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