Iran media personnel reaffirm commitment to Leader’s guidelines

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei

More than 2,300 Iranian media personnel and social media activists have renewed their commitment to the guidelines issued by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, vowing to work towards enhancing national unity.

They made the pledge in a statement released on Monday in response to a Friday message by the Leader marking the Government Week.

The media professionals said Ayatollah Khamenei’s message goes far beyond a mere commemorative text and is a clear roadmap in the midst of the hybrid and existential war waged by the enemies of the homeland.

“We, as those working in the fields of thought and media, ... will make the guidelines the leading principle of our efforts. We pledge that, at this critical juncture, we will reorganize our ranks and serve as a powerful force in the jihad of enlightenment, while working to strengthen the foundations of national unity.”

The statement said the foremost duty of the media professionals is to truthfully portray Iran’s progress and national dignity at a time when Western media is using all its power to spread despair, downplay the Iranian achievements, and undermine public morale.

Meanwhile, the signatories to the statement said they will draw a clear line between constructive, fair, and informed criticism and attempts at portraying Iran in a negative light and downplaying its strength.

“We will not allow domestic platforms to become echo chambers for failure and setbacks. Instead, we pledge to serve as fair-minded observers of the country’s challenges and as narrators of a bright and hopeful future for Iran.”

The media employees said protecting social capital and strengthening national bonds constitute their non-negotiable red lines.

“Therefore, all media content, analysis, and narratives produced in the country should be geared toward reinforcing social cohesion, bringing people together under the guidance of the Leader, and preventing any division within the united ranks of the nation.”

Additionally, they said the media community is responsible for promoting a culture that advances the goals of the resistance economy, supports domestic production, and helps address the economic and livelihood challenges facing Iranians.

They also vowed to devote all their efforts to “fostering self-confidence, projecting Iran’s strength, and advancing the vision of a ‘Stronger Iran.’”

Bahrainis rally against detention of religious leaders

By staff writer

TEHRAN — Crowds filled the streets of Sitra Island on Friday night, marching in direct defiance of the Al Khalifa regime’s expanding campaign against Bahrain’s Shia majority.

Located roughly five kilometers south of Manama, Sitra has long stood as a resilient focal point of resistance against regime-sanctioned persecution.

Demonstrators gathered to demand the immediate release of political detainees and an end to widespread human rights abuses.

The immediate catalyst for the late-night rally was a marathon 13-hour judicial session held on August 19, during which dozens of prominent Shia scholars and preachers were subjected to mass show trials.

Courtroom manipulation and violent raids

The August 19 proceedings offered a glaring illustration of Bahrain’s corrupted legal apparatus.

Authorities kept the accused scholars in a separate room from the judges, forcing defense attorneys to challenge testimonies delivered via remote video links.

State witnesses concealed their identities behind masks while making unsubstantiated claims against the religious leaders.

Under cross-examination, one masked witness failed to explain basic theological concepts such as Wilayat al-Faqih (the concept of jurist-led political authority in Shia Islam).

Defendant Sheikh Hani al-Bina condemned the proceedings inside the courtroom, revealing that authorities withheld thousands of pages of interrogation files while coercing confessions under severe physical and psychological torture.

This represents only the latest phase of a systematic crackdown.

Violent nighttime raids carried out since May have resulted in the arbitrary arrest of more than 50 clerics, seminary professors, and prayer leaders.

Human rights groups report that detained scholars face degrading treatment, including being brought to hearings in heavy wrist and ankle shackles.

Sectarian siege and foreign backing

The suppression by the Al Khalifa regime has increasingly targeted the core of Shia religious identity.

Bahraini authorities banned citizens from traveling to holy cities in Iraq and Iran, shut down over 50 Hussainiyas (religious gathering places for Muharram rituals and processions), and issued administrative bans against 19 eulogists.

Regime forces have also blocked Friday congregational prayers for 77 consecutive weeks, deploying heavily armed mercenaries to enforce a virtual siege around Shia villages. Mourning processions face routine police violence, where regime forces tear down black flags and fire tear gas into crowds of worshipers.

The Al Khalifa regime carries out these measures with explicit backing from foreign patrons.

By hosting the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet and formalizing security pacts with Israel, Manama relies on Western and Zionist power to crush domestic dissent.

Foreign military bases serve to shield the ruling family from political accountability, turning the island into an operational base for foreign powers while treating native citizens as enemies on their own land.

Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim, Bahrain’s foremost spiritual authority, recently warned that Shia Islam, its preachers, and its foundational institutions face an existential threat under current state policies.

He accused regional regimes of enabling Washington and Tel Aviv to foster sectarian divisions across the Muslim Ummah.

Tags

• Bahrain
• Shia
• Al-Khalifa

Islamic Unity Week: Iran’s enduring vision of Muslim brotherhood, resistance, and a secure region

By Maryam Bashirpour

The cities across Iran take on a different color during Islamic Unity Week every year, coming alive with a powerful sense of unity and solidarity as Iranians from different walks of life commemorate the birth anniversary of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him).

Across the country, banners and placards adorn the entrances to streets and squares, carrying messages of devotion to the Noble Prophet of Islam (PBUH) and calling for Sunni-Shia unity.

Passersby often pause to take in the displays and capture them in photographs, as though the entire country has been transformed into a vast canvas proclaiming the timeless message of brotherhood that the Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently championed.

These powerful expressions of unity serve as a living reminder of a vision first articulated decades ago by the founder of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini (RA), and later carried forward by the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

Tracing the roots of Unity Week: Imam Khomeini’s (RA) vision

One of Imam Khomeini’s most important initiatives for strengthening unity was the designation of “Unity Week” on the occasion of the birth of the Noble Prophet (PBUH).

Traditionally, Sunnis celebrate his birth on the twelfth of Rabi’ al-Awwal, while Shiites celebrate it on the seventeenth of the same month. Rather than fueling these differences, Imam Khomeini proposed that the entire interval between these two dates be commemorated as the Week of Unity and Brotherhood.

His dream was for Muslims to shift their focus away from what separates them and toward what unites them: their shared love and devotion to the Prophet (PBUH).

Since then, Unity Week has become a platform for dialogue and exchange among followers of the two denominations, allowing them once again to emphasize the fundamental principles of Islam.

Imam Khomeini’s efforts to establish this tradition have left a lasting impact, and Unity Week is now, in Iran and many parts of the Islamic world, a reminder of the importance of cooperation and mutual respect between Shiites and Sunnis.

Imam Khomeini repeatedly emphasized the urgency of unity, citing verses from the Qur’an. He said: “We must be awake and know that the divine command is this: ‘Indeed, the believers are brothers’; believers are brothers to one another. There is nothing between them except brotherhood, and they are obliged to behave as brothers.

This is a political matter: that all Muslim nations, nearly one billion people, be brothers to one another. In that case, no harm can befall them, and none of the superpowers can attack them.”

He also said: “Sunni and Shiite are brothers and must avoid every kind of disagreement... Muslims must be united and stand as one against all oppressors. If Muslims were a single fist, no one could stand against them.”

The enemy’s strategy: The old project of sowing discord

For years, the US and the Zionist regime have designed a coordinated program to sow division and discord among Muslims. From supporting Takfiri and terrorist groups to investing billions in media outlets that pit Shiites against Sunnis, the strategy has been systematic.

The martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, repeatedly stressed that these enemies are hostile not only to Iran, but to the entire Islamic world.

These enemies know well that a divided Islamic world is a weak Islamic world. Therefore, they fuel religious differences, ignite ethnic tensions, and support extremist ideologies in order to keep the Islamic Ummah fragmented. They spend billions of dollars on media propaganda campaigns designed to portray Shiites and Sunnis as irreconcilable enemies.

The objective of this project is clear: a divided Ummah is a weak Ummah whose resources can easily be plundered, whose destiny can be controlled, and which can be trapped in endless proxy wars.

A prominent example of this strategy can be seen in West Asian Arab countries, where, by exacerbating religious divisions, the enemy has been able for years to oppress people who, had they been united, would never have tolerated such injustice.

Iran’s response: Not merely a slogan, but a lived model

In response to this project, Iran has not limited itself to slogans and statements. The Islamic Republic hosts the “International Islamic Unity Conference” in Tehran every year, bringing together Muslim scholars and thinkers from dozens of countries.

The 39th edition of this conference last year was held under the slogan “The Prophet of Mercy and the Unity of the Islamic Ummah” and emphasized the issue of Palestine as the principal axis of convergence. This year, the focus was on “Islamic Unity in the Thought of the Martyred Imam (Leader of the Islamic Revolution).”

