Author: kristel

January 14, 2025 – Sixth Edition
Kiss the ISIS Goodbye: From Tehran to Damascus

Note: The original version of this article was written for and published among an Iranian audience. The following might provide useful context for those unfamiliar:
- “Shia ISIS” is a term used to refer to the Islamic Republic in Iran, especially when referring to its crimes against humanity committed in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Many Iranians also use the term “جاعش” (read: Jaa-eesh) which is the combination of the words “Islamic Republic” and “Daesh (ISIS)”
- “Pharaoh of the Palestine Square” refers to Khamenei and by extension the Islamic Republic. “Palestine Square” is a square in Tehran, where the Islamic Republic held a celebration of the October 7 massacre on the same day of the attack. The square is known for government demonstrations related to the Axis of Resistance and especially the regime’s acts of genocide in Syria to keep Bashar al-Assad in power.
We must hold tight to Western human rights. Even if it means standing against the West itself. Because Islamic “human rights” (or any other similar fake version of actual human rights) offers no protection for any human’s life. Muslims have never shown mercy to one another, do not now, and never will. Assad’s Muslim soldiers had no mercy for Sunni Islamist fighters, and Sunni Islamists showed no mercy for Assad’s Muslim soldiers. Every ideology, religion, and culture know how to follow the formula of: “The bastard deserved what happened to him”. But only Western human rights declare that, regardless of how much of a bastard someone is, their human rights as a prisoner or detainee must be respected.

And we must hold tight to Western human rights even against the West itself, because the Westerners might one day shake hands with a prominent figure from al-Qaeda who has recently come to power. They may rush to recognize him, fly to his headquarters, and take photographs with him. Even though his “victory” wasn’t even a real battle—just an easy, pre-prepared conquest.

We must not forget that we have known al-Julani for a very long time. We’ve known him since when he used to shave his mustache and hang out with the ISIS. We must hold tight to Western human rights, demand accountability, ask questions, and never forget the truth, exactly because the Westerners may now rush to shake hands with al-Julani and laugh with him in photographs. But we must not forget who al-Julani really is, while we hold on to Western human rights against Westerners.

Few things are as satisfying as kicking the Shia ISIS out of Syria so hard they can’t even look back. Few things are as satisfying as the fall of Assad even when Khamenei spend over $100 billion USD of our stolen money and killed over 500,000 people to keep him in power. The humiliation endured by the “Pharaoh of the Palestine Square” is so grand it’s almost mythological. But we cannot let the momentary sense of bliss blind us to the truth. Under no circumstances can we afford to abandon the truth. – Afshin Azad and Yusof RuyanFar

Trump and Silicon Valley Fascists

Calling Trump a fascist is giving him too much credit. It implies he has a specific ideology and a calculated project, when in reality, he has no concept of such things. If you told him, “We can create a powerful America with communism,” he’d say, “Then communism sounds great!” The only thing that matters to Trump is being the center of the world himself, and then making America the center of the world. Everything else is secondary.

But the Silicon Valley capitalists who support him do have both ideologies and projects. For them, being in the spotlight is appealing but not the main goal. Their support for Trump isn’t because the Democrats are anti-capitalist, anti-AI, or anti-powerful CEOs. Republicans have shown the same anti-ness tendencies, especially with their conspiracy theories against vaccines and such.

The Silicon Valley capitalists supported Trump because the government didn’t let them into the game. They felt that no matter how rich they were, no matter how many engineering geniuses worked under them, they still couldn’t align the government with their agenda. It’s not because certain individuals in government were blocking them, but because the existing structure of democracy itself prevents such alignment. The democratic framework of America makes it impossible for the government to operate in tandem with the vision of billionaires like Elon Musk.

Here’s one example of how this vision works: The elites see China advancing in certain areas. They have the money, resources, and talent to develop similar advancements in the U.S. But bureaucratic mechanisms, much of which are tied to the will of the voters, stand in the way.

Thus, they’ve concluded that democracy is the obstacle standing in the way of their vision.

These Silicon Valley elites want America to be powerful, but they’re plagued by the arrogance that says, “Only we know how to make America powerful. If we, the Silicon Valley elites, don’t know, then who does?” And this is how fascism takes root. – Afshin Azad

Fake Countries, Colonial Projects, and the Stubborn Jews

Among leftist academic creatures and Middle Eastern Muslims there’s a recurring claim (one of many shared ideas between these two groups): Israel is a “fake nation-state”, or a “colonial project.” Yet, neither group ever clearly defines what they mean by “fake”, “project”, or what even makes a nation legitimate.

If recognition by the United Nations is the standard, Israel meets it, having been acknowledged at the critical moment in its history. If longevity is the measure, what is the minimum time required? How long must a people live under one flag and identity before their nation is considered legitimate? By that logic, the American nation, counting from its Civil War, has existed for just under 160 years. Should ancient nations like China or Iran view the United States as a “fake country” in comparison?

If a nation’s authenticity depends on its ability to survive existential threats and endure stress, Israel has withstood far more pressure than most nations and remains intact. Meanwhile, Syria, with its 5,000 years of civilization, was almost torn apart in just eight years of civil war. Does that make Syria a fake country?

What about China? Isn’t China a fake country because its government and people operate on the assumption that free information would destroy the unity of the state, and therefore, their state’s survival means can’t endure the stress and the threat of freedom?

If Malaysia faced relentless random rocket attacks, terrorist strikes in its streets, bus stations, and restaurants, how many of its young people would choose to stay and fight? Does Malaysia’s supposed inability to endure this existential threat makes it a fake country?

If the colonial origins of borders make a nation illegitimate or a “colonial project”, then is Iran a colonial project because its current borders are drawn by the British and Russians? If the Polish had been allowed to design their own borders, the map of Poland would look very different from today’s. Does that mean Poland is a fake country or a colonial project too?

