The civilizational confusion and moral bankruptcy of parts of the West are being laid bare every day the war goes on … worst of all are the West Euro leaders … As Zineb puts it, maybe too mildly: “The Islamic Republic forfeits the Arab street and finds, as consolation, the sympathy of a Western progressive milieu that the regime would imprison without hesitation were it ever to encounter them at home.”
Perhaps this crowd is best represented by Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Reid, both of whom have suggested that the US is as morally reprehensible as the Ismamic Republic.
It seems many of these people are more interested in peacocking for the BlueSky crowd than anything else.
And what about the moral bankruptcy of a so called democracy exterminating 70,000 civilians and expropriating legitimate inhabitants on the basis of a religious fairy-tale book called bible?
India is probably the only place (Shia) Muslims are protesting Khamenei’s death in the streets, instigated, I guess, by the local mullahs who want to keep their Iranian paymasters happy (who else would be paying to put up Khamenei billboards in Kashmir?). The protests barely get any coverage as the crippling LPG shortage dominates the news—and people blame it on Iran. The Indian government and the Sunni majority DGAF about Khamenei.
“From Cash To Gold, Kashmiris Send Donations To War-Hit Iran
[…]
Notably, donations started pouring in nearly a week after the Iranian embassy in India shared bank account details on social media to support the war-torn country. The collected contributions are expected to be channelled through official relief organizations, including the Iranian Embassy, to ensure they reach those in need, officials said”
Besides the sheer idiocy of these people, there’s one small problem: no bank wants to transact with Iran!
For the Western woke-green-left, Islam is an instrument for the destruction of civic society. So is "climate change", so is migration. Leftists brought Islam into Iran in 1970, now the same thing happens in Europe. We are destroyed by the people we vote for.
Until the Islamists gain the upper hand (like banning pride flags in MN)...
Say what you want about Islamists, they are willing and able to fight. The same can't be said for the dreadlocked white dudes and suburban Karens that make up the cultural Marxists.
They'll still be sitting in a drum circle arguing about pronouns right up until Mohammed throws them/they off the roof.
Same with VC cadres following the fall of South Vietnam in 1975: they gave everything to help the North win, only to be rewarded with a bullet to the head by the NVA.
I have had a few very bright Iranian friends who were part of the great diaspora just before and during the revolution.
They have all said that the revolution was a Marxist inspired takeover of the Shah's regime and that the religious elements were used only to mobilize the people. As soon as the mullahs achieved power they began to selectively eliminate certain of those serious Marxist revolutionaries.
Again, I must thank you ZR! This brought so much into clearest focus for me without wasting one word. You have my fullest attention, from here on in...
Excellent analysis, especially pointing out that the deafening silence and lack of outrage from the Islamic world speaks volumes
I had initially concluded the main reason the Gulf States hadn’t picked a side and weren’t retaliating against Iran’s attacks on their sovereign territory was because of how it would be perceived by this wider Islamic world, even though Epic Fury gave the region the opportunity to rid itself of Iran’s irritating malign influence.
I now believe it’s because they have come to the same conclusion as the Author and are at their most powerful doing nothing.
The only cost? A little infrastructure and collateral damage, and a sense of wounded martyrdom which can all be traded later for influence to fill the vacuum left by Iran’s demotion.
Syria’s new strongman just pulled off something remarkable — and almost nobody noticed.
While the world was watching Iran, Ahmad al-Sharaa quietly resolved the Kurdish question in northeastern Syria. No prolonged war. No international crisis. Just a swift military operation followed by a negotiated settlement that gave Damascus full control over territory it hadn’t governed in over a decade.
This wasn’t luck. It was patience.
Al-Sharaa waited fourteen months for the right moment — and when Washington pivoted away from the Kurds, he moved within weeks.
The implications go far beyond Syria. This is a blueprint for how a pragmatic authoritarian consolidates power in a fractured state. And it sends a very clear message to the Druze, the Alawites, and every other minority still testing Damascus’s tolerance.
The full analysis is live on The Unreported Angle.