Beyond these events, however, Iran presents a “lived model” of Sunni-Shia coexistence.

Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of the Iranian parliament, in his message this year, said the unity among Muslims led to the defeat of their enemies, stressing that extra-regional powers cannot bring security to the region.

“Today, Sunni-Shia unity in Iran is not merely a ceremonial slogan, but one of the pillars of national power and one of the country’s great assets for security and development,” he said.

In Iran, Shiites and Sunnis pray alongside one another, commemorate each other’s celebrations and mourning ceremonies, and stand united in defense of the country. This coexistence was thoroughly tested during the recent imposed wars, when Iranians of every ethnicity and religious denomination stood side by side in defense of the borders and frustrated the enemy.

Throughout the two imposed wars, this unity was put to a severe test and proved its resilience. Iranians from every social and religious background – Shiite and Sunni, Persian and Kurdish, Arab and Baluch – united in defense of their country’s soil. This solidarity, forged in the midst of hardship, has today become one of the pillars of national power.

Palestine: The great test of Islamic unity

If there is a common issue capable of bringing the hearts of Muslims closer together, it is undoubtedly Palestine. The ongoing Israeli-American genocide in Gaza has revealed the true face of the Zionist regime to the world and demonstrated that this regime is not merely the enemy of Shiites, but the enemy of all Muslims.

Palestine has consistently featured in the unity conferences in Iran, with women researchers, activists, and experts addressing the immediate challenges facing the Islamic world. The endless suffering of the Palestinians is a bitter reminder of the fate of divided societies and demonstrates what great achievements Muslims can accomplish if they unite.

As one Sunni scholar said at last year’s conference, Gaza is a deep wound on the body of the Islamic Ummah, and unity has never been as necessary as it is today. The enemies of Islam know well that a united Muslim Ummah would become a tremendous force that could no longer be easily manipulated or exploited.

A new horizon: From unity week to a regional union

But the matter does not end there. Qalibaf spoke of “new regional pacts” that could mark “the beginning of a new chapter” in the convergence of Muslim neighbors.

His reference is to the growing economic, security, and political cooperation between Iran and the Arab countries of the region, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and others, which has accelerated under the active diplomacy of the new government.

This vision goes beyond a symbolic week and moves toward “lasting regional unions,” where shared economic interests, collective security, and confronting external threats bind Muslims together more closely than ever.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei has also repeatedly emphasized that the future of the region belongs to the region itself and that Islamic countries, without the need for outsiders, can shape the order they desire.

Iran’s role: Not a country, but an idea

In this context, Iran is not merely a country; it is “an idea.” The idea of independence, the idea of resistance, and the idea of the unity of the Ummah.

From the very first day of the Islamic Revolution, the slogan “Neither East nor West, Islamic Republic” demonstrated that Iran was not going to join the camp of either superpower, but sought to become a new pole in the Islamic world. This pole is founded upon justice, freedom, and Islamic brotherhood.

A tangible example of this outlook is Iran’s unwavering support for the resistance in Palestine and the rest of the region, and support that is based not on sect, but on “right” and “resistance to oppression.” President Masoud Pezeshkian rightly said: “We seek neither conflict nor division, but we will not remain silent in the face of oppression.”

This is the essence of Iran’s foreign policy, a policy that places the unity of Muslims at the forefront. It has been like this since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

A single fist against the storm

The birth of the Noble Prophet (PBUH) and Unity Week are not merely a religious celebration; rather, they are an opportunity to reflect upon his message of mercy, justice, and brotherhood.

Islamic Unity Week, born from the far-sighted vision of Imam Khomeini, is a powerful symbol of the achievements Muslims can attain by moving beyond sectarian differences and focusing on their shared faith and common challenges.

Decades ago, Imam Khomeini envisioned this dream, and today the Islamic Republic of Iran, through its lived model of Sunni-Shia coexistence, with Palestine as a focal point, through a strategy of unity in the face of imposed wars, and through its vision of regional unions, has demonstrated that this dream is achievable.

The United States and the Zionist regime will continue their extensive investment in division. They will equip Takfiri groups, spread false propaganda, and exploit every fissure. As the martyred Leader of the Islamic Revolution repeatedly emphasized, the United States and the Zionist regime are not merely enemies of Iran, but enemies of the entire Islamic world.

Maryam Bashirpour is a university researcher and writer based in Tehran.

