AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Ahmad Diab, President of the Federación de Instituciones Islámicas de la República Argentina (FIYAR), has addressed two of the most controversial global issues in a recent analytical note: the case of Jeffrey Epstein and repeated US threats against Iran. The Spanish-language version of his article was submitted to ABNA.
Diab, a journalist and analyst who also oversees Islamic affairs at the Islamic Center of La Rioja Province in Argentina, wrote that the networks of power, privilege, and corruption emerging from the Epstein file stand in stark contrast to Shi’a belief in sacrifice and martyrdom rooted in the event of Karbala and the uprising of Imam Husayn (a.s.). He argued that this fundamental contrast sustains the Shi’a perspective of resistance and steadfastness in the face of oppression.
“On the surface, the current pressure on Iran appears to be the usual pattern: sanctions, threats, and recurring rhetoric about global security,” Diab wrote. “Yet beneath this surface lies a much deeper division, a clash between two worldviews that can hardly be reconciled.”
He described one side as representing hidden power and influence, cold calculations, and exclusive clubs of the wealthy, what he termed “Epsteinism” and currents linked to Zionism. The other side, he argued, embodies the memory of Karbala, where Imam Hussain (a.s.), through his martyrdom, demonstrated that truth, even if it appears outwardly defeated, ultimately prevails over injustice.
According to Diab, the issue therefore extends beyond nuclear or missile disputes. “Here, two fundamentally different visions of the world have collided,” he wrote, adding that for many in the non-Western world, the Epstein case illustrates a perception that international laws are flexible for the powerful but rigid for others.
In this context, Diab maintained, Iran’s Leader is viewed by his supporters not merely as a political figure, but as a continuation of the path of Karbala, an individual educated in Islamic scholarship and linked by lineage to the Prophet (p.b.u.h). He noted that even Noam Chomsky has expressed respect for the depth of his reasoning.
Consequently, Diab argued, any military strike or intensified pressure against Iran is seen by its supporters as part of a long-standing struggle between arrogance and those who refuse submission. Viewing the matter through the Shi’a lens and 1,400 years of resistance, he suggested that a prolonged conflict with Iran could prove extremely costly and risky for the United States and Israel.
Addressing the Shi’a conception of defeat and victory, Diab wrote that the narrative of Shi’ism begins with Karbala: Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his small group of companions were defeated militarily by a vastly larger army. “But Shi’ism believes he did not lose,” he stated, arguing that his martyrdom eternally demonstrated that truth does not bow before injustice.
A fighter shaped by this belief, he wrote, does not see himself merely as a soldier of a nation but as someone fulfilling a religious duty. As a result, his endurance in the face of hardship and casualties may surpass that of conventional armies such as those of the United States or Israel. The greater the pressure, he argued, the stronger the motivation and conviction.
Diab also warned of the economic and geopolitical costs of a prolonged war in the Persian Gulf. The United States, he wrote, has historically suffered financial and reputational damage from extended conflicts, while Israel, due to its small size and limited population, may struggle to withstand sustained attacks. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz, he noted, would disrupt global oil markets and destabilize the world economy.
He further asserted that Iran is not isolated, citing regional allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansarullah in Yemen, and resistance groups in Iraq and Syria. Although relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan are not described as close, he suggested that in extreme circumstances, tactical cooperation against the United States could emerge.
Diab concluded by arguing that while the United States and Israel might initially deliver significant blows, if, after months, the Iranian political system remains intact, its Leader, or his successor, remains in place, and the public maintains that it has resisted, such an outcome would represent a major setback for Washington and pro-Israel lobbying circles.
An established superpower with roughly 250 years of history, he wrote, may now find itself confronting an actor that does not accept a definitive “end.” He added that, as Iran’s Leader has stated, the sinking of a US aircraft carrier would effectively mark the end of the political era of any American president in office at the time.
**************
End/ 345
