Middle Nation Content Talks | Iran & the Axis of Assistance

Welcome. Welcome. Happy to have you here. Looking forward to today's controversial session. This topic is gonna be pretty heavy.

Lots of stuff to cover, different dynamics to cover, inshallah. So hope you enjoy it. Hope we all keep an open mind. I just wanted to give a short introduction. So, you know, as the title of the space shows, this, space will be about the video that brother Shahid has uploaded yesterday, which is Iran and the access of assistance.

So, you know, this is a very important topic because it is an important regional player, and we need to understand what his intentions are, what his relations are, what is his role in the future global, you know, order. So, Inshallah, I think this is very important to address, and that's why we have all the space to cement our understanding, to reflect on it, to try to question our own biases, inshallah. So it's very important, and this is our motivation and my motivation to hold the space. So, hopefully, inshallah, it will achieve its purpose. So without further ado, I'm gonna play the video now, inshallah.

So enjoy listening to it, and let me know if the sound is unclear or something in the content group. Thank you very much, and enjoy, and see you after this video. K. Brother Shahid joined us, so he can listen to himself once more.

Well, you know, there's a whole narrative a whole narrative that has spread over the Middle East, the Israel Palestine conflict, the whole Middle East. And it's like a canvas onto which a very different picture of the situation has been painted than the reality of the situation that's underneath the canvas. And everyone talks about the situation based on what has been painted on the canvas, and no one talks about the reality that it's covering. And I'm talking about Iran and the so called axis of resistance. This is a carefully crafted narrative designed to obscure the reality of the region and the relationships in the region.

Look. I was 10 years old when the Iranian revolution occurred, and I was following events even at that time, news. At that time, it was a big story in America, especially with The US hostages, you know, the embassy hostages and so on. So I've been listening to this narrative ever since for forty five years. We've been told for forty five years that Iran is just about to wipe Israel off the bat.

Israel has told us this, Iran has told us this, and America has told us this without interruption for nearly half a century. And for at least the last twenty years, Iran has been two weeks away from possessing nuclear weapons. So in other words, supposedly, Iran and Israel have been on the brink of catastrophic total war since I was 10 years old. Well, that's quite a wide brink. No one ever stepped in to try to ease the tensions either.

Isn't that something? I mean, for half a century, these two countries have been allegedly engaged in hostilities in technically a state of war, and there's never been any negotiations. You know? No memorandums of understanding. No truces.

No nothing. And no one, not The US, not the EU, not the United Nations, not even Jimmy Carter, has ever made any attempt to try to bring these two sides to a table to try to take the region back from the alleged precipice of war. Now look at any other major conflict. The US and The Soviet Union during the Cold War were on the brink of nuclear annihilation, but still they found a way to negotiate. India and Pakistan, sworn enemies with nuclear weapons pointed at each other, still they sit down and talk.

Even North Korea and South Korea who are technically still at war. They've had countless negotiations, but here with Iran and Israel, nothing for almost half a century. This is virtually unheard of in the history of global politics. In almost any conflict and every conflict around the world when the animosity drags on for too long, international players step in. Mediators step in.

They try to bring, you know, both sides to the table to try to broker some kind of understanding. If only for the for the sake of regional security, the UN, the EU, somebody comes in, but not here. There's been no major international push ever to resolve this supposed intention, not from The United States, not from Europe, not from the United Nations. Why is that? Why has no one ever tried to ease the tensions between these two nations?

And yet somehow, without any peace efforts, without any negotiations, somehow, without any attempt to avert this catastrophic war that they keep scaring us with, war has never happened either. It's remarkable. Well, I'll tell you why. Because Israel and Iran have a symbiotic relationship. Not a genuinely hostile relationship.

No. They both have a common interest, which is to divide and undermine the Arab world, and that's exactly what they've been doing for decades. This is a toxic marriage of convenience. I'm not saying that they like each other, but they're useful for each other and useful to America. Or, anyway, that's the way it's been.

That's that's that's been the case for a long time. I mean, many things are changing. As I've talked about many times, the regional and global order world order for the past fifty years is no longer viable. And we're in a period of transition, and it's a very rough transition. And it's a very dangerous transition, particularly for Iran.