Both leftists and Muslims regard all political maps of the world as illegitimate because they believe in the idea of a universal nation. The left envisions a fantasy of a homogenized, borderless world, while Muslims imagine an ummah—a global Islamic community spanning the entire planet. They agree that everyone should unite under one flag, but they differ on what should happen under that flag. Except when it comes to the Jews.

The leftist academic creatures and Muslims believe that all countries are fake countries and colonial projects, even if they don’t always say so out loud. But they are loud when it comes to Israel’s supposed illegitimacy. This is because the Jews have been more vocal about rejecting the idea of “all humanity under one flag.” For thousands of years, this group has shown no intention or plan to abandon its unique identity and dissolve into the majority. And this stubbornness ruins the leftist and Muslim’s fantasies. – Afshin Azad and Yusof RuyanFar

The List
January 21, 2025
November 20, 2024 – Fifth Edition

Prophet Muhammad: The First Arab Zionist

Reminding Muslims that the Quran recognizes the Jewish claim to the land of Israel is useless. For centuries, they have read the Quran through the interpretation of the Caliphates of Damascus and Baghdad—the same governing systems that only accepted Islam on the condition that it expanded their power, and otherwise held no respect for it.

For the modern Muslim, the Quran has no value unless it justifies Arab fascism. Otherwise, Zionism would be natural to them. Especially because Muhammad himself was the first Arab Zionist: Not only did he recognize the Jewish claim to the land, but he went so far as to change the original qibla (direction of prayer), which was toward Jerusalem, to Mecca.

The Caliphate interpreted this change of qibla as the beginning of conflict with the Jews. But in reality, it was the first sign of compromise, because there was nothing preventing Muhammad from keeping the original qibla. Despite the established hadiths and narratives, Muhammad’s conflict with the Jews of Hijaz was political, not ideological. His ideological disputes were with Christians, which later led to the famous incident of mubahala (mutual invocation of curses).

It’s almost impossible to uncover what exact historical events shaped the worldview of the Muslims of that time. But if we use the Quran as the standard, the difference between the worldview of today’s Muslims and the Quran’s is evident. When the Quran recounts the story of Bani Israel (the Children of Israel), its purpose is to tell Muslims that the same events that happened to the Jews will also happen to them. When it points out the mistakes of the Israelites, it is warning Muslims that they too will make the same mistakes, although in different contexts. But the Caliphate-oriented Muslim worldview interprets it like this: “God created the Jews as a means to test Muslims, to see which Muslim can turn the harm inflicted by the Jews back onto them!”

The entire idea of building a mosque on a site that had been a Jewish temple for centuries—initiated by the Umayyad Caliph—was based on this worldview that the Muslim is the center of existence, with all other creations revolving around him (just as he circles the Kaaba). Just as creatures in orbit —like bees and snakes—are divided into beneficial and harmful ones, humans are divided into those who benefit or harm the Muslim. And Jews belong to the harmful category. Based on this, Allah’s entire plan is to test Muslims on whether they can overcome harmful creatures like Jews and reward those who succeed by granting them entry to paradise. The majority of those identified as Muslims worldwide—especially those connected to the Middle East—share this worldview. It doesn’t matter how they express it or how they try to hide it. Therefore, referring back to the Quran to prove that their actions contradict their own religion is entirely pointless. The average Muslim has no belief in a Quran that doesn’t place the Muslim at the center of existence and at the pinnacle of global power.

In a video from Gaza, a man who seems distressed by the conditions of war shouts, “We don’t want Quds (Jerusalem)—just stop the war! Every day, we’re collecting corpses.” Even in the words of someone who dares to stand out among the Palestinians by calling for compromise, there is no mention of forming a Palestinian state, achieving political independence, or defining borders. In a typical war scenario, when one side can no longer continue the fight, the concession they offer as a compromise is usually political or strategic. Yet even among the rare few Gazans who dare to speak of compromise, the concession they are willing to offer is ownership of Jerusalem—a concession that has no impact on their quality of life or the future of their children.

Western academic creatures persist in reducing this war to issues of land or colonialism. But to the average Palestinian, even speaking of relinquishing Jerusalem feels like blasphemy. And his people sympathize with him only because they assume that in extreme circumstances, one might utter words of blasphemy, and Allah will likely forgive him. But if the hardship is alleviated and there is a chance for ceasefire or a solution, there would no longer be any excuse for such blasphemy. This is why anytime there has been a possibility of achieving a two-state solution with them achieving all they wanted except Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem, the Palestinian side rejected it. They see ownership of Jerusalem as the only valid goal. Because they believe Allah’s power is reflected through Muslim power, and Muslim power is achieved through dominance over harmful creatures like Jews.

This framing of the Muslim worldview and this war is something you will never hear in Western universities. Because your Western professors have only studied the Middle East—they haven’t lived it. – Afshin Azad and Yusof RuyanFar

The Middle East Doesn’t Bleed Red, or Blue

No matter how many American Muslims or Jews voted for Trump or Harris due to Middle Eastern events, both minorities share a belief: that they can reshape the region. Presidents of a superpower can influence the Middle East, but they cannot fundamentally change it—nor can their voters. This isn’t because American Muslims or Jews are too far removed from the Middle East. Or because the average American voter isn’t the most powerful citizen in the world—they are. It is because the Middle East changes incredibly slowly and remains indifferent to external noise.

One common mistake made by those outside the Middle East is consuming too much news about it. This region produces more news than anywhere else, yet it is the least responsive to its own headlines. One day one of the largest refugee displacements in history takes place here. he next day, all attention shifts to a pop singer reciting the Quran in a way deemed offensive. One day, streets are blocked in outrage over the bombing of a hospital, with protests so intense it seems at least three governments in the region might collapse by the next morning. The next day, the same protest site hosts a local farmer’s market, as if nothing ever happened.

Since news about the Middle East always carries traces of foreign governments’ involvement, overconsumption of such news creates the illusion that external powers are the main orchestrators of events here. Superficially, this appears true. In Lebanon, for example, people wait for foreign officials to visit and tell them what to do. But this is just the surface. Beneath this thin layer, the ancient currents of the Middle East continue their slow, magmatic flow.

Yes, a Republican U.S. administration might impose Condition X on Lebanon, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, while a Democratic administration might impose Condition Y. And Condition X might lead to one series of events, while Condition Y might lead to another. But both conditions fall within the deeper undercurrent of the Middle East.

Here’s an example: Republicans have generally been friendlier to the Saudi royal family, but the Democrats not as much. Yet, after over half a century of these back-and-forth warm and cold relationships with Saudi Arabia, the average Saudi citizen hasn’t become more liberal. The only real change in Saudi society over the past fifty years has been that hatred for Iran has overtaken hatred for Jews. Some mistakenly interpret this as Saudi society becoming more accepting of Israel. In reality, there hasn’t been any acceptance at all. What has happened is simply a shift, where one hatred has replaced another. This is exactly part of the Middle East’s deeper undercurrent. The composition of hatreds, and their shifts from the background to the forefront, is what shapes the region’s course.

When blamed for their choices on election day, Muslim and Jewish minorities in America defend themselves by saying, “We weren’t numerous enough to swing an election.” But as far as the Middle East is concerned, even if 80% of eligible voters in America were Muslim or Jewish, nothing would change substantially. Gaza wouldn’t become Singapore, and Saudis wouldn’t suddenly start caring about democracy. – Afshin Azad and Yusof RuyanFar

On Russia

1- The difference between Russia and China, though they pretend to be allies against the U.S., is that Russia wants a world without rules. When they say “new world order,” they really mean “world of no order.” In this anarcho-villainy system, the Russians can survive and expand their power. This system is already implemented domestically, where even oligarchs have no security. There are no fixed rules. Everyone must adapt to the ruler, whose decisions might shift at any time. That’s why Shoigu is alive, while Wagner’s leader is dead. Even though Wagner was a force of chaos, it still needed some rules to operate—rules Russia doesn’t provide. China, on the other hand, doesn’t want a world without rules. It wants to change the rules into a system that gives more power to governments. China doesn’t seek a dystopia but supports a rule-based order where individuals have far less power than they do in the American system. China’s issue isn’t with the U.S. government—it’s with the American worldview.

2- Because anarcho-villainy dominates Russia internally and is now being exported beyond its borders, predicting power dynamics becomes impossible.

3- Where it’s unclear who will gain power or where it will land, those most likely to succeed are the most ruthless or those deeply tied to the corruption and violence necessary for survival. Within Russia, radical Muslim extremists are stronger players in this field than anyone else. Even stronger than Russia’s loud nationalist bullies.

4- Russia’s territorial ambitions mirror Nazi Germany’s. Both are fueled by frustration over losing their global status, a desire for revenge, and a need to compensate for those losses. The difference is that post-war Germany was able to rebuild itself due to its rich cultural and intellectual foundation. Russian society lacks this capacity. It cannot escape the swamp it has created for itself. Regardless of who is in power, you can expect all sorts of destructive actions to come out of this society. – Afshin Azad

The List

January 21, 2025
October 31, 2024 – Fourth Edition

Region of Hate: Allah Bent Over for Islamic Fascism

In Islam, Hadith plays a fundamental role in defining what Islam is, because the Quran itself is so limited and ambiguous on “what should be done” that, without oral tradition, it’s impossible to determine the accepted course of action according to Islam. For centuries, this has been an opportunity both for governments and those who seek to change society. Because tradition can be created both collectively and individually. This is why we find contradictory Hadiths, produced by a tradition-making factory with different outputs across time and place. For example, one Hadith has the Imam, or the religious leader of the time, stating that one should not assist the illegitimate government, even to the extent of writing a single word on paper for them (since any government other than their own, based on their interpretation of Sharia law, was considered illegitimate). However, another Hadith advises that if your service within the government alleviates the suffering of ordinary people, then even helping an illegitimate government is acceptable! It’s obvious that these narratives stem from times when two competing forces were each pushing their own narrative: one aimed at politically boycotting the government, and the other sought to win over those who had previously been persuaded to boycott it.

These contradictions reveal more about the people of the Middle East than they do about Islam itself or the differences between Shia and Sunni beliefs. With the rationale that serving an illegitimate government could be beneficial for the ordinary people, one could justify working for any government, even one that places its people in the worst conditions.

The Hadiths on the apocalypse or the end of times reveal even more. The Hadiths set a detailed agenda for the Twelfth Imam, or the savior expected to appear like the Messiah, outlining what he will do. According to these Hadiths, aside from killing all Jews, one of his main tasks will be to kill and eliminate all haram animals. This reveals less about the savior and more about the people who crafted these narratives and embedded them into their faith. The Quran merely prohibits the consumption of certain animals, without offering reasons for these prohibitions or making any statements against the animals themselves. Yet, the Muslim who constructed this narrative holds such intense hatred for these animals that they wish for their extinction, expecting the end-of-times superman Imam to fully eradicate the poor animals. Their belief doesn’t only suggest that humans who eat pork are enemies of Islam; it extends to the belief that the pig itself is an enemy of Islam!

Naturally, a person with such animosity toward an animal will develop animosity towards humans as well. Their worldview centers around a hatred of living beings—of things that want to live. Obviously, this leads to hatred not only of Jews but of Christians and Muslims from other sects and others as well. It also reveals the roots of Islamic fascism.

The Quran’s ambiguity puts the burden on the Muslim to be mindful of their choices. But the Muslim fascist wants to remove all choice, so there is no need for anyone to be mindful. In an ideal ecosystem for them, only sheep would remain, so no one could consume forbidden meat, even if they wanted to. Clearly, the people intoxicated with this mentality will never embrace democracy, regardless of what the U.S. State Department or think tanks in Washington, D.C., might wish for them. – Afshin Azad and Yusof RuyanFar

American Brain Rot and Middle Eastern Degeneracy

Brexit and the 2016 U.S. election were both disappointing and somewhat hopeful for an Iranian observer like me.

Disappointing, because there was no longer any hope that Westerners would understand what the Middle East really is, considering they don’t even understand their own countries. The average American didn’t know there were rural areas, small towns, and suburbs in the U.S. populated by people who were no longer Bush-era Republicans—and then was shocked by Trump’s election. The average Brit had no idea how easily the democratic system in their own country could change course without the people understanding the consequences and was stunned when their fellow citizens voted out of outrage instead of careful consideration. How can we expect these people to understand the current affairs of the Middle East?

And yet, there was a small glimmer of hope—if Westerners now realized their huge blind spots and gaps in understanding, maybe they would start to learn and address these weaknesses next time.

But the academic creature never learns, or helps its society to learn. Eight years later, there’s still no sign that the Westerners have learned anything. If it had, we wouldn’t be seeing the same close race between a woman and that same Trump. How can you explain to such a thoughtless society what the Shias in the Middle East actually want, or what Turkey’s motives are? Even Western elites, who are supposed to be more informed and inform the public, are disconnected from reality. Just 24 hours after they claim Israel is trapped in a quagmire, Israel pulls off decisive operations against Hezbollah that Hollywood wouldn’t dare to imagine. And just 24 hours after they write that Iran is “contained,” the Islamic Republic launches hundreds of missiles at Israel.

It’s almost as if their response to events is just a series of polished “wow” statements. But ordinary people are capable of making “wow” statements too. The so-called elites fail to understand that Iran hasn’t been capable of waging a real war in a long time. A country without the required technology and with over 80 percent of its population living in absolute poverty cannot wage war. But that doesn’t mean they cannot cause harm. A country that can’t fight still knows how to menace, just like a six-year-old with a gun may not be able to use that gun to rob a bank, but he can still use it to kill his own mother.

It was exactly this lack of understanding that led to underestimating the Houthis, whether by media, political, or military elites. They don’t realize that Middle Eastern troublemakers are not comparable with troublemakers in other parts of the world. Elsewhere, if someone is causing trouble but isn’t able to fight a war, then they’re probably doing it for some minimal material gain. But in the Middle East, troublemakers keep at it, endlessly, without gaining a thing.

And when I say “endlessly,” I’m not exaggerating. It’s a historic fact. The Middle East has been the land of pointless actions for thousands of years. Denying this fact is nothing but self-deception. If a Canadian diplomat fails to understand this fact, he harms his own country; if a Japanese tourist doesn’t understand it, he puts himself at risk. Two hundred years ago, Iran’s monarchy couldn’t stand up to marauding tribes from Central Asia, and lost control over large regions. Yet a few decades later, that same Iranian society, following the lead of its clergy and elites, beat the drums of war against Russia! No one stopped to ask, “If we were helpless against a handful of raiders, how are we supposed to withstand the Tsar’s army?” The Middle East is the land of not asking questions. And because of that, Iran marched into war with Russia only to surrender more territory before even stepping onto the battlefield. That defeat wasn’t just a loss of land; it marked the start of Russian political and commercial influence in Iran. And yet, here we are again: the same Iran, taking pride in its missiles, even after tasting mass death and destruction in the war with Iraq just forty years ago. The Iranian society complains about their tax money being spent on these missiles, resents the war-like state that their government has imposed on them, and knows full well that their economy can’t even handle a minor civil conflict, let alone an all-out war with a modern army. But their refusal to ask any of these questions overrides everything else.

And Western elites fail to grasp any of this, so they proceed with more polished “wow” statements – Afshin Azad

Land of Incompetent Bullies

Some Israelis have correctly come to understand this about the Middle East: Here, there’s no good or bad, no right or wrong—there is only strong and weak. The strong decide what’s “right” and what’s “acceptable.” People here only recognize good and bad when it comes from someone they respect, and they respect only the strong. Acceptance is not the same as agreement; they might not agree with what the strong define as “right,” but because they respect power, they accept it. The only way to survive here is to speak the language of power, so even if they disagree with you, they’ll still respect you. Violence, especially the kind that shocks, works in line with this approach, because strength is defined by the ability to shock.

Some Americans, after September 11, also designed the Iraq invasion with this thinking. Humiliating the region’s biggest bully, which was Iraq at the time, along with a shocking display of violence, established who was strong. Muslims in the Middle East, after 9/11, had started to believe that America was no longer powerful. How this invasion played out or ended has no bearing on the fact that it succeeded in this goal. Everyone saw that the “lion” of the region was a mouse, and this left a strong psychological and political impact.

Middle Easterners either fail to understand or deliberately avoid the fact that this very culture of bully-worship has become their weakness. This bullyarchy can coexist with openly cursing the bully, because insults still respect and accept the hierarchy of power. In Russia, for instance, people curse Putin, asking why the enemy is able to easily destroy their ammunition. They aren’t asking about what they might be doing wrong, or why they entered the war, or any of the other obvious questions. Their only question is, “Why aren’t you [Putin] the competent bully we thought you were?”

Once this bully-worshiping culture is revealed as your weakness, they’ll seize it, clutch it in their fist, press harder and harder, and squeeze until your pain is on full display.

Middle Easterners have fundamental intellectual and cultural flaws that breed their conflict with Israel. But because of these flaws, Israel’s approach of using violence is the only thing that works on them – Afshin Azad

The List

January 21, 2025
October 7, 2024 – Third Edition

The Nihilistic Death Cult

In the year since the October 7 massacre, you witnessed a condensed version of Islamic history: The Arabs invade the Middle East, an invasion characterized by three defining traits—1- violence for the sake of violence, 2- aimlessness, and 3- disorder. And then came Iran, managing to make the entire narrative about itself. The initial spread of Islam throughout the Middle East followed the exact same pattern. Forget the myth that a small group of barefoot Arabs single-handedly defeated the mighty empires of Rome and Persia. The truth is that both empires were already in decline, and the Arab invaders filled a power vacuum. But the part about Iran making everything about itself should be taken seriously. The Iranians went so far as to criticize the Arabs for the religion they themselves had created, labeling it a deviation, and then proclaimed their own version of the Arab religion to be the authentic one.

The Arabs never built civilizations or governance structures. To them, the purpose of gaining power was accumulating wealth and spending it all on comfort. The idea that wealth should be invested in developing people, building institutions, and creating cohesive structures was an Imperial Iranian idea that they had implemented for centuries. The libraries and hospitals that emerged in Baghdad were not products of Arab thought; they were products of the Iranization of governance in the Middle East.

However, Western Orientalists failed to grasp why the Iranian worldview, which could have led to the creation of many civilizational institutions, did not lead to the intellectual, philosophical, and industrial revolutions seen in Europe. For instance, why didn’t Iranian-built universities foster philosophical or industrial revolutions like those in Europe?

The answer to this question is uncomfortable for Iranians. And it is uncomfortable for those who think they understand the Middle East. Iran never built to sustain or flourish life; it built to play a game with the process of building itself. Its default plan has always been destruction and death. For one who seeks power and dominance, building and destroying are the same. Turning the local religious caliphate inherited from Muhammad into a bloody and powerful empire meant being part of this game of destruction.

Understanding this mechanism is difficult for those unaware that the Middle East has been suffering from Iranian-made religious nihilism for centuries. In this religious nihilism, life—if lived merely for the sake of living—is utterly worthless. It only gains meaning when it is part of an empty, endless game. This is why today, outside observers don’t understand Iran’s desire to create tension with Israel, especially since it achieves nothing. Similar senseless struggles can be found throughout Iranian history. Iran spent centuries trying to weaken the Baghdad caliphate, only to achieve exactly nothing. They did so because engaging in weakening Baghdad was part of the bigger game of nihilism. Historians and Iranian Studies “experts” lack the courage to point out these numerous historical instances of Iranian engagement in power games that yield nothing. Because accepting the fact that a nation’s path has been one of emptiness for thousands of years takes immense bravery—both by the nation and by outsiders.

Whenever and wherever there have been records of antisemitism, it has always been about a failed society that refuses to accept that its failure is either blameless or self-inflicted. Beautiful landscapes and the polished physical appearance of the inhabitants never safeguard against this baseless hate against the Jews. When the plague swept through Europe and they couldn’t find anyone to blame, in Strasbourg, a tourist destination, they burned the Jews. When Ukrainians couldn’t find anyone to blame for their suffering under communist Russians, they collaborated with the Nazis and massacred the Jews. As long as this denial of responsibility and scapegoating mentality exists, so will antisemitism, and this denial has existed as long as humans have.

In the Middle East, the scapegoating mentality is all-encompassing. All Middle Eastern nations yearn for an image of a past that no longer exists. Because it’s all they have from their history—a picture of power, greatness, and authority. They cannot accept that it’s their own fault that they are far from that. Thus, they use Israel as a scapegoat for their hatred and violence. But among these losers, an internal war is underway. And October 7 was a complete reflection of this internal war.

One side of this war consists of those in the Middle East who want to live, and only wish to keep their antisemitism as a stable, non-disruptive hobby in the background of their lives, and only partake in it when convenient. The other side is Iran, which wants to continue playing its game. Because being part of this game gives it a sense of power. For the nihilist, self-inflicted suffering equals power. Destroying what others have built equals power. That’s why, despite suffering heavy losses, the Islamic Republic doesn’t change its approach. It sees being crushed and enduring heavy costs as part of the game. In this internal war, Middle Eastern countries will either become like the UAE or like Yemen (no, they won’t become Europe; the UAE is the best they can become). There is no third path.

In his recent message to the Iranian people, Netanyahu said Israel’s goal is to eliminate the Islamic Republic, not the Iranian people. If Israel’s political analysts were to be Volkswagens, Netanyahu would be a Lamborghini. But even this Lamborghini is not yet fully familiar with the Middle Eastern internal war. In this war, you have to choose a side and accept the consequences. There is no neutrality. And since Iran is on the path to Yemenization, and it’s too late to change this, the only focus should be on ensuring that it loses.

There is no way to make Iran lose without its people paying a price. As harsh as this might be to say as an Iranian, the truth is that Netanyahu and all Israelis must understand that the fact that we despise our government is irrelevant to them. The only thing that matters to them is that Iran is paralyzed to the point where it can no longer continue its game. The extent of this paralysis cannot be limited by international laws. The only limit is the point at which Iran can no longer play the game. That point may involve gruesome and bitter images and millions of Iranians may come to hate Israel. But that is insignificant compared to ensuring the nihilistic death cult is paralyzed – Afshin Azad and Yusof RuyanFar

The Peacekeeping Brother

“The US has repeatedly urged Israel to act less aggressively or avoid certain actions against Hezbollah to prevent escalation,” reads an article from a Western news site.

At first glance, this statement seems repetitive—perhaps even cliché to those familiar with Middle Eastern politics. It reflects how the U.S. government, influenced by the pro-Israel half of its population, supplies Israel with weapons, while at the same time, pressured by the anti-Israel half, tries to play the role of the peacekeeping brother. Yet, despite this repeated narrative, important questions arise: “If America’s allies, seeing what’s happening in Ukraine and Israel, realize that buying U.S. weapons means losing decision-making autonomy, won’t they turn to other suppliers? And wouldn’t that harm U.S. interests?” These are the kinds of questions U.S. foreign policymakers must address.

But beyond these cliché statements, there’s a deeper issue: the concept of war itself. What does it mean to tell a country, “Don’t fight to prevent more war”? Israel’s war against forces sworn to erase it from the map is like starting controlled burns to stop a larger wildfire, and the U.S. government’s logic is to stop the firefighters and ask, “Why are you setting more fires in the forest?”

And if there exists a way to eliminate terrorist forces without a wider war, why hasn’t the U.S. provided Israel with that plan? Is it patented?

U.S. actions over the past few decades suggest that not only such a plan doesn’t exist, but also U.S. policies have often allowed these groups more room to operate, assuming that, like other hostile actors, they can be influenced through diplomacy. But these Middle Eastern terrorist forces are unlike those in conventional wars. Traditional conflicts usually involve material wealth or resources, which can be negotiated. The British Empire, for example, sought trade dominance in China, while the Chinese ruler wanted to maintain control. Both sides could negotiate because their objectives were measurable.

But the forces sworn to destroy Israel aren’t motivated by material gain, which makes them impossible to negotiate with. It’s not that the U.S. has a diplomatic solution that others lack. The truth is that no amount of U.S. power—hard, soft, or diplomatic—can produce a solution in this context.

Diplomacy with Hezbollah has never been feasible. And the U.S. knows this. When Hezbollah bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing dozens, the U.S. response was to withdraw from Lebanon. The U.S. can afford to retreat—its homeland is far away. But Israel can’t flee, and it shouldn’t. A country with the luxury of retreat cannot dictate how a country without that option should fight. Israel’s approach to war is shaped by the reality that it cannot escape, not by advice from a distant peacekeeping brother – Afshin Azad

The List

January 21, 2025
September 11, 2024 – Second Edition

Islamophobia Is Credible. Here’s Why:

كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ ٱلْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ ۗ وَلَوْ ءَامَنَ أَهْلُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًۭا لَّهُم ۚ مِّنْهُمُ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُ ٱلْفَـٰسِقُونَ (١١٠)

You (Muslims) are the best Ummah (group of people) produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah. If only the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are some believers, but most of them are venial sinners (Surah Ali ‘Imran, verse 110)

The First Amendment protects the freedom to practice any religion and the right to criticize any religion or belief without restriction on the depth or intensity of that criticism. While criticism of Christianity or any other belief system is widely accepted and often encouraged in public discourse, this is not the case when it comes to Islam.

One example of this is the 2018 European Court of Human Rights ruling against an Austrian woman who called Mohammad a pedophile. The court argued that her comments “could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship,” as if a “defamation lawsuit” against an Arab Bedouin who died over 1400 years ago would have any effect on his one billion and something current followers, who are protected by the law to defend the misogyny, pedophilia, and blatant homophobia promoted by their religion.

Following the increase in security measures against Muslims and Arabs after 9/11, “Islamophobia” has been grouped with racism, homophobia, and misogyny, despite Islam being a purely religious and ideological choice, not an immutable characteristic. Anyone from any race or culture can convert to Islam, and it’s not tied to a specific geography. Yet, people with Muslim Arab imperialism sentiments aim to present Islam as an ethnic identity and attach an ethnic component to it.

Before we delve into why equating Islamophobia with struggles like Black rights movements not only dishonors those other marginalized communities but also contradicts the very tenets of Islam, it is important to clarify two points:

1-     Antisemitism vs Islamophobia

Unlike Islam, Judaism does have an ethnic component that is integral to its community. What is classified as antisemitism belongs next to other discriminatory practices like racism, sexism, and homophobia. Nazis didn’t separate the Jews who were considered “religious” from the ones who were not. Once one is born a Jew, they will stay a Jew regardless of their belief system. Antisemitism targets all Jews, religious or not, attacking their immutable ethnic identity. Islam, however, is a belief system, and criticism of it is not an attack on an inherent characteristic. Conflating antisemitism with Islamophobia is therefore incorrect and diminishes the suffering of those affected by real discrimination.

2-     “Profiling”

Claims of Islamophobia often reference “profiling,” drawing parallels with racial discrimination. However, these two instances of profiling are fundamentally different. Racial profiling stems from unfounded assumptions, while profiling related to Islam stems from the credible threat of radical Islamist ideologies. One does not commit a crime because she is black, and simply being black doesn’t translate to being more suspecting of criminal acts, which makes racial profiling inherently racist. However, all instances of Islamic terrorism that have led to the increase in security measures against Muslims have happened because of ideological reasons. Bin Laden didn’t organize 9/11 and also happened to be Muslim; he organized 9/11 because of his radical Islamism. While racism towards Middle Eastern people is a real issue, the fingers should be pointed at radical Islamism, not security measures and credible fears incorrectly labeled as “Islamophobia.”

