The flag of the oppressed is the flag is the red flag of Husayn.
I wouldn't be honest if I hid the mixture of excitement and anxiety that accompanied me throughout the journey to Iran. I had been there years before, in times of "peace," but what had become of the country after two devastating attacks? What impact did the blunt lesson delivered to the Zionist and American scoundrels have? How solid is the Islamic Republic really? And is the driving force of religious faith still as powerful as it once was? How deep are the scars left by January's armed uprisings, instilled and fomented by external enemies? What kind of society is Iranian society? And what is the health of an economy scarred by a fifty-year imperialist siege? How important is the help of so-called friendly countries like Russia and China? How well-founded are the hopes that Islamabad's negotiations will bring an end to the encirclement? Will the Iranians finally have peace, or will they have to prepare for a ruthless war of attrition?
As soon as we arrived in Tehran on July 4th as a delegation from ASSE ANTI-IMPERIALIST, we wandered the streets of the capital, already crowded with people, small groups, and protesters. At first glance, we were struck by a surreal, unsettling atmosphere. Having come to attend the funeral of the Supreme Leader, we expected a mood of sadness and grief. What a surprise, however, was the prevailing feeling of serenity, even jubilation. Could Trump be right when he calls these Iranians raving lunatics?
To describe what was throbbing in the streets, one could resort to lexical antitheses: anger and calm, mourning and joy. Mourning, of course, for the death of the Supreme Leader; anger for the unprecedented aggression suffered and the blood shed; but joy for the memorable and victorious armed response to the American-Zionist aggression. A victory that was perhaps only temporary, but one that, through temerity and indomitable courage, placed Iran at the center of the world and of history.
As for the mourning, we were frankly struck by the profound affection, indeed the enormous devotion, for Ayatollah Khamenei, who died under the bombs knowing he was the main target and trophy of the Great and Little Satan. Khamenei was not only a Mujahid, one who dedicated his life to Jihad, he was a Shahid, one who through his martyrdom bore witness to the world of his unshakeable faith.
For Shiites, a martyr is not simply someone killed in battle, but rather someone who deliberately chooses to face death if necessary, as a testimony to an unwavering faith and a fight to defend the oppressed. For Shiites, martyrdom is thus the path to God; the martyr is someone who thus acquires a redemptive function, to whom the faithful can therefore turn to seek divine intercession. I may be wrong, but for many believers, Khamenei is perceived not only as an upright political leader, not only as a great religious sage, but as a mystic who, thanks to his life of asceticism, unwavering consistency, and human modesty, has always been close to Allah. A Sufi, a saint in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
And the joy? The collective exultation? How do you explain it? Only for the blows struck against the imperialist enemy? No, there is a deeper, transcendent, spiritual factor, incomprehensible to the Western mindset, predominantly imbued with utilitarian and individualistic materialism. The readiness for voluntary sacrifice for faith, justice, the defense of the Ummah and the oppressed, honor and dignity; it is a fundamental pillar of identity that distinguishes Shia Islam from Sunni Islam—whose paradigm and true founding myth is the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, grandson of Muhammad, killed in 680 AD in the Battle of Karbala by the troops of the Umayyad Caliph Yazid I—the myth of martyrdom which, mutatis mutandis, brings Shiism very close to Christianity, to its most ancient theologies and Christologies.
But what we saw on the streets of Tehran on the first day was a pale preview of what we saw and experienced in the following days, lost, excited and overwhelmed by the political and religious fervor of the vast multitude that made up the celebrations and the funeral procession that concluded at the great Mosalla Mosque in Tehran.
To sketch and describe the majestic funeral scene that unfolded before our eyes, the bright colors and thick, powerful brushstrokes of a Van Gogh would be needed. Not possessing such talent, I will nevertheless try to describe what we experienced, the overwhelming and engaging collective emotion.
Beyond the incalculable number of protesters under the scorching sun, the impressive and widespread organization was striking (food and water stands along the interminable route, the work of thousands upon thousands of activists and volunteers); the overwhelming prevalence of red flags commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein with the slogan "Vengeance for the blood of Khamenei"; the disciplined composure of the interminable marches; the preponderance of women in and out of chadors; the music and chants, patriotic and religious, broadcast from the speakers; countless families with children; the diverse social composition of the demonstrations, with workers and farmers in the majority; the combativeness of the participants whose unanimous cry “Mozakere nemikonim! Entegham! Entegham! (No agreement! Revenge! Revenge!); then resounded from every limb and cell of this moving giant, this truly mass anti-imperialist movement, the battle cry: Marg bar Amrica! Marg bar Esrail! (Death to America! Death to Israel!)
