Articles
Iran: The State, the System, the Project… Where does the problem lie? By Hassan Bayan Translated from Arabic by Ibrahim Ebeid, April 17/2026
Translated from Arabic by Ibrahim Ebeid, April 17/2026
Iran: The State, the System, the Project… Where does the problem lie?
By Hassan Bayan
Translated from Arabic by Ibrahim Ebeid, April 17/2026
Since the political change in Iran that enabled the religious establishment to have the political decision-making in the new power, which was based on the ruins of the Shahshahi regime, Iran has turned into an Arab problem. It was the one that established this problem by raising the slogan it called “Exporting the Revolution”, and one of the results of this was to cause an eight-year war with Iraq, interfere in the internal affairs of many Arab countries, and work to establish militia formations in some Arab countries linked to the Iranian control and guidance center. While some of the official Arab regimes, along with some Arab political forces, considered the current Iranian regime to be a “friend” of the Arabs, and went further, bestowing on it the title of the leader of the so-called “axis of resistance”, which is the axis in which the forces are identified with it. Those implementing the agenda of its goals joined and presented their argument for the apparent position of the Iranian regime on the Palestinian issue. Its assessment of the nature of this regime and its main goals differed, as it saw its role outside its borders, especially in the Arab field, as a project of domination and control, and presented itself as a decisive party in the drawing of political maps. This assessment found its documentary support in the positions of the Iranian regime through its intervention in the internal affairs of many Arab countries directly, or by relying on the roles of forces operating in the national arenas and linked to financing, arming and directing it, and the statements of its officials on many occasions and occasions after its incursion into the Arab reality, especially after the occupation of Iraq, that they have become in control of four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, Sana’a, and moreover, that Baghdad will return as the historical capital of the empire. This is because the regime seeks to bring about a change in the demographic structure, especially in Syria and Iraq, and there are many examples of the negative repercussions left by the Iranian incursion, as it was able to establish a foothold. Thus, the Iranian project in the strategy the ruling regime has drawn up has become one of the projects posing a real danger to Arab national security, alongside other projects that have played a vital role in the geography of the Arab world. This is because the Arab world, with its strategic location, capabilities and natural resources, has been and continues to be the target of the most international and regional projects, some of which were launched with the site of friendship (the former Soviet Union, Russia and now China) and some other sites of hostility, the most prominent of which are five, graded in their danger, one international and four regional. As for the international project, it is the modern colonial project, managed today by the modern American state, which inherited the old European colonial system with its multiplicity of locations, and whose page was turned due to the results of the Second World War. As for the regional projects, one of them is settling on the national interior, which is the Zionist project that established its entity on the land of Palestine, while the other three are settled on the entrances, the Iranian project from the east, the Turkish project from the north, the Ethiopian project from the gate of water security and the so-called Horn of Africa, which is the Arab century with the majority of its countries. These projects find in the Arab space a vital area for their influence and dominance. The absence of the national project, with its pillars and levers, has provided them with an opportunity they have exploited to penetrate the Arab interior and each to advance its own agenda. These projects, which are not governed by the unity of goals and interests, had to reach a certain stage before clashing with each other in the one field they consider vital to them: the Arab field. The three parties clashing today, who are throwing fire through the Arab space, those who emerge from them will not bounce back as winners, but will seek to strengthen their positions of influence in what they consider a vital area of their project. In all cases, the Arabs will be losers if the three parties emerge victorious, in varying proportions depending on the outcomes of the settlements between them. Therefore, who is a reformer? The Arabs should come out exhausted from it, although it seems that by virtue of the balance of power, the biggest loser will be the Iranian regime. Which of these projects poses the greatest threat to the Arab nation, given the reality of the state, the system, and the project? America has no Arab problem with it as a country that establishes its institutions and manages its affairs with the inside and outside world, and with its system chosen by its people, according to a constitutional system that governs the general regularity of relations with the outside world and the management of internal life. But the problem with it stems from its political project, which extends beyond its internal scope to the external, and which includes all the characteristics of domination and control in the form of neo-colonialism run by major economic cartels. It works to overthrow the national borders of countries and link the world to the center of the report in the American deep state. Given the nature of this project, it will be confrontational with others, including Arabs. The same is true with Iran, as it has no problem with it as a country that manages its internal affairs, which is a historical country and a neighbor of the Arabs. Although its relations with the Arabs were marred by tensions in the past, it did not reach the limits of the rush outside its borders for domination and control, as is the case with the current