9/11 happened because Bin Laden saw it as a way of following his duty to spread Islam, as made clear in his letters and speeches. The Quran itself promotes the idea of spreading Islam and “enjoining what is right.” As mentioned in the verse above, spreading the religion makes a Ummah – a community of people who share a belief, regardless of ethnicity. Mohammad envisioned this for the future of his religion, and he promoted the concept of a Ummah to prevent Islam from becoming an ethnic religion. Yet, over the centuries, Arab imperialist desires have turned this call for religious unity into a tool of colonization and oppression, undermining the original vision of a diverse Ummah.

            However, what the initial interpretations of Islam and Mohammad’s intentions were and how they were altered by the Arab Empire is irrelevant to the modern world. First, it is not the responsibility of non-Muslims to determine the meaning of Islamic concepts and verses related to things like war and jihad, and the decision about how to interpret these verses is a religious matter within the Muslim community itself. Second, Muslims have not yet shown any intent to reconsider these interpretations, so the rest of the world must base its understanding on the interpretations that have been officially accepted and practiced by current Muslims.

Therefore, it is fair to assume that a person who says they’re Muslim actually believes in Islam because their belief is what makes them Muslim in the first place. And when the Quran calls them to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, it’s fair to expect that, given the chance, they would follow through. This call to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, combined with Arab imperialist desires and Islamic nihilism, breeds radicalized ideologies, leading to terrorist actions. To label this reasonable fear of radicalization as a “phobia” is not only inaccurate but also a malicious attempt to strengthen and normalize Arab imperialism under the disguise of religious identity – Afshin Azad and Yusof Ruyanfar

The Fools’ Dichotomy

One of the signs of a hollow movement, campaign, or uproar is that it sends out contradictory messages:

“Stop building settlements — From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”
These two messages create a dichotomy where the 1967 borders both exist and don’t exist. On one hand, they want Israel to stop building further settlements and respect the 1967 borders. On the other hand, they chant slogans for a free Palestine “from the river to the sea,” which completely denies the existence of Israel and those very same borders.

“Call an urgent ceasefire — Globalize the Intifada”
This creates a dichotomy where no shots are fired and the war is supposedly over, yet Israelis are still expected to take damage. They push for an immediate ceasefire to stop civilian casualties, yet simultaneously call for the Intifada, which advocates for the genocide of Jews and Israelis, to globalize.

“Israel is losing the war — Israel is committing genocide”
This creates a dichotomy where the “loser” is somehow committing genocide against the “winner”.

These contradictions are tools for Academic Creatures to modify based on what serves their meaningless arguments, and make them seem intellectually balanced, with no regard for integrity and logic – Afshin Azad and Eric Calabros

The Foe Friend

Many have stated that the recent protests in Israel after the murder of six hostages by Hamas on September 4th shows that Netanyahu’s plan to annihilate Hamas is a mistake. What these critics are failing to understand is that in a democracy, there are no virtuous politicians. Each party portrays the opposing party’s representative as a Deev (Persian word for demon) and their own as a Delbar (Persian word for darling). Those who cannot blend in with either party—often calling themselves ‘independents’ in the West—question the demon-and-darling narrative. They claim the competition is demon versus demon, aiming to bring their own alternative darling to power. But often, politicians are more moral than many of their own country’s citizens.

When dealing with hostage-takers who hold someone for eleven months and then execute them once they realize the hostage is no longer useful, it’s clear that rescuing the hostages from the hands of these terrorists needs a miracle, and it’s best to focus on eliminating the hostage-takers. That’s exactly Netanyahu’s plan. He knows that Hamas isn’t looking to negotiate, because only those seeking peace negotiate. But the Palestinians are not after peace; their goal is to carry out a second October 7th, this time targeting all Jews. And they have no shame in stating this while the world praises them.

However, with every hostage being murdered by Hamas, Israel’s leftists pressure the government to stop the war and make peace with the hostage-takers! Their hatred of Netanyahu is so great that they’re willing to do exactly what Khamenei dreams of them doing.

Netanyahu is only supposed to be a successful politician, not a moral figure. Yet, without being a righteous person himself, he now finds himself in a position of greater moral clarity than some of his own people, who, driven by hatred, are putting the survival of the entire society at risk. In response, he has no choice but to take the moral high ground and confront these threats to his country’s survival by continuing to eliminate Hamas and prevent further hostage-taking and killings– Afshin Azad

The List

January 21, 2025
August 28, 2024 – First Edition

Academic Creatures

Innocence might excuse ignorance and stupidity, but the academic creature cannot claim innocence. Backed by the illusion of knowledge and unearned credibility from universities and academic communities, it directly inflicts harm on people. These academic creatures, thriving on taxpayers’ money, exist in a bubble of prestigious and non-prestigious universities—a bubble that insulates them from real life. They pompously propose theses for people’s lives without sharing in their risks while feeling elite. They inhabit the same universities that propagate the idea of the “danger of free speech.” Thus, academic creatures create a tribal aquarium where they only hear the echo of their own voices.

Crippled by a lack of common sense, the academic creature positions itself as a guardian of humanity’s welfare. It shamelessly presents itself as the pinnacle of knowledge, and as a creature with no real-life skills besides studying, it responds to any challenge with: “Go study!”

But wasn’t education supposed to save humanity from delusions? So why are the “educated” more delusional than ordinary people?

Academic creatures cannot recognize they are trapped in a bubble. Consequently, they repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors. When people distrust them, they become agitated and respond in ways that further erode trust. The academic creature does not strive to align with reality or communicate effectively with the public. Instead, it seeks the admiration of fellow academic creatures.

Because they are “educated,” nothing in the outside world happens that can prove them wrong. Their worldview is binary: 1- If you don’t listen to me, things will get worse. 2- Things got worse because you didn’t listen to me.