It is in this context that we can understand the open and surprising street protests of the architects of the Islamabad agreements, of the President of the Republic Masoud Pezeshkian, of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, rejected because they were considered opportunists, ready to capitulate, not to mention the stones thrown at the car of Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi — another viral slogan: "Ghalibaf, Araghchi, what happened to the blood of our leader?".
A closer look revealed a predominance of older generations, those who participated in the 1979 Revolution and the bloody war with Iraq (1980-1988); the youth presence was less massive, which perhaps tells us something about the averted danger posed by the subversive January protests, supported by the imperialist West as a prelude to the failed coup and attended primarily by young sectors of society.
However, a multitude that proceeded as a single body, animated by a stubborn, anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist patriotic radicalism imbued with profound religious faith, a body obedient, in its progress, to a supreme ordering authority, nothing other than a passionate spontaneity coming from below, from the deepest recesses of the human soul.
A collective spiritual emotion was sweeping through the streets of Tehran, which can only be explained by taking due account of Shiite eschatology, according to which we are close to the return of Imam al-Mahdi who, in alliance with Jesus, after a period of universal chaos, would establish a kingdom of justice, peace and unity among peoples - the similarity with the Apocalypse of John is evident: the first resurrection reserved for martyrs and the righteous, the final clash between the Lamb and Satan, the final triumph of God with the definitive defeat of evil and death.
Nothing will be the same in Iran after this formidable show of strength by the radical wing of the Islamic Republic.
Of course, the people who overflowed the streets of Tehran are not the entire Iranian population. They may represent a huge white minority (the color that in Islam represents purity, peace, and life), but they are the largest and most determined, willing to do anything, even die for their country and their faith, convinced that Iran is the front line of the global anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist front. On the opposing side is the black minority, the sworn enemies of the Islamic Republic, led by those who seek the full Westernization of Iran, an Americanist and consumerist lifestyle, and peace at any cost with the Zionists and the Americans. A stubborn minority that is, however, unwilling to truly risk everything, to fight to the point of risking their lives for their petty interests and "ideals"—a fact that closely resembles Hegel's famous master-slave dialectic metaphor: he who does not fear death becomes master, he who fears it becomes a servant and submits. A minority that, during the days of mourning and anger, has carefully avoided being seen on the streets of Tehran. In between, a large, shifting gray area that doesn't participate in political life, oscillating between the two poles, and whose majority, after the blows inflicted on the attackers, appears to sympathize with the radical wing and the patriotic resistance.
But who really governs and commands in Iran? Are the "three-nosed Islamic fundamentalists" perhaps in charge? No, the levers of power are shared in a precarious more uxorio between the so-called "reformists" and the so-called "conservatives." This dichotomy, however, is misleading and clearly of liberal origin. To try to understand Iran, a Shiite-Islamic society in a state of protracted war, with the parameters used in Western liberal societies, whose right-left dichotomy, is decidedly misleading. Reform what and how? Conserve what and how?
If by "reform" we mean deliberations in favor of progress with social justice as a priority, based on the values of community and humanistic solidarity, making the Islamic Republic a home for the oppressed, then the true "reformists" are the so-called "conservatives"; while those labeled "reformists" are the authentic "conservatives" because they make no secret of their desire to strengthen the already large private economic sectors, reduce the burden of the public and state economy in favor of the free market, empower corrupt internal bourgeois elites, and thus reach an accommodation with external imperialist powers (Western and otherwise).
If we wanted to get closer to Iranian common sense, speak Persian and Western political jargon, and more precisely identify the "reformists" and the "conservatives," we could transliterate them as follows: "compliant" versus "hardliners." The dividing line does not correspond to the division between the "secular" and "religious" sectors, but instead cuts across both. The fundamental point of imperialist propaganda is that Iran is a "theocratic dictatorship." There is no ignorance in this, which is intended to be a mark of infamy; there is ruthless perfidy. The institutional architecture of the Islamic Republic is extremely complex, marked by a balance of power that may seem opaque to liberal souls, but it is, in its own way, an imperfect form among the many (including our own) of "democracy." It's true that the Guardian Council, made up of Islamic clerics and jurists (elected by citizens), holds broad powers, but its decisions have and continue to conflict with those of Parliament and the Government. Rigged elections! Liberals of both the right and the left will exclaim; yes, perhaps, but it's no different here, with rigged electoral laws, blocked lists, and election campaigns where you only get a seat if you have a lot of money.
And what about Sharia law? Let's say you go to Iran, dear Western pseudo-libertarians, and you'll see that things aren't as you think. You'll see that there's no longer any trace of the moral police, nor any punishment, except in egregious and extreme cases for conduct deemed inconsistent with Islamic morality. Have unacceptable repressive measures been implemented? Yes, it has happened, and we hope it never happens again. But the fact that public and/or private law is anchored in Sharia law doesn't prove there's a hierocracy or a theocracy, given that it is applied to varying degrees in dozens and dozens of countries with an Islamic tradition.