It's a very dangerous transition for Iran, and I'm not sure if they can transition. You know, after 1979, Iran made a very public commitment to a particular style of government, a sectarian religious style of government. And then they had an accompanying ethos as a nation with that. And that locked them in to a great extent on how how they have to present themselves to the world and how they have to interact with the world and and in the region. You know?

In the early days, during the time of Khomeini, it was even more radical than it is now, relatively speaking, and maybe even more genuine than it is now. But even then, even when they presented themselves as anti West, anti Israel, anti imperialist, and so on, Even at that time, Iran was still always pragmatic and practical and practiced realpolitik. You know, for the first ten years of the so called Islamic Republic, at the very same time that they were calling for the destruction of Israel, they were buying weapons from Israel and engaged in high level military intelligence cooperation. In fact, the more they cooperate and the more they coordinate, the more they have to proclaim their hostility. It's a performance to mask their pragmatism.

They were fighting Saddam Hussein in the nineteen eighties and buying weapons from Israel and getting weapons from America, sanctions notwithstanding, and anti American, anti Israel rhetoric notwithstanding. In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon, there were a lot of resistance groups fighting them in Lebanon, Sunni groups, secular groups, and other Shiite groups. But Iran created Hezbollah, funded them, armed them, and trained them to the hilt to where they eclipsed everyone else. This gave Iran the ability to dictate and control the resistance to Israel. It also gave them the ability to sow a sectarian division in Lebanon, radicalize the population, and exacerbate the civil war, all of which increased their influence in Lebanon.

And it undermined the Sunnis and undermined the power and the authority of the Lebanese government. I mean, the fact of the matter is Hezbollah has killed many, many times more Lebanese and Syrian Sunnis than they have ever killed Israelis. This is just a fact. I mean, if we were to go by the body count, we would have to conclude that Hezbollah's main mission has been against Sunni Muslims, not against Zionists. You know, the government of Lebanon, by the way, has always traditionally, historically, and now been much more aligned with Saudi Arabia and supported by Saudi Arabia and supported by The Gulf.

Iran has not really invested much in Lebanon outside of Hezbollah. In fact, Iran has primarily only been investing in militancy across the region, not in infrastructure, not in hospitals, not in business, and so forth. And that's been enough for them. That's been enough to make them useful until now. So they were able to basically take control of opposition to Israel in Lebanon in the eighties.

And then in the nineties and the early two thousands, they provided the most significant funding for Hamas in Gaza in the early days, thereby giving them control to one extent or another over the opposition to Israel there. They also funded the Islamic Jihad in Gaza at that time. So they established their their whole over opposition groups, over opposition to Israel, resistance to Israel in the North and in the South. And then they more or less lost interest in supporting Hamas once Hamas came to power in Gaza. This this people overlook this.

When they became a government, when Hamas became a government, when the blockade was imposed, and when active resistance operations were no longer their main concern and they just had to survive, at that point, Qatar took over, and they became their main supporters. It's because of them that Hamas was even able to have an administration in Gaza for all these years. Once they posed less of a threat to Israel, Iran lost interest. It was no longer important to them to control them. Now you might interpret this as being because Iran was just so committed to militant resistance against Israel that when Hamas became a government and necessarily deemphasized active resistance operations, Iran was no longer interested.

But you might consider the fact that between the creation of Hamas and 2007 with Iranian backing, Hamas's main method for confronting Israel was by means of suicide bombings, not by sophisticated technology. Meanwhile, Hezbollah was being armed to the teeth while Gazan resistance fighters from Hamas and Islamic Jihad still had to strap on bombs and deliver them with their own bodies. Now Iran did help them get the their first Assam rockets. But compare the Hassan rockets with the missiles that Hezbollah has and and that Hezbollah had at that time. No.

In my opinion, it looks like Iran was controlling the resistance in Gaza, not empowering it. They were restricting the resistance, and they armed and funded Hezbollah in Lebanon to the point that they became a a a rival state in and of themselves. They became a parallel power structure in Lebanon, and no one else could emerge in terms of resistance. It's also worth noting that most outside funding for Gaza in terms of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, clinics, and so on, that's also come from The Gulf countries predominantly, not Iran. And the same goes for Lebanon.