This disconnect becomes perilous when Western academic creatures involve themselves in Middle Eastern conflicts. Even if we discard the ideology of terrorists like Al-Baghdadi ourselves, the Western academic creature will reintroduce them to us as “Islamic thinkers.” If we rise against Islamofascist regimes and movements, the Western academic creature will resell them to us as “resistance movements.” The academic creature views the Middle East as a playground to vent its disdain for freedom and Western civilization, relying on democratic governments and Western liberalism to fund its indulgences.

The bad news is that, in addition to war, water crises, drought, and other misfortunes, our region is also grappling with an intellectual drought; otherwise, we would not have reached this stage. The academic creature keeps feeding on us and feeding us delusions because we, Middle Easterners, are poor in modern humanities.

But the navid–Persian for ‘good news’–is that a bunch of pitiable, freeloader Western academic creatures are not supposed to save us from this poverty. And we must not satisfy their savior complex by continually letting them try to make a mockery of our lives–Afshin Azad, Eric Calabros, and Yusof Ruyanfar

“Shove the Palestinian Flag Up Your Ass”

On October 9, 2023, just two days after the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, a video went viral on Iranian social media platforms like Twitter and Instagram—spaces that are heavily censored and accessed primarily through VPNs. The footage showed Iranians at a soccer match in Tehran chanting, “Shove the Palestinian flag up your ass,” in protest against the flags displayed at the stadium to show state-sponsored support for the October 7 massacre and to spread further propaganda. In a totalitarian regime, the government considers itself the owner of public spaces, using them as vehicles for propaganda without regard for their intended purpose. This misuse of public spaces creates opportunities for the public to protest even in non-conventional places like stadiums, and while regular sports fans might not typically be looked to for political opinions—especially when these same men continue to buy tickets, inadvertently supporting the oppressive system that excludes women sports fans from stadiums—this spontaneous chant was more than a political statement. It was a clear stand against the atrocities committed on October 7, expressing the rightful anger of Iranians toward a regime that uses their money to fund and support terrorist groups in the region. To this day, the slogan is a symbol of support for Israelis and the victims of October 7, a denunciation of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, and a powerful expression of the clear separation between the people of Iran and the Islamic Republic–Yusof Ruyanfar

********

If the Jews packed up and went to live on the moon, people on Earth would say, “The Jews exert the gravitational forces of the moon, are responsible for tides, and therefore have disrupted the lives of millions.” And with this rationale, they would justify their antisemitism. This tendency to blame the Jewish people is a default in human nature; it is not dependent on any specific country or piece of land where they reside.

We [Iranians] were an exception to this when we, along with our king [Cyrus], conquered Babylon, saved the Jews, and helped restore the temple. We must continue to be the exception, always preserving this unique stance by standing firmly against antisemitism and always declaring: “Shove the Palestinian flag up your ass.”–Eric Calabros

The Iranian Predicament

While the majority of the current Iranian society fundamentally opposes the occupying Islamic Republic, this opposition results from a complex and multifaceted relationship with the regime, rooted not only in the total failure that the Islamic Republic has become but also in a broader historical context.

Iranians have a deep-seated distrust towards all forms of government, regardless of their nature. This is a quality that distinguishes them from their Arab neighbors. It is also crucial to understand that Iranians fundamentally oppose the concept of a religious government, both now and in the future. Contrary to what is often portrayed in the West, religion is not an integral part of Iranian society. Even historically, Iranians have always only been “engaged” with religion. This engagement was always more of a forced association to integrate their own beliefs and cultures into the religion (which explains the excessive Shia Muslim traditions and tangents that mostly have been created and are being practiced today by Iranians) rather than a voluntary embrace of religious governance. Despite this inherent distrust, many Iranians decide to coexist with governments, as historically they’ve accepted the rule of kings and dynasties, to avoid the troubles and dangers that come with challenging authority.

However, this apparent passivity should not be mistaken for submission. Iranians have a unique ability to completely upend the status quo, often in ways that are unpredictable and seemingly out of nowhere–with their revolt against the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979 being a historical example. Their breaking point, after enduring oppression for extended periods, leads to sudden and decisive action, catching both the government and outside observers off guard.

Despite their capability to break the status quo, Iranians are notably conservative when it comes to cultural change. With layers of crusty tradition built up over thousands of years, Iranian culture resists rapid transformation. Still, Iranians are more open to Western liberal and progressive ideas than many other Third World countries. They recognize the advancements and benefits of Western society but do so without losing their sense of historical pride, which often prevents them from fully adjusting to liberal ideas and humbly addressing their own societal flaws.

This historical pride comes with a pervasive pessimism about positive change. When faced with opportunities for progress, many Iranians remain skeptical. Yet, despite this skepticism, Iranians don’t see the continuation of the Islamic Republic even as a possibility. This regime is crushing their historical pride and stopping them from connecting with their historical legacy, but offers nothing but dehumanizing and theocratic alternatives instead of free and progressive ways for cultural transformation. The Islamic Republic is a deformed relic of ancient times, not fit for our country and the modern world.

Yet, there’s a reluctance to employ the violent and radical measures necessary to end this regime. This hesitation isn’t simply out of fear; it is also a cultural aversion to chaos and violence, even when such actions are needed to achieve real change. The Islamic Republic is a product of the Iranian people. And while they’re disillusioned with this creation, they’re still working to fully understand and address their discontent in a way that would eliminate the regime and prevent something similar from rising in its place.

Iranians are hostages in their own land—both culturally and economically. Their cries for help, echoed through years of bloodshed by the regime, are ignored by the world. Many Western authorities still think there are possibilities to tame or reform the Islamic Republic. However, this regime is nothing but a herd of incompetent evil and terrorist cows who must only be eliminated and removed from power, and it’s time for the world to realize this, too–Afshin Azad, Yusof Ruyanfar

The List

January 21, 2025