What looks like a military victory is actually a masterclass in strategic patience — and a warning to everyone who underestimated Syria’s new leader.
interesting analysis that I think (wrongly, for US readers at least) assumes folks understand that Iran is the only majority Muslim nation with majority of Shi’a Muslims (edit: I was wrong & 55-60% of Iraq is Shia). I was in Pakistan in 1989 when the first Ayatollah died, and B Bhutto declared official mourning period I think, but not much actual mourning. US/Pak relations were different then, but isn’t it the case that a Shi’a centric revolution never had a chance to unite given Sunni (90%) v Shi’a (10%) global share within Islam. And Iranians are Persian and not Arab?
Iraq is also majority Shi’a. Because Iraq’s Shi’a population was so close to Iran’s, they knew what Shia’s theocracy looked like in practice, and had little appetite for going in that direction after Saddam was overthrown. Of course, there were plenty of Iranian proxies who were pushing for the Iranian model. Fortunately, Iraq’s most prominent cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, rejected the idea outright — and has lived long enough to make his view stick.
The split had a lot to do with the rise of ISIS. Because the U.S.-backed Baghdad government was (as it should have been) majority Shi’a, the Sunni population felt neglected and pushed from power.
The civilizational confusion and moral bankruptcy of parts of the West are being laid bare every day the war goes on … worst of all are the West Euro leaders … As Zineb puts it, maybe too mildly: “The Islamic Republic forfeits the Arab street and finds, as consolation, the sympathy of a Western progressive milieu that the regime would imprison without hesitation were it ever to encounter them at home.”
Perhaps this crowd is best represented by Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Reid, both of whom have suggested that the US is as morally reprehensible as the Ismamic Republic.
It seems many of these people are more interested in peacocking for the BlueSky crowd than anything else.
Peacocking, yes … 100% civilizational confusion, they have no idea what they’re talking about … right now, propagandists for the mullahs …
And what about the moral bankruptcy of a so called democracy exterminating 70,000 civilians and expropriating legitimate inhabitants on the basis of a religious fairy-tale book called bible?
India is probably the only place (Shia) Muslims are protesting Khamenei’s death in the streets, instigated, I guess, by the local mullahs who want to keep their Iranian paymasters happy (who else would be paying to put up Khamenei billboards in Kashmir?). The protests barely get any coverage as the crippling LPG shortage dominates the news—and people blame it on Iran. The Indian government and the Sunni majority DGAF about Khamenei.
“From Cash To Gold, Kashmiris Send Donations To War-Hit Iran
[…]
Notably, donations started pouring in nearly a week after the Iranian embassy in India shared bank account details on social media to support the war-torn country. The collected contributions are expected to be channelled through official relief organizations, including the Iranian Embassy, to ensure they reach those in need, officials said”
Besides the sheer idiocy of these people, there’s one small problem: no bank wants to transact with Iran!
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/from-cash-to-gold-kashmiris-send-donations-to-war-hit-iran-tehran-says-kindness-will-never-be-forgotten-11252779
For the Western woke-green-left, Islam is an instrument for the destruction of civic society. So is "climate change", so is migration. Leftists brought Islam into Iran in 1970, now the same thing happens in Europe. We are destroyed by the people we vote for.
Good point. Islam and Marx have long been allies against the West; right up until one of them gains the upper hand.
Until the Islamists gain the upper hand (like banning pride flags in MN)...
Say what you want about Islamists, they are willing and able to fight. The same can't be said for the dreadlocked white dudes and suburban Karens that make up the cultural Marxists.
They'll still be sitting in a drum circle arguing about pronouns right up until Mohammed throws them/they off the roof.
Lenin and Hitler used the same tactics. Erstwhile allies quickly became threats, and then dead.
Same with VC cadres following the fall of South Vietnam in 1975: they gave everything to help the North win, only to be rewarded with a bullet to the head by the NVA.
I have had a few very bright Iranian friends who were part of the great diaspora just before and during the revolution.