Like I said, spending and investment in terms of things that that that promote social stability, all of that's coming from The Gulf. I'm saying that Iran has only ever acted pragmatically in the region for the purpose of increasing their own influence and undermining the stability, the unity, and the security of the Arab Sunni Muslims. And part of that has been to gain leverage and control over the anti Israel resistance in the region. This is simply irrefutable. And in this regard, Israel's interest and Iran's interest coincide.

Now this will sound conspiratorial or maybe even insulting to Iran if you are fully and heavily invested in Iran's rhetoric and in that narrative that they're standing against Israel and they're standing against the West and so on. This is the narrative that Iran, Israel, and America have committed to, and it gives Iran credibility, which increases their influence. And it gives Israel the perfect pretext for their claim of being under a constant existential threat, a claim which serves the purpose of the American military industrial complex funneling billions of taxpayer dollars into the weapons sector to protect Israel supposedly. It's a symbiotic relationship, mutually beneficial for all three of these countries, Iran, America, and Israel. Iran has been extremely pragmatic and cunning and strategic, and they've actually positioned themselves as much more useful to America and to Israel than threatening.

That's why no war has ever actually broken out in fifty years despite all the hype. That's why Iraq was attacked after nine eleven instead of Iran, why Baghdad got shot and odd instead of Tehran, why Saddam Hussein was the one who got hanged instead of Khamenei, and why basically delivering Iraq to Iran's sphere of influence was not an accident. All this time you thought that that The US and Israel were trying to contain Iran. No. They have observably and demonstrably done nothing but expand Iran's reach.

That's not accidental because they are useful, not threatening. Not threatening anyway to to America, not threatening to Israel. No. This is why the missile attacks in April and this week were coordinated, were orchestrated, and were choreographed, and why they did not result in any deliberate casualties, and why very little damage was actually done, because this is a form of political or or geopolitical theater. Now having said all of that, this is just to give you an understanding, a more accurate understanding of the role that Iran has actually played in the region for the last fifty years because it's radically different from the narrative that we've all been fed for decades.

However, as I have talked about many times, the global order is changing. Everybody's role in The Middle East is being altered, including Israel and including Iran. The BRICS aligned faction of the OCGFC, as again, I've mentioned many times. I've mentioned it repeatedly. They appear to be supportive of Mohammed bin Salman's vision for the Middle East, which will mean stability and end to conflict development across the whole Arab side of the Mediterranean and so on.

Now in my opinion, at least three elements in the region will need to be removed for any of this to work, elements which have, until now, defined the region. They are Zionism that has to go, militancy that has to go, and the sectarian religious regime in Iran. So for the first time in fifty years, it's actually possible that Iran might actually be in danger. I don't think anyone seriously wants regime change in Iran to happen by means of war because the collateral regional damage will be so massive. But for the first time in half a century, it could it could really happen at this point.

I personally don't think that it will. But for the first time, it is a possibility. I think that Iran is making what you could call good faith gestures even though that's a pretty grimly ironic term to use in this case. Gestures of good faith to try to show Briggs and to show the OCGFC that they can cooperate. Like I said, they boxed themselves in with their staunchly ideological posturing and public ethos.

And now they have to try to prove that they can pivot away from that. I think this is why they allowed the assassination of Ismail Hania and why they cooperated with Israel in the pager attacks, which is Israel does not have the intelligence capacity to have done that alone. No. And it's why so many senior Hezbollah officers have been successfully eliminated by Israel and why Hassan Nasrallah was sacrificed? Because, yes, I believe he was sacrificed.

Because, look, it has been an understanding for decades between America, Israel, and Iran that Hassan Nasrallah was not to be killed because they had a belief that that were he to be assassinated, it would necessarily result in escalation and retaliation by Iran, and nobody wanted to see that happen. Because, again, for the sake of their image, the yon necessarily would have to do that if Nasrallah was murdered. However, now I believe that everyone agrees that these groups, both Hamas and Hezbollah, have to be dissolved. Well, you can't just disband them. That's not feasible.