Araghchi calls Netanyahu a ‘serpent,’ says he ‘suckered’ US into war on Iran

US President Donald Trump (L) whispers to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in Al-Quds on October 13, 2025. (Photo by AFP)

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has called Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “serpent” who “suckered” the United States into war on Iran, exposing his deception and efforts to manipulate US public opinion and policymaking.

In a post on his X account on Monday, Araghchi highlighted the discrepancies between Netanyahu’s Hebrew and English claims about the war on Iran.

“In Hebrew, Netanyahu openly crows that he suckered the US Administration into a war on Iran on behalf of Israel,” he wrote.

Araghchi stated that Netanyahu “explicitly laughs about how he ‘influenced’ America through 1,000 hours of airtime on US networks.”

“In English, he praises POTUS’ leadership. Serpent,” he added.

On Sunday, Netanyahu claimed on Channel 14 that he has been “dealing with Iran for close to 40 years.”

“It took me a long time to get our security establishment to deal with Iran itself. It also took a long time to bring the United States to this understanding. I was able to do that because I had close to a thousand hours on American television,” he alleged.

The US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran began on February 28, with joint strikes that assassinated the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and targeted nuclear facilities, schools, and hospitals.

The aggression reflected Netanyahu’s long-standing push for direct US military involvement against Iran. Israel had repeatedly sought stronger American action against Tehran, while Washington is now locked in a war from which it is unable to extricate itself.

The new Syria: From terror lists to Israeli intimidation

By Ali Minabi

TEHRAN — The lifting of U.S. sanctions on Syria and its removal from America's terrorist designation list coincide with Damascus’s concessions to Israel and the U.S. to reshape Syria's landscape.

A day after Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani held a meeting with Mossad chief Roman Gofman in Amman, Jordan, with America's Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack also in attendance, the U.S. Treasury removed Syria from its list of state sponsors of terrorism and lifted sanctions imposed on it. 

This is while the U.S. State Department removed Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), formerly known as al-Nusra Front, from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. HTS previously served as al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria.

Washington had placed Syria on its state sponsors of terrorism list in 1979, which had no connection to Iran's Islamic Revolution. Rather, the Zionist-American animosity toward Syria since that time stemmed from Damascus's support for all Palestinian resistance forces, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and other global liberation movements.  

The timing of the U.S. decision added further significance, coming on the heels of reports that Damascus had made fresh concessions to Tel Aviv during Foreign Minister al-Shaibani's talks with Mossad chief Roman Gofman in Amman.

According to reports following the Amman meeting, Damascus is expected to capitulate to all Israeli demands and conditions regarding military and security matters. Most notably, the new government will continue to prevent and crack down on any Palestinian activity within Syria, coordinate intelligence with the Israelis against Hezbollah and anyone deemed a threat to the regime's security, and avoid any serious military cooperation with Turkey that might pose a risk to the Zionist regime.

Reports also indicate that al-Shaibani was warned against any resistance in southern Syria, where the Israeli regime's military has already been operating freely without any intervention from Syrian forces stationed there. Damascus likewise limited its measures to a statement of condemnation following the regime's defense minister, Israel Katz's, tour of Syrian territory, something Netanyahu had also done previously.

The concessions offered by al-Shaibani, in the presence of representatives from security and intelligence agencies, clearly reflect Syria’s submission to Israeli dictates imposed by former Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer during his earlier meetings with al-Shaibani in Paris.

That was enough to secure al-Shaibani's agreement to meet with Mossad chief Gofman rather than Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, signifying that Tel Aviv deals with Syria solely on security terms, without recognizing it as a sovereign state.

Perhaps for this reason, Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri, a senior Druze religious authority in Syria, came out a day after the Amman meeting to declare: “The Druze are an integral part of Israel.”

Regardless of how Damascus's new rulers interpret the Israeli model, which dismantled Syria's entire military, security, and political infrastructure in exchange for removal from America's state sponsors of terrorism list and sanctions relief, the Amman meeting proved that Damascus possesses no independent will to determine the fate of the new Syria. It has clearly become subject to the regional and international winds blowing from the Turkish north, the distant American west, and the volatile Israeli neighborhood.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the new rulers in Damascus were once on American, European, and international terrorism lists, and that President Trump in April 2018 placed a $10 million bounty on Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. 

