in every instance, aggression originated from the United States and Zionist forces. Even this year, Iran was engaged in negotiations with the United States when these forces suddenly attacked Iran, killing 165 schoolgirls along with Khamenei and members of his family. Ignoring all this history and claiming that Iran is pursuing an aggressive policy is an extremely childish assertion. Were Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon subjected to American bombardment because of their own aggressive policies? Was Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro—who does not even possess a significant military—abducted by the United States due to aggression? Cuba is currently under a severe blockade; was a small island like Cuba truly a threat to American security? Were regime changes in 92 countries justified? Are the 700 American military bases across the Arab world and the globe established for the protection of humanity?

The time has come for people to move beyond assumptions and examine historical and material realities before forming their positions. The cause of Khamenei’s martyrdom was not an aggressive policy, but a defensive one through which Iran sought to protect its own sovereignty and that of other nations. Even today, this posture remains defensive, while Israel—continuing its actions in the region—along with the United States, remains a central force of devastation. Any form of religious or worldly knowledge that teaches one to conceal the oppression of the oppressor and to place the burden of history upon the oppressed is of no value. It is unfortunate that Ghamidi sahib, too, has fallen prey to a pro-imperialist false narrative and now continues to propagate it. However, the public is aware and can no longer be deceived by American propaganda.