So you have to dissolve them amidst the fog of war behind smoke screen, the the screen of gun smoke. And no matter what anyone says, the killing of Hassan Nasrallah was a massive blow to Hezbollah. And the fact that Iran retaliated for Hania, the pagers, and the killing of Hassan Nasrallah altogether in one visibly dramatic but practically unsubstantial attack, well, that says volumes. It says to me that Iran is trying to not only distance themselves from these militant groups, from both Hamas and Hezbollah, but especially Hezbollah, but they're actually cooperating in their gradual elimination. This is what the this is what's going on with Israel and Lebanon right now, in my opinion.

The idea is for both Israel and Hezbollah to get involved in a grinding stalemate that will weaken both of them. Their airstrikes in Syria are also mostly targeted towards Hezbollah targets. And Bashan al Assad has not responded in any meaningful way. These the the the locations that they're targeting are not being defended. I believe that Israel has been given the green light, not only by The US, but I think that this green light has been given by The US because Iran has signaled that they will not seriously respond.

And this is to demonstrate to BRICS and to the OCGFC that Iran is ready to play ball, and they're ready to participate in this new vision for the region. By doing this, they think, and they might be right, that they can save themselves from regime change and from actual war and invasion. Now understand, I don't think that Israel or, anyway, Netanyahu, I don't think they understand any of this. They're doing what they're doing because they're psychotic fanatics. But after decades of dealing with them, everyone in the region has fully understood how to predict their behavior.

And predictable behavior can be manipulated, and I think that Israel is being manipulated. They truly do not understand that all of their actions are doing nothing but weaken them. Their belligerence and their hubris is causing them to think that they're winning, but they're doing nothing but lose steadily. You know? Iran is not making any decisions today without consulting BRICS partners first.

They're talking to Russia. They're talking to China. They're talking to Saudi Arabia, and the whole region now is following one playbook. So the advice that Iran is getting from these other countries, these BRICS nations is all based on the grand strategy for achieving regional cohesion and stability and prosperity. And I think to a great extent, America's reactions are also being guided by the BRICS aligned OCGFC and by Saudi Arabia and by The UAE because the neocons, the political faction of the military industrial complex, their influence has decreased considerably over the last several years.

Not to mention the fact that even for the neocons and even for the Zionists, destroying Iran is not a long term profitable idea. As I said, Iran posing as a the big bad threat to Israel has been an incredibly lucrative premise for The US and for Israel. So if Iran is destroyed and either becomes an occupied country or gets shattered into a chaos and becomes a playground for militant groups or what have you, it will be significantly reduced as a plausible threat. So I think that for even the most warmongering faction in The US, which is the neocons, I think even for them, they understand that destroying Iran is something that they can always talk about, but they should never actually pursue in real life. I mean, maybe only Lindsey Graham is dumb enough to really think annihilating Iran is a good idea.

I think even those who want to still try to hang on to the post World War two world order understand that Iran has served as a valuable asset to Western imperialism and has maintained a beneficial balance of power in The Middle East for them and has been a source of division and destabilization alongside Israel. But for the more forward thinking officials in The US, war with Iran is understood as the worst possible move they could make. The only question is whether regime change can be achieved without war in Iran. That's an open question. Like I said, I think the Iranian government is trying to save itself from regime change by proving that they can abandon their historical role in the region and actually start cooperating with the Arabs and with The Gulf.

And the Arabs and The Gulf are reciprocating in good faith by declaring their neutrality. They they said that they're not gonna cooperate in any attack against Iran Because the priority for them now and the priority for Briggs and the priority for this faction of the OCDFC is to isolate America from the region and try to reduce American interference as much as possible. But the Iranian regime has a lot of baggage. I mean, I think they're trying to jettison some of that baggage now, but it remains to be seen whether or not this is gonna be sufficient. People need to understand that that that there's only one permanent power game in the Middle East, and that's between the Persians and the Arabs.