They have all said that the revolution was a Marxist inspired takeover of the Shah's regime and that the religious elements were used only to mobilize the people. As soon as the mullahs achieved power they began to selectively eliminate certain of those serious Marxist revolutionaries.
Sorry — hit wrong button. The Rashidun Caliphate brought Islam to Iran in the Seventh Century. They did it the usual way, of course— by conquest.
Rashidun Caliphate
Again, I must thank you ZR! This brought so much into clearest focus for me without wasting one word. You have my fullest attention, from here on in...
Excellent analysis, especially pointing out that the deafening silence and lack of outrage from the Islamic world speaks volumes
I had initially concluded the main reason the Gulf States hadn’t picked a side and weren’t retaliating against Iran’s attacks on their sovereign territory was because of how it would be perceived by this wider Islamic world, even though Epic Fury gave the region the opportunity to rid itself of Iran’s irritating malign influence.
I now believe it’s because they have come to the same conclusion as the Author and are at their most powerful doing nothing.
The only cost? A little infrastructure and collateral damage, and a sense of wounded martyrdom which can all be traded later for influence to fill the vacuum left by Iran’s demotion.
Took them long enough! I long ago read that Iran would fight Israel to the last Arab. Glad they finally wised up.
Syria’s new strongman just pulled off something remarkable — and almost nobody noticed.
While the world was watching Iran, Ahmad al-Sharaa quietly resolved the Kurdish question in northeastern Syria. No prolonged war. No international crisis. Just a swift military operation followed by a negotiated settlement that gave Damascus full control over territory it hadn’t governed in over a decade.
This wasn’t luck. It was patience.
Al-Sharaa waited fourteen months for the right moment — and when Washington pivoted away from the Kurds, he moved within weeks.
The implications go far beyond Syria. This is a blueprint for how a pragmatic authoritarian consolidates power in a fractured state. And it sends a very clear message to the Druze, the Alawites, and every other minority still testing Damascus’s tolerance.
The full analysis is live on The Unreported Angle.
What looks like a military victory is actually a masterclass in strategic patience — and a warning to everyone who underestimated Syria’s new leader.
Maybe those of us who didn't notice the silence of the Muslim world can be excused - the racket produced by progressives distracted us.
Sometimes the hardest thing to see is what is not there. Thank you for this article.
Iran’s going to lose a lot more before this war is over.
interesting analysis that I think (wrongly, for US readers at least) assumes folks understand that Iran is the only majority Muslim nation with majority of Shi’a Muslims (edit: I was wrong & 55-60% of Iraq is Shia). I was in Pakistan in 1989 when the first Ayatollah died, and B Bhutto declared official mourning period I think, but not much actual mourning. US/Pak relations were different then, but isn’t it the case that a Shi’a centric revolution never had a chance to unite given Sunni (90%) v Shi’a (10%) global share within Islam. And Iranians are Persian and not Arab?
Iraq is also majority Shi’a. Because Iraq’s Shi’a population was so close to Iran’s, they knew what Shia’s theocracy looked like in practice, and had little appetite for going in that direction after Saddam was overthrown. Of course, there were plenty of Iranian proxies who were pushing for the Iranian model. Fortunately, Iraq’s most prominent cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, rejected the idea outright — and has lived long enough to make his view stick.
Thx for note. Did not realize, but just read up and see 55-60% Shia in Iraq.
The split had a lot to do with the rise of ISIS. Because the U.S.-backed Baghdad government was (as it should have been) majority Shi’a, the Sunni population felt neglected and pushed from power.
The deepest loss is not only military.
It is mobilizational.
A revolutionary regime can absorb strikes longer than it can absorb the discovery
that the symbolic constituency it counted on no longer moves.
Thanks for this sharing this insightful analysis, Zineb. You’ve enlightened us on a perspective that isn’t being discussed much elsewhere.
Regardless of religion, race, color or creed, it’s clear that people want self-determination after all.
I hope you are right
Excellent work, many thanks
Great article thank you. Concur 100%.
Weak men make hard times
Strong men make easy times
The university = The "New Religion" (religion of nihilism)