Safavid and Zionist Project, Hostility to Arabs and Common Interests
Throughout their history, the Persians and the Jews did not cease to reflect the nature of the ancient hostility that each of them harbored against the Arabs and Muslims in general, even if they differed in the origin of that hostility, in its origin and formation, as well as their current policies. The nature of the hostility indicates that the Persian race has not calmed down even for one single day in its hostility to the Arabs since Muslim conquerors undermined Khosrau throne until today. Therefore, they always seek revenge and all their policies can only be explained by feelings of hatred and resentment for all Arabs. It is a culture on which generations have been brought up and raised in Persian Iran. Historical evidence for that is countless in Persian history, and, unfortunately, it still feeding the Persian imagination and mentality with hatred and resentment for the Arabs until our present era, despite world’s becoming a small village. The sacerdotal system perching in Iran has continued that sick feeding process for more than forty years, thus raising up one or more generations on adopting that congested state against the Arabs. The question here is: Will we ever see the Iranian people liberated from that Safavid spirit that hates the Arabs? It seems impossible, unless God wills. Instead of returning to true Islam that equated the Arabs with all races, with no difference between them except in piety, Persians in Iran remained on that mentality. With what they found in the sacerdotal ruling system of misfortunes and intellectual and cultural backwardness, and that it is Islam that has nothing to do with Islam in the first place, several classes of youth relapsed towards Magiism again, or even atheism, moving away from a system that disguise behind Islam, while, in fact, it made Iran an arena of poverty and drugs, a violation of freedoms and human rights, in a state of spiritual emptiness and with a despicable Safavi breath.
The same applies to Zionists and Crusaders, who did not forget what happened to them in the first Hijri century, during Islamic conquest, and how they left the Levant humiliated, where the Muslims pursued them on land and sea. Battles with them continued since the first conquest, till Zalaqa and Malath battles in the fifth Hijri century, which continued after the conquest of Constantinople in the ninth Hijri century, till the era of colonialism when they started to win, Modern Zionist crusader movement was an extension of those policies that brought together the Crusaders and the Zionists in one category against the Arab states. Do their interests against the Arabs brought them together, in what we might call the conflict of ideology and common interests.
Safavid and Khomeinist Iran lined up for the benefit of that conflict at one of its historical stages. Looking with some depth to know what the differences between the Safavid and Zionist projects of hostility against the Arabs, we will find that the difference of interests is the master of the situation. Iranian interests are not limited to expansion and export of the Safavid revolutionary ideology, which extends to include Syria and Iraq, collide with the ideological Zionist interests, which see that its natural borders are from Iraq to the Nile, which is its implicitly declared slogan in its official flag. That is why Persian interests conflict with Zionist and Crusader interests on several occasions.
At a time when Iran believes that it is in its interest to eliminate the demographic structure in Syria and Iraq, in preparation for the establishment of the ancient Persian state that extends from Pakistan to the Mediterranean Sea, the Zionists and the Crusaders believe that Iran’s expansion in this way will be a danger to the allied states as it shall will lead to the establishment of a major Persian state of pure character, which will not be taken for granted, even if it is said that this weakens the Sunni component and even paralyzes it completely.
Despite the skirmishes we see between the conflicting parties on news screens or the new media channels, there are pillars and determinants to preserve their interests and to avoid entering any direct confrontation. Perhaps the Iranian arm extending in southern Lebanon is the best evidence of that with its claims, raising the slogan of resistance against Zionism for many years. In fact, we see that it was practicing the role of faithful guardian of the state of the Zionist entity, which recently handed over that gate and the whole thing and, on the other hand, the great and permanent coordination between them in managing and preserving interests through secret meetings and making decisions from under the table.