Every outsider, whether it was the Crusaders, whether it's the colonizers, whether it's the Zionists, the Americans, or even the Russians or the Chinese, Alsiders are all viewed as transient players in the region who are basically only tools. They're either tools or obstacles or weapons or or impediments of some kind that have to just be factored in by the indigenous people when they strategize how to achieve their own dominance in that permanent power game between the Persians and the Arabs. Now Iran has heavily relied on being aligned with the imperialists covertly for decades. And while they have enjoyed significant expansion of their influence as a result into Iraq, into Lebanon, into Syria, into Yemen, and so on, the boogeyman role that they have historically played is working against their long term interests now. And the countries that are really leading the the the effort for remodeling the Middle East and who have a real vision for the region is the Arabs.

And they're pursuing it by means of money, not militancy, by means of diplomacy and politicking, not collusion with the colonizers and subversion of out of governments, by building unity, not sowing division, promoting stability, not disruption. So Iran has a massive amount of adapting to do. I wouldn't be surprised if maybe within the next five years or so, maybe sooner, maybe later, depending on several variables, I think we'll see Iran actually proposing their own normalization with Israel. I'm quite sure that that's the endgame. If the Saudis, for example, are unable to successfully pressure for the establishment of a Palestinian state, well, then Iran can offer normalization on the same condition as the Saudis, meaning the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Or maybe they can demand a one state solution in exchange for normalization. But either way, normalization is actually the best card that they're still holding even though, you know, a huge amount of preparation domestically would be necessary before you could get the the population to accept it. But their proxies are gonna be ground down over the next few years, and they're gonna have to completely modify their national ethos in order to participate in the regional BRICS project. And if they don't normalize with Israel, then the GCC and Turkey are gonna get the lion's share of the economic leverage over Israel and over Lebanon and over Syria. And all of the gains that Iran has made in in in the expansion of their sphere of influence is gonna evaporate.

And their sphere of influence has always been their main concern. Let me be clear about that. I'm not saying that Iran has been working with Israel and with America because they love them. No. They've been doing it for very pragmatic reasons.

Now that might be incredibly offensive to to highly ideological people, but this is how states operate in real life. Iran has been operating this way pragmatically for the purpose of expanding their influence, and they have been quite successful. And part of their strategy has been to mask their violence and their destabilization against Arab Sunnis by means of loud but factually limited opposition to Israel and by posturing as Israel's big boogeyman without ever seriously posing a real threat to Israel to the point that they can actually launch hundreds of ballistic missiles against Israel without causing any major damage or casualties to Israel. But it has to be understood that none of these parties are friends. I'm not suggesting that America, Israel, and Iran know.

They simply have had aligned interests. Like I said, Hezbollah has killed Sunnis by orders of magnitude far more than they killed Israelis. And if you add to that the Iranian backed militants in Iraq and then add to that the Houthis in Yemen, where the number of Muslims that Iran has killed directly or through their proxies is off the charts. And through these means and through supporting Bashan al Assad against the majority Sunni population of Syria, Iran has been able to simultaneously divide the region, destabilize the region, gain greater influence in the region, strengthen Israel, collaborate with the Americans against Iraq, against the Taliban, against Syrian rebels, even against Turkey, all while maintaining their image as defiant of the West. And with them and their proxies being able to call themselves the axis of resistance.

And there's many people who genuinely believe it's true. All I'm asking, resistance against what? Resistance against who? Again, this has worked for them very well up until now, but it's not gonna work anymore. Ending Zionism makes the Iran sphere of influence unsustainable.

Ending militancy makes, you know, sphere of influence unsustainable. Because these two things have been the key factors in how they achieve it. This sphere of influence. Regional conflict ending makes their sphere of influence unsustainable. You can't keep a sectarian armed parallel government in Lebanon whose whose only rationale for existence is opposition to Israel.

If you wanna participate in a in a in a project for regional stability and prosperity, which includes integrating Israel into the region and includes a permanent resolution to the Palestinian conflict. So most of what Iran has depended upon to build this sphere of influence is becoming obsolete or is going to become obsolete. I don't know if the so called revolutionary Shia government of Iran as it is currently configured. I don't know if they can make the transition. But, frankly, whether or not they can convince BRICS and whether or not they can convince the OCGFC that they can make that transition, that might just be their best bet for averting regime change by means of either war or assassination or color revolution because I think that these are the only options that they have with regards to the future of their of their state, the future of their government.

But in in the long term, Iran does have to prove that they can play ball and that they they can approach the region in some way other than through the creation of malicious.

To everyone who joined. Welcome to our space. I hope you enjoyed this video recording. Thank you very much. Okay.

So to to anyone that joined us today during the video, we will basically look into this misunderstood role Iran has played in The Middle East, and it has played this role for the past basically fifty years. So, you know, contrary to this public narrative of hostility, Alludes that the relationship between Iran, Israel, and US is one of the strategic manipulation and pragmatic alliances. Alright? And these are rooted in some mutual benefit between these three parties. So we need to reassess Iran's traditional influence strategy, which was basically until now built on conflict and resistance.

Iran, based on what brother Shahid analyzed, is forced to either adapt to this new global order that is coming, or it will risk collapse. So before we start, we were thinking, inshallah, to mention couple of notes about, you know, open mindedness. Right? We should spend a couple of minutes thinking about this, especially in relation to this topic. Right?

Because it is on one part an emotional topic. It is on one part, especially given the situation that we are seeing with Palestine. A lot of people are invested emotionally. So we need to, you know, as inshallah Muslim brothers and sisters to remind ourselves what is the purpose of this. Alright?

We're not trying to blame anyone for stuff. We're not trying to shed a negative light, a positive light. We are just stating facts. Yeah? And facts, as Ben Shapiro says, they don't care about your emotions.

Alright? And I don't like that guy, but it's just funny to think about it in relation to this topic. So, you know, open mindedness, it's not just about hearing other perspective. That is kinda easy to a certain degree. Right?

But it is about being humble, right, that we may not have all the answers. You know, we are, like, constantly required to step beyond the comfort of our own assumptions. Right? And we need to deeply consider the viewpoint of others even when they challenge our own deeply held beliefs. Alright?

And this is basically the foundation of some sort of wisdom of some sort of intellectual growth. Alright? Like, if you're not open minded, you will not know that you are wrong until it's too late. Alright? But even more profound are the teachings of our beloved prophet Muhammad Right?

Many of the hadith encourage us to, you know, seek knowledge, sequence them, And this is regard regardless of where it comes from. Right? We need to be open with new insights no matter how unconventional they might see. And, you know, even the Quran itself reminds us, right, to think critically, to reflect deeply, and to be humble in accepting what is true. Allah tells us in Yeah.

And this verse emphasizes that to be guided by Allah means to listen, right, to consider, and then to choose the best path. Right? This is the true open mindedness. It's not about blindly accepting or blindly rejecting, but trying to filter information through this lens of humility, through intellect, and most importantly, of course, through Islam itself. Alright?

And this is always just about you know, this is about being just. Right? It's about being fair. And the only way we can as Muslims be fair and achieve this is by trying to view everything as objectively as possible. Alright?

So, you know, this is not a sign of weakness or doubt. It's in fact a sign of strength. Right? It signifies that we are mature enough to try to learn, right, that we have the courage to grow, that we, inshallah, have the wisdom to admit that my perspective is not the only one that exists. Right?

You know, the guy next to me might know it better. So, you know, and the prophet engaged, and we see this in the, we see this in different hadith when engaged with different people of different strata, of different faith, different opinions. He always listened and responded with patience, with wisdom, and especially with profound insights. Right? So, you know, I would like also brother Shahid to maybe or anyone else from our speakers if you wanna add something to this point just before, you know, we head into the deep waters of the ocean.

I would just maybe spend two more minutes thinking about why it's so important. And what is the purpose of this? Right? You know, brother Shahid can somehow just give two, three sentences based on what was your motivation and how do you view it, how it should be perceived, how it should be received.

Okay. Well, the purpose of it is the purpose of pretty much all of the videos that I put out, which is just to try as best I can, as best according to my own understanding and observation of, you know, fifty something years to understand the reality of any given situation. If you don't understand the reality of of any given situation, then you will make wrong judgments about it. And in terms of your own strategies and your own approach, will make mistakes. So it's very important to have a to try to have an accurate understanding of the world and of any particular or any given situation whether you're talking about an individual or you're talking about a nation or what have you.

