By Hasnain Naqvee
Ahlul Bayt (AS) International News Agency - ABNA: Despite the Islamic Revolution taking place in 1979, nearly half a century ago, most people still do not know the basics of the ideology behind it. Not many would have read the Constitution, which is unique and a pleasure to read for anyone interested in learning an altogether new political and social construct based on the Quran and the teachings of Ahl al-Bayt (AS). Pure Islam lies at its core. The sublime dedication and bravery of Imam Ali (AS), the unprecedented sacrifice of Imam Hussain (AS), and the enduring hope associated with the promised ‘ideal state’ to be established by Imam Mahdi (AJF) form the intellectual and spiritual foundation of the Islamic Revolution. These are not merely historical references; they are living ideals that continue to inspire millions across Iran and abroad.
All humans are equal. There is no inherent conflict of interest among nations. There are enough resources available in the world for everyone if distributed with justice. No one must be oppressed. Everyone should be given equal opportunity to grow as a human being and to serve the purpose of their existence. A human being has the potential to represent God on earth. All efforts, therefore, should be directed towards the attainment and actualization of this potential. This, in essence, is the ideological framework behind the Islamic Revolution. Nation-states, as we know them today, are a relatively modern construct. In truth, all land belongs to Allah SWT, and all of humanity is His family, bound together by a moral and spiritual unity that transcends artificial divisions.
It is hard, if not impossible, for those with a defeated mindset and who are overawed by Western hegemony to appreciate any of the above. They rely predominantly on Western media narratives. Information ecosystems shape perception, often subtly but powerfully. It is not easy for those who have been taught that politics is inherently a dirty game to accept that there could be leadership grounded in moral clarity and spiritual discipline, following the role model of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). It is equally difficult for those immersed in a largely materialistic and hedonistic worldview to accept that individuals and societies can act with sincerity, purpose, and a willingness to sacrifice everything they possess for a higher cause.
The leadership of the Islamic Revolution has, over the decades, consistently attempted to foster unity among believers. It has sought to be a voice for the oppressed and the unrepresented, not merely within its own borders but globally. It has spoken against injustice, exploitation, and hegemonic domination at the highest levels, often at great cost. Whether one agrees or disagrees with its methods or strategies, this aspect of its posture cannot be ignored in any fair analysis.
In order to understand what is currently unfolding in West Asia (and it is important that we consciously avoid the colonial-era term “Middle East”), one must engage with two parallel strands of analysis. On the one hand, there is a need to understand, in some depth, the philosophical and theological underpinnings of Islam, particularly the concept of Mahdaviat, which introduces a forward-looking, justice-oriented eschatology into political thought. On the other hand, one must examine the geopolitical realities that have given rise to a powerful alignment — a strategic alliance of convenience — between Zionism, Christian Zionism, the United States military-industrial complex, and the Arab monarchies that function, in effect, as puppets. These alliances are neither accidental nor temporary; they are rooted in converging strategic interests. I shall attempt to unpack these dimensions in subsequent articles.
Language itself becomes a tool of influence. If you habitually use terms such as “Iranian regime”, “Iranian proxies”, “Houthi rebels”, “hardliners or extremists in Iran”, or “Iranian nuclear threat”, there is a strong likelihood that your understanding is being shaped, consciously or unconsciously, by Western media frameworks. These terms are not neutral; they carry embedded assumptions and value judgments. A careful and independent thinker must, at the very least, analyze such terminology before adopting it.
For those who are genuinely interested in developing a more nuanced and independent perspective on the ongoing conflict, it is important to engage with a range of voices that fall outside the mainstream media consensus. Some of the scholars and analysts who are independent-minded and whose views deserve serious consideration include (in alphabetical order) Douglas Macgregor, George Galloway, Glenn Diesen, Jeffrey Sachs, Jiang Xueqin, John Mearsheimer, Larry Johnson, Mohammad Marandi, Pravin Sawhney and Scott Ritter. One does not have to agree with all of them, but listening to them allows one to step outside a single narrative frame.
People ask me about the likely outcome of the ongoing war. In my view, there are three broad possibilities, each with its own internal logic and constraints.
First, the malignant-narcissistic Trump manages to persuade Iran to de-escalate or formally end the war, allowing each side to claim victory for domestic and international consumption. Such an outcome would be presented as a diplomatic success. However, the revolutionary leadership in Iran, given its ideological commitments and the hard lessons it has learnt over time, is unlikely to accept an arrangement that it perceives as compromising its core principles or long-term strategic interests.
Second, the baby-killer-beast Netanyahu, with the support of what I have earlier described as his four powerful partners via this strategic alliance of convenience (a reference to the broader alliance structure), succeeds in achieving his long-standing objective, one that he has articulated in various forms for over two decades, of decisively weakening or dismantling the Islamic Revolution. This would represent a fundamental shift in the regional balance of power. However, considering the ideological cohesion, resilience, and depth of commitment within the Iranian leadership and its supporters, both domestically and across what is often referred to as the "Axis of Resistance", this scenario appears highly improbable. It is more likely to remain an aspiration than a realized outcome.
Third, Iran manages to secure most, if not all, of the key demands that it has placed on the table, whether through direct confrontation, strategic patience, or a combination of both. This would not necessarily mean a conventional “victory” in the narrow military sense, but rather the achievement of strategic objectives that reinforce Iran’s position in the region, if not the world, and validate its long-term approach. At present, I consider this to be the most plausible scenario, though it may unfold over a period of time and through complex, multi-layered processes rather than a single event.
Each of these scenarios requires careful analysis, including an examination of military capabilities, economic resilience, internal political dynamics, and external alliances. I shall attempt to provide a more detailed rationale for each of these possibilities in the next article.
Understanding this conflict, therefore, is not merely about tracking events as they unfold on the ground. It requires a deeper engagement with ideas, narratives, and historical experiences that shape the behavior of states and societies. Without that, one risks mistaking symptoms for causes and rhetoric for reality.
The writer is a senior partner of a premier law firm in Pakistan. The views of the writer do not necessarily represent those of his law firm.
Your Comment