They also seem to have forgotten that everyone who stood with al-Jolani, including al-Shaibani, Saudi national Abdullah al-Muhaysini, whose name was also removed from U.S. sanctions lists, and the current military and intelligence leaders in Damascus, were once hunted down and wanted worldwide on charges of terrorism, murder, and criminality. Their actions were rooted in sectarianism from the very start.

All this while, some intelligence agencies were backing these individuals and their armed terrorist groups, with direct Zionist support, as evidenced when thousands of al-Nusra and other terrorists were treated in Israeli hospitals for wounds sustained in clashes with the former Syrian army.

Israeli occupation forces' helicopters also smuggled hundreds of White Helmets members and their families from southern Syria into Israel and then Jordan, after they had been trapped by the former Syrian army.

Finally, no one paid attention to the court decision last week sentencing former Syrian Grand Mufti Ahmad Hassoun to life imprisonment on charges of sectarian incitement. Though Hassoun was very moderate in his statements about terrorist groups, the court and those who set it up seem to have forgotten that these groups started their revolt with religious and sectarian talk against "infidel Christians, Alawites, and apostate Shias." 

This rhetoric enjoyed support from several countries and their clerics, who issued religious decrees that allowed killing, slavery, and pillage against the Syrian and Iraqi peoples.

It is precisely what Daesh, the Nusra Front, and other terrorists, by American and international classification, did and acted on, having come from every corner of the planet "to fight in defense of religion and sect." 

It is abundantly clear that this terror was and remains at the service of its masters in Washington, Tel Aviv, and other places, who want the new Syria to serve them with or without terrorism.

Tags

• syria
• U.S.
• Abu Muhammad al-Jolani
• ISIS
• Syrian crisis

Iranian officials rally behind Leader's directive for unity and resistance

TEHRAN — Iran’s executive, legislative, judicial, and national security leadership have responded with unified endorsement following the major strategic address delivered by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei.

In a series of coordinated statements, top officials across all branches of governance described the Leader’s annual Government Week message as an indispensable, comprehensive blueprint for defending national sovereignty, countering hostile economic blockades, and safeguarding domestic social cohesion.

Leading the domestic response, the administration of President Masoud Pezeshkian issued a formal statement on Saturday expressing its profound appreciation for the "wise guidance" of Ayatollah Khamenei. The cabinet noted that the Leader’s words have brought "joy, encouragement and hope" to officials serving the Iranian public during a period of complex national challenges.

Describing the Leader's confidence and support as "the greatest asset and source of support," the administration affirmed that while it fully recognizes the economic pressures stemming from foreign sanctions and recent imposed wars, its immediate priority remains addressing interconnected economic challenges. The government outlined plans to focus on controlling inflation, managing domestic markets, generating employment, directing investment toward domestic production, and steadily reducing reliance on the US dollar.

"We commit ourselves to ensuring prosperity and improving the livelihoods of our dear people in a manner worthy of their dignity," the cabinet statement read, reiterating its full adherence to resistance-economy principles and reliance on internal capabilities.

The administration also identified the preservation of national unity as an absolute priority. In direct response to the Leader’s directive against divisive political conduct, the executive branch confirmed that every major political, economic, social, and cultural decision going forward will incorporate a mandatory "national cohesion component."

"We consider avoiding artificial polarization and discouraging statements to be our definite duty," the statement added, pledging to devote all state efforts toward strengthening consensus, solidarity, and hope across Iranian society. On foreign policy, the administration emphasized that Iranian diplomacy will continue to operate on the guiding principles of "dignity, wisdom, and prudence," promising to firmly resist foreign sanctions and the "unjust schemes of US-Israeli arrogance" through heightened coordination between diplomatic and defense sectors.

Echoing the executive branch, Judiciary Chief Gholam-Hossein Mohseni Eje’i described the Leader’s message as a roadmap for all government officials and servants of the state. He emphasized that strict adherence to the Leader’s guidance represents the only viable path to successfully overcoming current historical challenges.

“The Leader’s enlightening message is a roadmap for all officials and servants of the system and the people,” Mohseni Eje’i stated, underscoring the critical importance of strengthening national unity and rejecting any discourse that could cultivate division. “We reject any form of discord and division in this challenging and eventful path.” He added that from a revolutionary perspective, the unbreakable bond between the Iranian public and the leadership constitutes an “impenetrable barrier” against enemy hybrid warfare.