Anyone who, intoxicated by the relentless and perpetual imperialist narrative, imagined Iran as a Third World country, underdeveloped, backward, immersed in a gloomy medieval religious atmosphere, is gravely mistaken. It took Iran's blunt technological missile response to disprove this cliché. A modern capitalism exists in Iran, a powerful bourgeoisie that owns banks and insurance companies, clinics, industries, land, airlines, and communications companies; it therefore dominates the sectors of production and trade (domestic and foreign). Some things, thank God, escape the control of the "reformists": parts of the media and cultural system, the security and military apparatus, of which the Pasdaran are the spearhead, and whose autonomy has always been defended by Khamenei.
There is a marked class divide between rich and poor in Iran, and I don't think I'm exaggerating in saying that the conflict between the Islamist masses on the one hand, and the bourgeoisie and its "reformist" elites, albeit in peculiar forms, is a form of class struggle within the Islamic system. Those at the bottom are defended by the most spiritual, anti-imperialist, and radical segment of the religious and political hierarchy, for whom the principle of al-takaful al-ijrima'ì, or social solidarity, the obligation of citizens to support one another and that of institutions to meet the needs and interests of the weakest, is sacred to Islamic law.
Certainly, fifty years of siege, sanctions, and embargoes have been and are contributing factors to profound social distortions, endemic corruption, inequality, shortages of goods (even basic necessities), rampant inflation, and the resulting social malaise. One day, a monument will be erected in honor of the Islamic Republic of Iran's tenacious resistance. One day, we will understand how important the spiritual factor was in keeping this resistance alive. However, as the Latin aphorism goes, sine pecunia ne cantantur missae—without money, no mass can be sung. There is the ideal and spiritual sphere, but there is also the material one, which concerns the needs and necessities of humans, who are not made of pure spirit, since they are biological and social beings, which has to do with the dual nature of the human being. We hope that the State of Exception (in the Schmittian sense of suspending the rule of law while a state of war is underway) will end with the defeat of its enemies. Whether it ends soon or continues, this does not exempt the Islamic Republic from finally finding its own path to economic development and social progress that is not a poor imitation of capitalist progress.
And the BRICS? And what help have rich and powerful China offered and are offering to the Iranian people and nation? It may be true that the Chinese and Russians have secretly aided the armed resistance, but in Tehran, let alone in the heart of Iran, there are no signs of support—unless you consider support to be the purchase of oil and gas, circumventing sanctions but at 10% below market price. If it's any indication, there are absolutely no Chinese cars in Tehran, which are either European or domestically produced, nor any trace of cultural ties whatsoever. In other words, Iranians aren't looking East, but West.
The Islamic Republic is fighting a war in which its very existence is at stake. It has been waging it since 1979 against the Western-Zionist imperialist bloc. Its strategic stability is crucial to the advent of what is called the "new multipolar order." Iran, however, equally firmly reiterates that it will never be a "vassal state" of any great power. And for this reason, it is an example for all the peoples and nations of the world. It is within this framework that we can attempt to answer the question of whether the Iranians will finally have peace or will have to prepare for a ruthless war of attrition. I echo Leonardo Mazzei's words:
All illusions must be banished, all superficiality abandoned. The Euro-Atlantic bloc has lost some battles, but it still believes it can win the war. The imperialists must not be underestimated; instead, they must be defeated. The unipolar system dominated by the United States is shaky but not yet dead, and a new order (good or bad) is yet to come. In the midst of it lies war. The very same war currently underway, which may continue in different forms, perhaps with new configurations, but which will end only with a new global balance.
Once the ceremony was moved, first to Qom, then to Iraq, and finally to the holy city of Mashad, Tehran returned to its chaotic routine, its daily routine. All the shops and businesses reopened, and those who had shied away during the funeral, indifferent, unfamiliar, or hostile to the impressive celebrations, mushroomed in the streets of Tehran. And what did our eyes see? They saw a diverse, multifaceted humanity, freely expressing itself and flaunting its own way of being. Thus, in the most prosperous areas of Tehran, one could see shopfronts and stores that rival those of Western ones, and observe social and anthropological types reminiscent of those we see in our own cities.
We left a piece of our hearts in Tehran, and once we returned to Italy, I remembered the words of an Iranian man while we were at the demonstration in Piazza Palestina: "Once upon a time, Lenin's red flag represented the oppressed. Now that flag is Hussein's red flag."
I dedicate these reflections to the Iranian people who resist and fight, and to its proud citizens. I thank the brothers who have stood by us and the authorities of the Islamic Republic for their extraordinary and fraternal hospitality.
Source: