Today's Edition
Imam Mohammad Tawhidi*
Since the Khomeini Revolution of 1979, the Iranian regime has not presented itself merely as a regional state defending its national interests.
Rather, it has advanced itself as an ideological project seeking to appropriate the mantle of leadership over the Islamic world. This is the essence of the problem between Iran and the broader Muslim world.
Tehran is not satisfied with being an influential state; it seeks to position itself as the political and symbolic authority of Muslims, despite the fact that Islam’s religious, historical and civilisational centres of gravity lie beyond Iran’s borders.
The Arab Gulf states constitute the cradle of the Islamic message and its living heart. Mecca and Medina are not in Iran. The Islamic heritage that shaped the identity, consciousness and civilisation of the ummah emerged within an Arab and Islamic space far wider than the territorial limits of the Iranian state.
Tehran has, therefore, faced a persistent dilemma: how can it lead an Islamic world whose greatest symbols it does not possess? How can it compete for the leadership of the ummah while standing outside its historical and religious centre?
It is from this dilemma that Iran’s vast investment in the “Palestinian Cause” must be understood. For the Iranian regime, Palestine is not a religious cause; it is a political and symbolic gateway through which Tehran attempts to seize the legitimacy of Islamic leadership.
Iran has elevated the slogans of “liberating Jerusalem” and “supporting Palestine” into a form of political doctrine, presenting itself as the foremost defender of the Palestinian cause in the Muslim world. Yet this project contains a contradiction that cannot be ignored. Iran seeks, on the one hand, to monopolise the language of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, while on the other hand insulting the caliphs who built Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Within its regional environment, Iran appears distinct from its surroundings in language, doctrine, culture and politics. Such difference is not, in itself, a defect; the Islamic world has historically been built upon plurality.
The problem begins when difference is transformed into a permanent urge to impose influence upon others and to reshape the region according to a "Persian vision". Rather than coexist with its surroundings, Tehran has sought to re-engineer them politically and strategically in service of its rejected project.
For this reason, Iranian intervention in Arab affairs has never been an act of support for the supposedly oppressed, as Tehran claims, but an attempt to impose influence beneath the cover of polished religious and political slogans.
In Iraq, militias tied to Tehran have become a state within the state, exercising control over political, economic and security decision-making.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah has contributed to the weakening of state institutions and has bound the fate of the country to regional calculations unrelated to the interests of the Lebanese people.
In Yemen, weapons flowed to the Houthis while the Yemeni people paid the price in hunger, destruction and displacement.
More dangerous than military intervention, however, is the ideological project that stands behind it. Tehran does not approach the Islamic world as a diverse and pluralistic ummah, but seeks to export the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih as a political authority claiming absolute divine guardianship, allegedly deriving legitimacy from the awaited Imam Mahdi to Khomeini.
This is the height of fraud and delusion. Through this doctrine, loyalty is redirected away from states and national societies toward centres of influence linked to Tehran, thereby planting divisions within Muslim communities and draining their energies in endless conflicts.
Palestine is the most important card in this project. The "Palestinian cause" grants Iran what geography, history and economics cannot grant it: popular legitimacy in the Muslim street. For this reason, Palestine has become a political instrument for Tehran, its banner raised whenever Iran needs to strengthen its influence.
Had the "Palestinian cause" itself been the true motive, it would have been logical for Iran’s efforts to be directed toward building the Palestinian individual, strengthening Palestinian institutions, supporting the Palestinian economy and educating Palestinian children.
Yet reality shows that the greatest investment has been made in the instruments of conflict that keep the region in a state of permanent exhaustion and keep Iran present as the foremost investor in the shedding of Palestinian blood.
At the same time, Tehran views successful Arab models with envy, because they have proven that influence is not built through weapons alone. While Arab states, foremost among them the United Arab Emirates under the leadership of the late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, have built a developmental model that transformed the UAE into a global centre for trade, investment and innovation, Iran has failed to present a comparable model despite its immense natural and human resources.
While the UAE has attracted minds, investment and tourism from across the world, the regime in Iran has continued to export crises, militias and sectarian rhetoric.
The real competition between the two projects is therefore clear: one project builds cities, universities, economies and invests in the human being; the other invests in armed proxies, open-ended conflicts and transnational influence. The first attracts others through the force of achievement, while the second attempts to impose itself through the force of arms.
While Iran spends billions of dollars on its networks of proxies throughout the region, millions of Iranians live under suffocating economic pressure. Inflation consumes incomes, unemployment expands and protests recur, while the ruling elite and the Revolutionary Guard continue to expand their influence and wealth.
The revolution that once raised the slogan of supporting the oppressed has ended as a regime that demands permanent sacrifice from its people for projects beyond its borders.
Iran’s problem with the Islamic world is, therefore, not a matter of misunderstanding or ordinary political disagreement. It is a crisis rooted in the nature of the project itself. Instead of seeking its natural place as one state among the states of the Middle East, Iran insists on presenting itself as guardian over the region and leader of it.
While the ummah seeks development, stability and cooperation, Tehran continues to pursue illusions of hegemony and leadership.
The region will not recover its stability so long as there remain those who confuse serving the ummah with controlling it, defending just causes with exploiting them and leadership earned through achievement with leadership imposed by force.
The Islamic world does not need an Ayatollah hiding behind a 14-metre turban to trade in religion, nor a pseudo-jurist, nor a pretentious marja, nor a regime that trades in religion, blood and slogans to dominate it. Rather, it needs those who work for its interests, progress and stability.
*Parliamentary Adviser and research partner with TRENDS Research & Advisory