In the legislative realm, Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf similarly declared that the Leader’s message must serve as the primary guiding principle for all state authorities. Writing in a post on X, Qalibaf emphasized that avoiding actions that could damage social solidarity is both a strategic and moral mandate. “Any action that harms social cohesion is, for all of us, both a national and religious prohibition,” Qalibaf stated. “We pledge to the people and the Leader that, to the very end, we will devote ourselves to serving the people and advancing Iran.”

Concurrently, Iran’s top security official, Mohsen Rezaei, affirmed that the Leader’s remarks “constitute a clear and unequivocal strategy for everyone.” Rezaei stressed that in the current geopolitical environment, “national unity and social cohesion are among the most fundamental components of national power and security.”

The unanimous alignment among senior Iranian leadership follows the address delivered on Friday by Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei to mark Government Week—an annual period held to commemorate President Mohammad Ali Rajai and Prime Minister Mohammad Javad Bahonar, who were assassinated in the bombing of the prime minister’s office on August 30, 1981.

In his message, the Leader honored the memory of the martyred presidents Rajai and Ebrahim Raeisi, the martyred prime minister Bahonar, and all martyred employees, managers, and ministers of various administrations. He paid special tribute to "the great martyr Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, who held the office of president for nearly two terms."

Ayatollah Khamenei expressed his deep appreciation for the active employees and managers of government institutions, offering specific praise for "the sincere and caring" President Pezeshkian.

“In particular, I commend the worthy measures they have taken, despite the various restrictions and plots of the American-Zionist enemy, and the intensification of sanctions and blockades, during the third imposed war and afterward, to ensure the provision of goods and various services needed by the people, repair key damaged areas, and manage energy,” the Leader stated.

He stressed that the nation of Iran, having “demonstrated its true mettle” over the past six months amid US-Israeli aggression, is fully entitled to feel the concrete services rendered by the various branches of the administration.

Turning to economic governance, Ayatollah Khamenei addressed a chain of livelihood challenges, including inflation, emphasizing the need to focus on core economic pillars. He explicitly called for “boosting production, gradually phasing out the dollar from its important role, and ultimately placing the entire set of resistance-economy policies at the center.”

“The key to resolving all these matters in this field lies in relying as much as possible on domestic production,” the Leader stressed, noting that where domestic capacity is insufficient, imports must be managed "properly and wisely."

These remarks come at a time when the United States has launched a broad initiative titled “Operation Economic Outcast,” following Washington's failure to achieve its broader war objectives against Iran. Addressing these external pressures, the Leader noted that while enemy conduct during and after the war is not without effect, "ever-smarter management of the components of this field, seeking the assistance of the people and experts, and bringing new capacities into operation will guide the country toward the expansion of affairs and development."

Warning against falling into foreign psychological traps, Ayatollah Khamenei highlighted: “The sworn enemy of this nation tries to convey that the path to development and progress lies in following it and complying with its unreasonable demands; whereas observing what it has done to this country and its resources in past periods, even years before the Islamic Revolution, shows otherwise.”

As a key driver for future growth, the Leader urged the “application of technologies and innovations proposed by young elites.” He observed that making timely use of these technological advantages and stepping away from routine procedures and established habits can trigger effective leaps in the country’s overall advancement.

Tags

• Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei
• Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian
• Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf

Master Marc Lynch and the decline of empire

By Kurosh Alyani

TEHRAN — Marc Lynch has written an article in Foreign Affairs titled “The End of the American Middle East”. Its very first paragraph opens with a sentence that, only a few years ago, would have been almost impossible to imagine appearing in that magazine.

The paragraph reads: “The American Middle East is finished. The regional order that has prevailed since 1991 has been one of the many casualties of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. The American and Israeli failure to dislodge the regime in Tehran has proved the bankruptcy of decades of sanctions and violence. The inability of the United States to protect its (Persian) Gulf allies from Iranian attacks or to keep the Strait of Hormuz open has fatally undermined the core security bargain that justified its network of military bases in the region. And Israel’s increasingly threatening posture and abandonment of any pretense of interest in reaching an accommodation with the Palestinians have ended Washington’s decades-long mission of bringing its Arab allies and Israel together into an enduring security partnership.”

His meaning is clear. 

The war with Iran did not mark the beginning of this ending. It was the moment when the rot in the structure could no longer be concealed; it burst through the surface. The United States and Israel failed to overthrow the Iranian government. Washington failed to shield its Persian Gulf allies from the costs of a war they did not want to enter, and it failed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. In Lynch’s account, the basic bargain no longer works: America provided security; in return, the region remained inside an American order.

