The Middle East is filled with the smell of gunpowder. On one side are Israel and the United States, and on the other side is Iran. Judging by strength, it seems like an uneven battle. Who knows how long it will last?
A form of religious governance has been in place in Iran for 47 years. Many people do not favour it. Anger is growing among sections of the population against the rulers. Occasionally, this sentiment is reflected. Foreigners, especially the United States, take advantage of this situation to interfere. Visible reflections of this have been seen in Iran. The US wants to change the regime in Iran. This raises a question of morality. Is it acceptable for an external power to intervene by exploiting the internal situation of a country?
There are two opinions on this matter. One opinion holds that if a popular protest or rebellion is justifiable, then if an outside power steps in to help, the aggrieved people welcome it. On the other hand, those representing the prevailing system consider external interference undesirable. They call it aggression. There are many people on both sides of this argument.
In the international realm, we pledge to follow certain rules and norms. One rule is that no state should interfere in the internal matters of another state. The Panchsheel principles (Five Principles) of the Non-Aligned Movement were built on this foundation in the 1950s. It was a time of cold war between two superpowers. That era is now history. The cover of Non-Alignment has fallen away. There are now many military alliances around the world. Some seek to expand their sphere of influence, while others want to ensure their own safety through various forms of military cooperation. Yet, ultimate safety remains elusive.
Let's come to the topic of interference in a state's internal affairs. Whatever happens within a country, other countries should not meddle—this is the rule on paper. This allows a ruling group to suppress their own people. This rule can make them even more anti-public, more authoritarian, more arrogant. When that happens, the afflicted people of the country seek help, either domestically or abroad. There are many such examples.
We faced a similar situation in 1971. The ruling group of Pakistan imposed war on us. We organised a resistance war against it. In that war, India and the Soviet union stood by our side. Without their help, whether Bangladesh would have emerged is doubtful. We might have ended up as another Balochistan. In 1971, India and the Soviet union had their own geopolitical interests. But under the attack of the Pakistani army, the helpless Bengalis welcomed their support. Those who have not seen 1971 cannot imagine the havoc wreaked on the Bengalis.
In this context, Pakistan's rulers have always claimed that India was meddling in Pakistan's internal affairs and inciting rebellion. Rebels were branded as terrorists, miscreants, and Indian agents. At one point, the Indian military entered Bangladesh. I remember, in the first week of December, when a ceasefire proposal between India and Pakistan was raised in the UN General Assembly, India opposed it. The proposal saw 14 votes in favour of India and 111 in support of Pakistan. Later, the proposal went to the Security Council.
In the 15-member Security Council, the UK and France abstained. All other countries voted in favour of the ceasefire. The exception was the Soviet Union. Because of the Soviet veto, the ceasefire proposal collapsed. In this backdrop, on 16 December, Pakistani forces surrendered to India’s Eastern Command. Bangladesh was born. If the principle of non-interference in a country's internal affairs had been strictly upheld, Bangladesh would not have gained independence at that time.
In 1971, Iran did not support Bangladesh, nor did any Muslim country. This is remembered in the context of Iran. At that time, some criticised the India-Soviet alliance, saying the sovereignty of small and weak nations rested at the mercy of large and powerful countries.
At present, it seems that the goal of the US military action in Iran is regime change. Before Iran's "Islamic Revolution," there was the hereditary rule of Reza Shah Pahlavi. The people of Iran rose against his authoritarian rule. Reza Shah's regime was maintained with the assistance of the United States and its allies. Even China supported him. On the other hand, the Soviet union supported the mass uprising in Iran.
At one point, leftists were at the forefront of this mass protest in Iran. But the strong anti-American sentiment in Iran stirred a politics of religious revivalism, manifesting in the rejection of everything Western.
Iran has developed a structure where a representative election system and a supreme body of religious leaders form a type of governance system. This has been in place for 47 years. Some believe the roots of this nearly five decades-old regime and way of life are very deep and won't be easily uprooted. Yet, it is also true that Iran has a civilization and heritage of five thousand years. In that perspective, 47 years is nothing.
The US is geographically far from Iran. Missiles or shells launched from Iran cannot reach the US. Iran does not have that capability. Therefore, Iran has targeted American bases and interests in neighbouring countries. As a result, Iran has launched missiles in several countries. This means Iran has opened multiple fronts, which might be challenging to manage.
Iran has now turned to "Ummah politics," seeking support from the Muslim world. It appears that many of Iran's neighbouring Muslim countries do not side with it. Instead, due to being targeted by Iran's missile attacks, they have become more adversarial towards Iran. Those countries sympathetic to Iran can do no more than issue statements.
China and Russia have issued statements in support of Iran. Both China and Russia are at the top of the list of arms exporters. They have their own geopolitical interests and strategies. They do not want to concede space to the United States in Asia. This is another type of politics. What Russia is doing in Ukraine, the US is doing in Iran. Meanwhile, the bond between Russia and China with Israel remains as strong as ever.
A primary characteristic of global geopolitics is that small countries are not safe with big countries. The arrogance of large nations and the ego of small countries often reach a level of stubbornness. We are witnessing its reflection in Iran.
*Mohiuddin Ahmad is a writer and researcher.
*Opinions expressed are the writer's own.
#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam