Disputing Sunnah

I am going to record my first podcast about the Iranian intervention in Syria, its political rationale through the neorealism lens, the Syrian insurgency’s ideological ties to Iraqi Zarqawism, and the roots of the sectarian dimension of the war. Before that, I must add a few points. Iran’s relationship with Assad was purely political, and Iranian intervention in Syria was necessary to prevent Israeli hegemony. Otherwise, as I previously posted in one American report, Assad even bombed Hezbollah during the 1980s, had no interest in seeing a Shia theocracy in Lebanon, Iranian official political discourse until a few decades ago used to call them the “Baathist regime,” and most importantly, Imam Khomeini never let Hafez set foot in Iran because of his anti-Islamist policies and the Hamas massacre. However, politics doesn’t operate based on idealism; it’s almost always a pick between the lesser evil. We had and have no love for Baathist ideology, but Assad was the Berlin Wall of this region, and when it fell the whole region fell and the Palestinian cause died with it. In this scenario, the intervention was not just necessary but even Islamically justified, given there is nothing more evil than Israel and its hegemony. When the enemy started chanting against Iran and Hezbollah from the second week of the protests unprovoked, something that came from the Zarqawism of Iran and that I listed the evidence for in chapter 7 of my book, we were left with no option but to support the Berlin Wall against the demons of Zionism. No one thought Bashar was an angel, but given that “Dr” Rahmeh says “Alhamdullah” Assad is gone, she is supporting the Israeli project without any concerns for the subsequent Israeli imperialism. That is the issue. Else, I agree with brother Ahmad (propaganda & Co.) here.