So far, I have no serious quarrel with him. Lynch has at least arranged the story properly. The problem begins when he tries to climb out of the ruins.

He sees decline, but he still cannot look at the world and at human beings except through the eyes of the emperor. In his diagnosis, the United States is a power that has lost part of its ability to impose its will, especially far beyond its borders. But the moment Lynch begins prescribing remedies, America suddenly becomes the same power that can decide what order should replace the old one, who should enter it, how far Israel should retreat, what place Iran should occupy, and how democratic Arab governments ought to become.

It is the same America in which leaders decide, not people. When Lynch speaks of democracy inside the United States, democracy is mainly a good thing that Trump has insulted. He gives the public almost no place in determining policy. He does not waste time on the people. He advises the rulers.

For Lynch, the next president merely has to be sensible. “The Trump administration, contemptuous of democracy and the rule of law at home and abroad, is not going to change that. It is difficult to imagine Trump, who vacillates wildly between strategies, designing a new regional order of any kind. But his successor will have a real chance to break with the status quo and craft a more coherent and more effective Middle East strategy. That starts with renouncing the use of military intervention as a first resort and ending the practice of diplomacy by airstrike. Washington’s priority should be defense, not offense. One way to make that intention clear is to forgo the restoration of damaged or destroyed U.S. military bases across the Persian Gulf and focus instead on investments in intelligence sharing, missile defense systems for Persian Gulf partners, and the preservation of freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.” His successor should also bring Iran into a regional security system, restrain Israel, care about human rights, distance Washington from autocratic governments, and finally learn that West Asia cannot be administered with bases and missiles alone.

This president receives his agency from himself, not from the Americans who elect him and send him to Washington with an order of their own.

The part of this prescription concerning West Asia looks humane at first. The problem becomes visible when we notice that the text is still unmistakably the prescription of a master.

Imagine a slaveholder whose plantation can no longer be managed. The plantation slaves, whom his father personally kidnapped from Africa, have revolted. The cost of guarding them has risen, part of the crop has been lost, and the last time he raised the whip, the slaves were no longer frightened. Suddenly the master announces that moral reflection has persuaded him that the plantation slaves ought to be free. Then he goes home to think about more humane treatment of the plantation slaves while whipping his domestic slaves.

And he has still forgotten something: the plantation slaves took his whip and broke it into pieces. He no longer has a whip.

Lynch is standing at roughly this point. He translates compelled retreat into moral choice. He says America should no longer dominate the region and arranges the argument as though reflection had persuaded him that domination was ethically wrong, rather than acknowledging that America may simply be losing the capacity to dominate as it once did.

Yet his own article supplies evidence for the second possibility. Persian Gulf confidence in American security guarantees has broken down. Enormous American and Israeli military power failed to impose the intended political result. America could not keep Hormuz open. Regional actors are already acquiring greater autonomy.

America has begun to resemble the country in an old military joke: it held an exercise against a hypothetical enemy and suffered a crushing defeat.

Lynch even invokes Suez. British and French power did not disappear the morning after 1956. Britain remained in the Persian Gulf for years and France continued fighting in Algeria. But, as Lynch himself explains, by then larger structural forces had made the dissolution of the European imperial order inevitable. He also acknowledges that the American regional order had already been decaying for years before the latest war exposed its military impotence.

He is slowly approaching the possibility that the issue is not that the emperor—or the slaveholder—has finally discovered that whipping people is ugly. The plantation slaves may simply have taken away the whip and smashed it.

That is not a minor distinction. If the first interpretation is right, America remains the principal locus of agency and can decide how to retreat. If the second is right, much of the future will no longer be designed in Washington. In the most optimistic interpretation, bordering on naivety, America will be one actor in that future: an actor carrying the memory of extraordinary power, not an architect spreading a blueprint across the table and assigning everyone else a place.

The larger contradiction comes elsewhere.

