Between Tyranny and Empire: On Iran, Israel, and the Dangers of Hegemony

We must be careful what we wish for, because sometimes the overthrow of one enemy paves the way for a greater enemy. The Iranian regime is oppressive and dangerous, but in the political reality of the Middle East, it also represents an obstacle to the consolidation of an even more dangerous sectarian hegemony. Perhaps the peoples of the region should be allowed to decide their own futures – without becoming a battlefield for imperial confrontation or ideological experiments with devastating consequences.

Sead Zimeri

Now that, following Israel's attack on Iranian nuclear targets, the clash with Iran has escalated into full-scale military offensives on both sides and there is a real risk of the United States becoming directly involved in the conflict, it is imperative to clarify some differences that are often lost in the heat of partisan debates and simplistic ideological positions.

First, Iran is a totalitarian regime. It is a theocratic state, led by a clerical elite, that has been trying for decades to export its political and religious model both in the Muslim world and beyond. But this ambition is neither unique nor unusual. Any state that achieves a certain amount of power seeks to extend its influence beyond its borders. Saudi Arabia, for example, has acted with the same vigor, exporting its regressive and oppressive version of Islam – Wahhabism – to every corner where it has free ground.

We in the Balkans have experienced this more profoundly than others. Not through the influence of Iran, which is limited by the lack of a Shiite population, but through the aggressive spread of Saudi Wahhabism. What has entered our midst are not Iranian political ideas, but medieval, violent, intolerant and deeply misogynistic teachings that have undermined our national solidarity and cultural structures. This Wahhabism does not spread because it is convincing, but because it is rich. It buys devotion, it buys silence, it buys authority. The so-called Islamic organizations in the region are already discredited: morally corrupt and intellectually unprepared to face this challenge. They have neither the knowledge, nor the dignity, nor the character to build a serious alternative to this poisoned ideology.

I do not say this to soften criticism of the Iranian regime – on the contrary, it is an oppressive and destructive regime for its own citizens and for the region. But this does not mean that the side that is fighting it is acting out of nobler concerns. I want to dispel any illusion that Israel, in its offensive, is motivated by any sense of solidarity with the Iranian people or by any aspiration to liberate them from religious tyranny. Iran is a threat to Israel not because of its theocracy – Saudi Arabia is very similar in this respect – but because it is the only regime in the region that still has an ideological and military structure that resists the project of consolidating American-Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

Others have fallen one by one: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon – states that once represented radical and often brutal political alternatives to the West – have been neutralized or destroyed. And, in some cases, rightly so. Saddam was a bloody dictator, as was Gaddafi. The Assad regime massacred its own people and reduced Syria to rubble. Hezbollah, with Iranian help, paralyzed Lebanon and expanded the war in Syria to save Assad. Iran’s intervention was not for justice or to protect civilians, but to preserve its own sphere of influence. Thousands of civilians were killed in this quest for power. So I have no sympathy for this regime, which has been a disaster for Iranians and its neighbors.

But, from the perspective of Albanian Muslims, this regime has not been a direct threat. Its presence has been peripheral, while the real threat has come from the spread of Wahhabi ideology. The fall of Iran, in this context, may not be good news for us at all. It may further strengthen the influence of forces that already have roots in the Balkans – groups that are connected to circles abroad and that have no sense of community, justice, or the public interest.

I would welcome the fall of the Iranian theocratic regime. But only if it does not bring in something worse. And that is precisely why I do not support a military attack on Iran. Not only because of the devastating consequences such an intervention would have for the region – as we have seen in Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere – but also because I am not sure that the United States would succeed in establishing a sustainable hegemony in its place. If that fails, the power vacuum will be filled by even more regressive actors – perhaps Saudi Arabia – and that is not a path that can be called progress.

Moreover, such a war would generate a new wave of refugees towards Europe, with serious political and social consequences: increased racism, xenophobia and a further shift towards authoritarianism in Western countries. We would have a deterioration of the democratic climate in Europe, including our own countries.

We must be careful what we wish for. Because sometimes the overthrow of one enemy paves the way for a greater enemy. The Iranian regime is oppressive and dangerous, but in the political reality of the Middle East, it also represents an obstacle to the consolidation of an even more dangerous sectarian hegemony. Perhaps the peoples of the region should be allowed to decide their own future – without becoming a battlefield for imperial confrontation or ideological experiments with devastating consequences.