If you listen carefully to what I said in that video, all I said is that Iran operates the same way that any other state operates, which is pragmatically to secure their interests. That's all I said. But there are people who have a need to believe in an idealized version of a country. And this this happens to, you know, to people of with regards to any country. The most prominent example, of course, is Americans about America where they believe they need to believe that America is this beacon of virtue and wonderfulness and justice and so forth.

And when you when you have become indoctrinated to that sort of a propaganda about your own country or about another country, well, you will never understand what they do. And then when you find out what they do, you'll feel betrayed, and you'll feel that that country is, treacherous and diabolical and so on. Now what I'm talking about with regards to Iran is not to suggest that they are treacherous or diabolical or any of those things, but I'm just suggesting that it's a normal country, that it operates like any other country does. And I think that they have done it extremely, extremely well. The the strategy that they have, adopted over the last forty five so years, nearly half century, has served them very well.

And they were in a tough position, after 1979. They were in a very tough position, and they have been able to function, they've been able to survive, and they have reached the point where they're thriving, to one extent or another, and they have in fact, increased their sphere of influence, in ways that you could not really have predicted in 1979, they've been very successful in their strategies. And I think that, if you have a need to believe, you know, this this is this is the the the response that I get when I talk about Iran. If you don't believe, Shahid, if you don't believe that Iran is valiant and noble and virtuous and perfect and wonderful, well, then you're just biased against Iran. In other words, if you don't have an irrational pro Iranian bias, then you're biased.

So this this reveals itself that the person who's addressing you is themself heavily propagandized and indoctrinated and has an emotional need to believe something. I don't. I don't have an emotional need to believe anything. Not about Iran, not about Saudi Arabia, not about America, not about any place. As a Muslim, you have to tell the truth, and you have to try to understand reality, again, as I said, as best you can and be realistic.

And understand, in this particular case, as in in in in any analysis of any country and any policy that any country adopts, you have to understand that, countries operate as realists. They operate, pragmatically and practically and realistically, given the options that they have. And Iran is no different. They're no different. But if you have the need to believe in a sort of a myth of an an idealized myth about Iran or anywhere else, you will be categorically wrong in your assessment of that country, whatever country you're talking about.

Shukran. Thank you, brother Shahid. Exactly right. Like, this is exactly what it's about. Right?

We are trying to find the truth, inshallah. And, you know, we are human beings. Human beings sometimes fall into mistakes. That's normal. Our father, Adam, fell in slipped into a mistake.

This is what happens. Right? We are not saying we are a 100% true in everything, but we are trying as best as possible to be objective to assess things for how they are, inshallah. So exactly when approaching the controversial topics, especially like the one we are dealing with today, we must embody everything that brother Shahid has said. We need to be radically open minded inshallah.

Sorry, sister Waheeda. I don't know if you are open mic by mistake. Or

No. I I feel on the way. Can everyone can you hear me?

Yes, sister.

Okay. I just say bravo to brother Shahid for this video. I was in my early twenties when the Iranian Islamic revolution took place. I watched the whole, crisis with the hostages, watched them being released, and watched the solidification of the new Iranian government after the release of the American hostages. I would venture to say that a great deal of, if not most of the people who have been commenting so negatively on brother Shaheed's stake on this situation, are much younger than I.

For years, I watched this, and I recognized after fifteen years of all of this saber rattling that that's just what it was. It was saber rattling on the side of The United States, on the side of Israel, and on the side of the Islamic Republic. Just saber rattling. I have watched The United States send troops into so many nations on so many pretext over these fifty years. Where did they not send troops?

They didn't send them into Iran that, you know, the Israelis didn't go into Iran. The Israelis didn't bomb Iran. The Israelis bombed everything and its brother except for Iran and Saudi Arabia because that's just a no go because it's where our holiest cities are. There are a whole lot of us, and everyone knows that if you bomb Saudi Arabia, all bets are off, bend over, kiss your behind goodbye because the Muslims are going to go crazy. So I have watched this, and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that this was, as brother Shaheed says, political theater and that it was helping the military industrial complex to have American tax dollars transferred to it on the pretext of having to shore ourselves up against the Iranian threat, which has turned out to be nonexistent and the same with the Israelis.

