Iran’s counter-revolution: a new ME turning point

Following the Tehran Conference in 1943, America essentially took the place of Britain in terms of Middle Eastern sovereignty. With this change, the Middle East almost achieved peace and was on the path of relative growth, but in 1979, the project of Islamizing the region took place in the globalist orbit, which was later called the “Islamic Green Belt” concept in political circles.

The Imperial Iran, which was pushing this country and the region towards modernity and stability, fell with the cooperation between Islamists and left-wing factions, and after that, with Russia’s attack on Afghanistan, other countries in the Middle East followed suit and, with the support of the Islamic regime, they turned into terrorist hubs.

With the emergence of the Islamic regime, the Middle East became a base for anti-Americanism and hostility towards Israel and other countries, including Britain and Saudi Arabia. Since the emergence of the Islamic Republic in the Middle East, the situation in the region has become more chaotic and in practice has turned into a Middle East in which Russia, Britain, and the left wing of the American Democratic Party—by following British policies—have gained the upper hand. In addition to these, France and the socialist parties of European countries, in the role of instigating the war or as mediators, appeased the Islamic regime with justifications of “fundamentalist (radical) vs. reformist (moderate).” In such an atmosphere, the Middle East and beyond, various parts of the world, with the support of the Iranian regime, became bases for the promotion of terrorism, violence, and ruthless actions.

During these four decades, several times when the Republicans came to power in America, they tried to help change the Middle East. But at the same time, governments such as Britain and Russia, with the support of liberal left currents in America, offered a wide-open window for the Islamic regime. As a result, the policies related to that fundamental change in the situation in the Middle East reached a dead end.

The most obvious achievement of the globalist-Islamist policy in the region and the world, that is, anti-Semitism, did not result in anything other than crime and bloodshed. Bombings in the country of Israel and Jewish-American centers in the world, organized assassinations, the export of all kinds of anti-Semitic Islamists to Western countries, the promotion of violence and terror against Israeli citizens, the export of narcotics, arms support from Russia against Ukraine, and threats to the security of European citizens; enriching uranium was the result of Western governments appeasing Tehran’s authorities.

To that end, today in most countries of the world, national parties are more trusted by the public, although left-wing politicians and parties close to globalists try to turn the political atmosphere against them by labeling them as “extreme right.” This is an attempt to discredit right-wing political parties and prevent them from gaining public support.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, followed by Hamas’s brutal October 7 attack on Israel, international tensions became more apparent. Most of the under-the-table and hidden policies came to light under public opinion, and many around the world, especially in the Middle East, clearly began to see the disastrous results of the globalist-Islamist schemes.

Most of the big globalist media outlets, which are active recipients of taxpayers’ funding, have a policy aligned with the trends of the left and globalists. They seek to whitewash the destructive deluge of globalists and the left, but every day the results of their hidden politics, or, as they call it, “underground diplomacy,” become clearer to the public.

The survival of the murderous Syrian regime and what was seen in the terrible prisons of Bashar al-Assad are the results of this type of diplomacy.

The important question is, how come the representatives and ambassadors of the western countries that had embassies in Syria or the United Nations, whose representatives and ambassadors were constantly going to and from Syria, were unaware of this great human tragedy that was happening in Syrian prisons? Or did they close their eyes to this great tragedy of humanity in the name of democracy and human rights? This question then, that comes to mind, is why the cries of the West and the United Nations, which has become a showcase for the defense of human rights, are only against Israel and the defense of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism; screams that have deafened the planet.

Not only do some analysts but also a huge cross-section of Iranians inside and outside Iran believe that Britain, Russia, and the failed Biden administration in the United States, with the help of European political brokers, are doing their best to save the Khomeinist authorities, but that the Khomeinist regime, which cannot use proxy forces like before, no longer has the power to create threats against Israel and the region.

The Islamic regime is said to be satisfied to reduce uranium enrichment according to international protocols and Israel to stop bombing their proxy groups in Gaza and Lebanon, but history has shown that these are Tehran’s old tricks that are meant to buy time and breathing room and, more importantly, to prevent it from entirely crumbling.

On the other hand, a number of other experts believe that Israel and the right-wing patriotic and republican forces in the West and the fresh-faced politicians who will take power in the United States from January 20, 2025, agree with a new and stable Middle East, and they all believe that as long as the Islamic regime, the occupiers in Tehran, the Middle East does not mean stability; the monster’s head is in Tehran and must be destroyed.

It is only with the fall of the Islamic regime that not only the Middle East will gain stability, but the entire West will return to its culture, politics, and democracy, and the news agencies and western propaganda will be closed one after another.

The main actors of this change are the people of Iran. What the people of Iran have shown in the last four decades is that they do not want this occupying regime and have even expressed their wishes in boycotting the regime’s show elections or by rejecting the ideals of the regime in their social behavior and lifestyle.

At this critical juncture, supporting the will of the Iranian people will be the beginning of the prosperity of the Middle East. Changes in Iran, peace agreements that will include the “Cyrus Accord” proposed by Iranians as an outlook toward friendship between the two nations of Israel and Iran, will fundamentally change the equations of the region.

Reaching this point requires making the correct and intelligent choice by the Iranian nation toward a national counter-revolution, which will also bring international support. The people of Iran, with the experience of forty-six years of disastrous Shiite rule, know better than anyone that with projects arising from the ominous 1979 revolution, including their so-called “reforms” or governance based on “democratic Islam,” they are no longer a real alternative; they seek to establish a secular system whose priority is security, stability, and prosperity for the people of Iran and friendship with other countries in the region and the world so that they can restore their culture while developing and enjoying natural individual and social freedoms.