ruling regime. If this system had continued to operate according to the constitutional system that governs the regularity of life at home and the relationship with the outside within the controls defined by the provisions of public international law and the relevant international conventions, there would have been no major problem with it, except to the extent of the conflict of interests between states. However, the problem emerged because of the objectives of the strategic project launched by the “Velayat-e Faqih” regime and gave itself the legitimacy to play a role for Iran outside its national borders in support of the concept of “exporting the Revolution ” and as presenting itself as a reference state for all those who adopt the provisions of the doctrine that it adopted as an official doctrine of the state. Therefore, the problem with Iran, as well as with America, is with their two projects. As for Israel, the problem is completely different: it concerns the state, the system, and the project. The “State of Israel” is the product of a colonial project that converged with the Zionist goals and laid the groundwork for Palestine, which was usurped, to establish an entity that performs its function in the service of the colonial project. Thus, the problem with “Israel” is not so much a political problem as it is an existential one, and accordingly, the position is based on the fact that this state exists. As for its system, it is by its nature and behaviors that are racist par excellence according to the classification of international legal and human rights bodies (the International Court of Justice) and humanitarian organizations related to human rights issues (Human Rights, Amnesty International), and therefore it is an anti-human system. As for its project, it is expansionist, as evidenced by the fact that the Israeli constitution does not stipulate the borders of the state. It geographically crosses the borders of the “functional state” called for by the colonial conference (1905-1907), the Campbell-Bannerman Conference, and the “biblical state” that the Zionist movement calls for starting from the stage of “proselytizing” it, given what was entailed in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and then the Basel Conference in Switzerland in 1897. And the gnawing and digestion of the land of Palestine and its Arab depth. Accordingly, the conflict governing the relationship with Israel differs from any other conflict in all its dimensions and content. On this basis, it is included under the title of existential conflict, as it goes beyond the conflict over borders to the struggle over existence, and this cannot be reconciled or recognized as a state, system, or project. The nature of these three projects dictates the positions to be determined from them. If they are reconciled, then reconciliation has the size of the shares and influence. If they are conflicting, the collision does not occur unless the shares that governed the state of reconciliation are disrupted. And what the region is witnessing these days does not deviate from the context of this rule. As for the problem that emerges about the position on the Iranian regime between supporters and opponents, it has generated confusion, which has led to making this position a cause of the problem in internal Arab positions, and those who adopted the position of support for the Iranian regime in all its aspects have given themselves a justification. It is the adoption of an anti-imperialist project, and the motive was either special material and political interests and benefits, or a relationship that goes beyond the expedient dimension to the sectarian ideological dimension. Those who were invested by the regime in the service of its own agenda were absent from the fact that the Iranian regime, which had inflated its role through a project to infiltrate the Arab reality, was unaware of three facts: first, that it could not achieve what it was able to achieve except thanks to the American facilities that enabled it to move first from Iraq, and then to the Arab depth, and second, that it could not maintain what it considered strategic gains that tickled its implicit historical emotions except with the presence of an incubator. and third, that it was also invested in the Zionist-colonial project to cause fragmentation and sectarianism in Arab political and societal life, to weaken the Arab national state, and push towards turning it into a failed state. When it sought to present itself as a speculative partner for sharing shares and influence, he received the blow that drove it out of the region hitentered by virtue of the Arabs’ lack of their project that achieves political fulfillment, and by virtue of the Zionist-American rush run by the deep state in America, which plays the role of strategic leadership of the new regional formation, and Israel, the strongest field base in it. Hence, if the problem of the Arabs with the Zionist project is a problem with the state, the system and the project, which is the most dangerous, and the problem with America is with its colonial project, which is the most comprehensive, then the problem with Iran is with its project, which is the most wicked, because it adopts the principle of political piety in its dealings with others. If Iran had chosen for itself a policy of non-interference in Arab affairs and resorted to good-neighborly relations, it would have found itself in the same trench with the Arabs in the face of the Zionist project, its American incubator, and anyone who threatens its security. As for the fact that it has carved a different direction, it does not expect a positive attitude from it except from those who are associated with it in interest, and it is the one whose regime dealt with the Arab Gulf countries in the last confrontation against the background of hostility through the bombing of economic facilities to which those countries were subjected. The Arab nation is not against Iran as a neighboring country if it chooses a good neighborly relationship, nor against the regime chosen by its people. Still, it is against the project that has sabotaged the Arab reality and has reversed against it.