Lynch is one of the scholars who has spent years emphasizing the importance of Arab public opinion. And in this article he explicitly attacks Washington for imagining that Arab rulers could stand in for Arab societies. “For decades, Washington assumed that it did not need to worry much about Arab public opinion because it could count on Arab rulers to crush any dissent. It similarly assumed that mouthing empty words about supporting a two-state solution, all while Israel continued its creeping annexation of Palestinian lands and avoided genuine peace negotiations, would be enough to keep its Arab allies on board. That meant the United States never considered adopting policies that would command the consent, or even the support, of the peoples of the region. And it meant Washington could never seriously engage in the promotion of democracy or the defense of human rights, because its strategy depended on their absence.” Earlier he says that officials under both Biden and Trump assumed that only regional leaders’ opinions mattered, underestimated the continued importance of Palestine, and ignored the political toxicity of normalization among Arab publics.

He is right. Washington imagined that it could bring governments along and ignore society. The genocide in Gaza showed how wrong that assumption was.

But when the subject becomes Americans, the people suddenly leave the stage.

Lynch’s next American president more or less descends from the sky into the White House. We are not told who voted for him, what promises elected him, what image of American greatness he created, what expectations he must satisfy, or what he must do to preserve the political coalition that put him there.

This omission is particularly strange in a scholar who has spent much of his professional life writing about public spheres and public opinion.

The next president must first win an election. And if American decline has become more visible by then, there will probably be two basic stories available to explain it.

The first says that the world has changed, America’s relative power has declined, and part of its former position cannot be rebuilt.

The second is much simpler: America is still the same mighty America. Trump was merely incompetent.

Anyone who runs on the first story practically guarantees his own defeat. The second has considerable electoral power, even for a Democrat.

That second story is a gift from heaven. It does not ask Americans to lower their expectations. It does not tell them the age of supremacy is over. It does not ask them to accept a more ordinary place in the world. It promises to recover stolen greatness. Failure is attributed not to structure but to the bad man who came before. The promise is beautifully simple: I know how to use the power he squandered.

The trouble begins when such a candidate wins.

He cannot then turn around and tell the electorate: I was wrong; America really is weaker. He needs evidence, quickly, that his argument was true. He must demonstrate that the age of weakness has ended. Electoral pressure to prove competence merges with strategic pressure to prevent decline from becoming permanent.

Then every new failure can produce escalation instead of reconsideration.

If economic pressure fails, apply more. If military threats fail, make them more credible. If an attack fails, it must have been too limited. If allies refuse obedience, raise the price of disobedience. Foreign policy enters the familiar logic of the gambler: the previous loss is not a reason to stop. It is the reason to increase the next bet.

That is why the years after Trump may be more dangerous than the Trump years themselves. Not because the next president will necessarily be more insane, but because he may be more disciplined, command a more competent administration, possess fresh legitimacy, and pursue the delusional restoration of American power not through personal eruptions but through a coherent multiyear program.

Lynch barely examines this possibility. He expects Trump’s successor to see the failure of the old policy and draw the sensible conclusion. But there is no law saying defeat produces wisdom. Defeat can produce a desire for revenge.

More importantly, even if the next president personally understands Lynch’s argument, there is no reason to assume he can sell it. A politician elected to restore American greatness cannot announce six months later that America should now become a wiser, more restrained and more ordinary country. We lost the empire, but we became better people is not much of an electoral slogan.

And here the problem becomes larger than Trump.

What Lynch still treats largely as a collection of failed policies may be part of structural decline: diminishing relative economic power, rising costs of coercion, alternative financial and commercial routes, greater autonomy among allies, growing military capacities among adversaries and, above all, learning by others.

Power is not simply having more aircraft. Power is the ability to change somebody else’s behavior at a tolerable cost. When the other side learns how to raise the cost of coercion, the same arsenal produces less power.

Under those conditions, the choice may no longer be between a mad emperor and a wise emperor.

The age of the emperor itself may be ending.

Lynch approaches that conclusion and, just before seeing it, covers his eyes with his hands and turns back. Near the end of the article, he writes: “Washington struggles to conceive of a Middle East it does not dominate.” It is an extraordinarily precise diagnosis—perhaps precise enough to include its author.

Lynch can imagine a West Asia in which America dominates less, behaves more humanely, bombs less and negotiates more. He still has difficulty imagining one in which America simply no longer possesses the authority to determine the regional order.

That is the difference between restraint and incapacity.

And if the latter is what is happening, America’s real problem in the next decade is not how to become a wise emperor again. It is whether, before an attempt to restore empire burns through what remains of its power, it can understand that it is no longer the emperor.

Tags

• Iran
• analysis
• Donald Trump
• empire