The the this it's kind of to me ridiculous to continue to believe the myth that has been put out there. How many times does the shepherd boy have to cry wolf before we figure out as his lock increases that there is no wolf? And why people are so angry with brother Shahid and calling him, you know, a turncoat and a Zionist? Tell me what damage has Iran really done to Israel. Iran can send missiles into Tel Aviv.

Iran has the capability to obliterate Tel Aviv, but Tel Aviv is still standing. Iran threatens to obliterate it, but Iran does not do so. And I understood that it would be impossible for that region of the world to gain stability with essentially an anational military as the second strongest military to Israel in the region, meaning Hezbollah. I I knew they couldn't continue, and I knew that the state actors in the region did not want them to continue. People do not willingly give up power, So I didn't expect Hezbollah to ever to ever say, well, you know what?

We're gonna give up our guns, and we're gonna fold ourselves into the Lebanese military. So this is what is happening. This is essentially a necessary cleanup because it just the region cannot continue the way it has been continuing. Right? Anyway, that's that's my take on it, and, maybe I'll come back later on and say a few other things that are going on here in America that I think people don't pay attention to and should.

Thank you very much, sister Wahida. Okay. So let's get straight into the video. Right? We've been waiting for it.

So, Okay. So right from the start, right in the first part of the video, our brother Shahid, he kind of challenges this narrative. Right? The Iran and Israel have been on the verge of this catastrophic war for almost half a century. And we can see continuous claims in the media, in the news, right, that Iran is this major threat to Israel's existence.

And there is always yeah. There was this funny also thing, right, where it's on the brink of possessing or using nuclear weapons, the scary word, right, that is used often. But this conflict has never actually materialized. Alright? And sister Wahida also spoke about it now beautifully, so we understand what is being said.

Right? So, basically, what brother Shahid implies is that this narrative has been constructed and sustained deliberately, right, and has been actually shaping perception for the past five decades. My question is to our beloved speakers. So if Iran has consistently been portrayed as this imminent threat to Israel and without any direct military escalation, what purpose might this narrative serve for Iran, Israel, and the Middle Eastern landscape?

Yes. Assalamu alaikum, everyone. Thank you for joining us today. Yeah. As as established in the content, Iran was supposed to be America's staunch enemy for the last fifty years, yet somehow America continuously accidentally bolstered Iran's regional influence.

And, again, I mean, we we are talking about a a a pragmatic state here, which is just operating to exist and and and creating its own narrative. And it started out hot because when the shah was overthrown by the ayatollah, it was unthinkable that they would be linked to the West in any way because everyone viewed the shah as a reinstallment of western influence after they ended the rule of Musaddak. But slowly over the years, a pattern emerged, subhanAllah. Somehow America and Iran seem to always have shared enemies. Of course, Iran can never be right, so America would swoop in, attack, and create this power vacuum that somehow always got filled by Iranian backed militants.

The pattern made those two a de facto coalition, like a good cop, bad cop routine routine. They both had the same goal, but seemingly have opposing views. So so when it comes to us perceiving Iran, it's it's quite a complex thing. Any group trying to assess this is left genuinely dizzy by this pragmatic way that Iran operates regardless of what point of view you look at it, whether a Muslim or an Arab or a Persian. But from an Arab point point of view, do they forsake all the Arab rulers and look to the Iranian power to restore Arab sovereignty while casting aside their own leaders as traitors.

It it it casts quite a mirage when when Iran is the one carrying the proverbial sword, so much so that that the Arabs are blinded to the good that the leaders are doing, whether it be an MBS who has been vocal for for Palestinian sovereignty, making it clear that he will have nothing to do with Israel. All the Arabs have been on the same page. Even in the United Nations here recently, we saw them speak out loud about how they're united, but most people are looking at Iran because of the narrative they've created. They're the ones with the sword. Ultimately, regardless of what angle we view Iran from, two things are clear.

They are extremely clever. They understood the covert methodology of the West and played their role to a tee, growing their power and crowning themselves the heroes of all Muslims. And the second thing is once the fog clears, there isn't a chance for such a regime regime to continue existing. The same clever planning that got them to where they are will be their undoing. The ironic parallel of Iran and America isn't just the covert nature of how they rose to prominence.