America and Iran: Which Is the Great[er] Satan?

During the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the epithet “Great Satan” was first raised and launched at the United States of America. America was given this nickname due to its propensity for interfering in the affairs of independent states, weaving plots (overtly and covertly) and encouraging revolutions (armed or otherwise) to achieve its own aims, regardless of whether these aims were in the best interests of a given country.

As compromise is in the best interests of both Iran and America, Iran has pushed aside the notion of “Great Satan” and offered to join hands with the unclean hands of America, contaminated as they are with the blood of the innocent people of the world. America, for its part, has turned a blind eye towards Iran and towards the nuclear threat it poses to the entire world and in particular, so it is claimed, to Israel.

Of the two, then, which is the real “Great Satan”? Is it America, with its manifold trespasses against international consensus? Or is it Iran, with its barefaced threats of using nuclear weapons should anyone dare to provoke it or stand in the way of its interests? We may characterize Iran’s relationship with America as a temporary marriage* for an agreed-upon period of time, which can be lengthened or shortened — a type of marriage Iran recognizes as legitimate, so it is beyond reproach and capable of facing the world holding a contract it deems permissible even though others do not.

Both ancient and recent history confirm that Iran comports itself in keeping with its own special interests, even when safeguarding these interests leads to hostile action against Islam and combat with the nations and peoples of Islam. Iran has long since established that it is able to be bought at any price and is willing to join hands with someone it considers a “Great Satan” — in the old days with the Tatars and Mongols, now with America during its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. We are not revealing a secret by saying so — the most eminent among Iranian officials have confessed to this, even while calling America’s attention to Iran’s superior virtuousness and moral excellence. And if it weren’t for Iran’s support of America in Afghanistan and Iraq, America would have been unable to achieve what it did in terms of destroying those two countries, impeding their development and sowing the seeds of sectarianism and civil war.

So what have we here? Iran and its partisans in Bahrain strengthening their bond with America and working alongside it to intensify unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain. And what have we there? WikiLeaks records revealing the details of this unholy partnership, as the opposition sought, with America’s assistance, to sell Bahrain to Iran at the trifling price of a few dirhams. The members of this opposition do not realize that Iran will turn against them after they achieve the objectives of this scheme given to them by Iran, for Iran does not trust people who are willing to betray their allegiance and sell their homeland to foreigners. Such people are likely to sell their homes a second time and re-gift their loyalty to someone else. They are like brokers who will shamelessly sell to anyone willing to pay the price.

In its dealings with America, Iran perfectly embodies the principle of “taqiyyah,” or dissimulation.** It expresses its distaste for America and Israel while secretly harboring love for them both. This is Iranian politics: an Islamic republic founded upon “taqiyyah.” It seems — and God knows best — that America operates under the same principle of “taqiyyah,” as it declares war upon Iran and Iran’s nuclear activities, imposing boycotts and demanding that other countries do the same, while simultaneously standing with Iran and supporting others who stand with Iran. This is precisely the situation with the Bahraini opposition, who profess their loyalty to the Safavid nation.

It seems — and God knows best — that common ground can be found between America, Israel and Iran. The names of all three nations begin with the letter “alif,” and when we analyze their respective dogmas, we find that America personifies global crusaderism (“salibiyyah”), Israel personifies global Zionism (“sihiyuniyyah”), and Iran personifies global Safavidism (“safawiyyah”). All three dogmas, of course, begin with the letter “saad.”

Is this merely a coincidence, or did divine wisdom unite these three evils under one letter? These countries are united politically by “alif” and dogmatically by “saad.” With that in mind, can we honestly be shocked and astonished when Iran’s attitudes and political stances correspond to the attitudes and stances of America and Israel?

Everyone loathes the Muslims, wishes ill upon them, and schemes to disturb the security situation in the countries that comprise the Islamic world. In light of everything already mentioned, allow us to ask this question: “Who is the Great[er] Satan?” Is it America, who represents tyranny and oppression and has been known to trespass on international law and flout globally-held traditions? Or is it Iran, who works tirelessly to cultivate turmoil and trouble in our Islamic nations and tries to foist its own Safavid “madhhab” upon our Sunni Muslim populace to spur crises which will deplete our nations’ resources and energy, so that the bulk of our national budgets will have to be spent on resolving these crises? Doing so would thereby grind development to a halt and leave us lagging behind and lacking the time and money to push for progress in the race to keep pace with the developed world.

Or can we simply say that both countries are “Great Satans,” since they play identical roles in plotting against the states that comprise the Islamic world? If America is a “Great Satan” and Iran is a “Great Satan,” then they are both equally “Great Satans,” each according to its interests and aims and schemes and conspiracies. The common denominator is that both countries are fighting — whether jointly or individually — against one target: the Islamic world.

We know that America is contributing to the dissemination of Safavid Shiism in Sunni Muslim countries, and by doing so is creating space to assist Iran with achieving its aims, or their mutually-held aims. The relationship between Iran and America will remain strong, and their bond unbreakable, as long as shared interests exist between the two of them.

* Translator’s note: Temporary marriage between a woman and a man, known as mut’ah or sigheh, is an institution exclusive to Shiism, a sect of Islam which is most dominant in Iran. A majority of Bahrain’s people are also Shiites, although the ruling monarchy is Sunni.

** Translator’s note: This practice called taqiyyah, which permits the concealment of one’s religious beliefs in certain situations, is another feature exclusive to Shiite Islam. I read this as the author taunting Iran for religious practices he finds questionable, identifying Iranian political policy with allegedly unflattering aspects of Shiism.