This is a picture of a flower.[/caption]

این یک عکس از یک گل است.

This is a picture of a flower.
Reza Alijani

When Saudi Arabia became a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, it caused a sensation in the global public opinion and was sometimes ridiculed in some media.

In the same way, when the Iranian government (especially the most extremist factions and oppressive individuals) showed opposition and anger towards the execution of some prisoners, including one of the political activists dissatisfied with the situation in Saudi Arabia, it surprised some observers. This is because for decades, the Iranian government has been known for its constant use of execution as a means of violating human rights. Now, if some of these executions are attributed to the actions of opposition groups, who have sometimes been armed and engaged in military activities, and are justified in a way along with tyranny, the mass killings and executions, especially in the past decade and a half, which have taken the lives of poets, writers, journalists, Sunni clerics, Christian priests, and other dissidents who had no other means of expression besides their words and pens, have no difference with the behavior of Saudi Arabia towards a specific group.

But the more important question than this quick comparison is whether the rulers of Iran are really not aware of this serious contradiction?

It seems that the rulers of Iran, while believing in absolute political power and sovereignty, also have faith in their own absolute “truth” (or at least portray it as such). Therefore, anyone who stands against this absolute truth will inevitably be judged according to the ruling system’s legal and ideological approach. The ruling system is the owner of truth and anyone who opposes it is deemed a rebel, an apostate, and an infidel. On the other hand, they consider their opponent (Saudi Arabia) and its ruling system as false. If that ruling system were to behave similarly towards its critics and opponents (even if they were more outspoken and harsher than those who are severely punished on this side), they would be considered unjust, tyrannical, and bloodthirsty, and their critics would be martyrs.

Maybe three decades ago, an Egyptian officer had apparently captured a group of Israelis in the Sinai desert and was also injured in the process and hospitalized. At that time, a Mossad agent disguised as a journalist went to see him among the media people and there – if I remember correctly – viciously attacked him with a camera and killed him.

I remember those days when I was talking with the late Hassan Tavaniyanfar, he mentioned this incident and said, “Now, from one perspective, the Egyptian officer is a martyr and the Israeli killer is lowly, but from another perspective, he is a hero and the Egyptian officer is a despicable person who has received the punishment he deserved.” Tavaniyanfar, while his heart may have been more inclined towards one side of the story, had understood the issue that our region is still suffering from: “Absolute self-righteousness!”

Saudi Arabia, in addition to its absolute self-righteousness, believes it can buy and control everyone with its wealth, even in the West, let alone in the neighboring countries. It sees itself as a great ruler and whenever it sees any protest from its people, it suppresses them or buys them off with increased wages and benefits. And when thousands of pilgrims from different countries in the region are killed due to negligence and mismanagement in Mina, it is so self-satisfied that it doesn’t even apologize.

And even more astonishing is Iran, which cannot even manage to control a small group of people leaving its stadiums and ends up killing some of them, is heavily indebted to Saudi Arabia (aside from this subtle point, this protest is a right of the Iranian people). And even more strange is that a country that ranks high in terms of execution rates for various crimes, protests against executions in Saudi Arabia and acts aggressively, and it is ridiculous that a country where basic and fundamental political and civil rights, especially for women, are not even officially recognized on paper, claims to be the leader and debtor of the entire region, including Iran!

These self-righteous beliefs and behaviors, of course, are formed within the framework of the two major religions of the region and the two branches of Islam. However, if you look closely, you will see that the conflict over power and leadership in the region is clearly visible beneath this struggle.

The government of Iran emerged from a revolution that had slogans of liberation, and one of the arts of the rulers after the revolution, alongside their other great arts, was to gradually turn the initial message of the revolution for the region (which was in favor of the people, freedom, justice, and against the dictators of the region, political oppression and class discrimination in these oil-rich and wealthy countries) into a divisive and sectarian issue. As a result, the despotic and reactionary rulers of the region have also cleverly and cunningly attached themselves to it and saved themselves from the danger of the initial message of liberation, so that instead of seeing the people under their oppression and tyranny, they see themselves alongside them and against a common enemy of sectarianism!

“And of course, there have been and still are national and deep-thinking individuals who, since the beginning of the revolution, have opposed two false claims and two destructive plagues that have gradually taken root in Iran’s foreign policy. These are the claims of leadership and taking responsibility for the destruction of oppression and arrogance in the world, and the call for leadership and the global leadership of the Islamic world in the region. Both of these have been accompanied by the gradual infiltration of military officials in Iran’s politics (from field commanders in managing the war to their rapid infiltration during the leadership of Mr. Khamenei). They have opposed this policy and considered it non-religious, non-national, and destructive to the country’s resources and assets, and have called it a decision made without the participation and consent of the people (the late Engineer Bazargan and the late Engineer Sahabi are two of these opponents).”

Today, self-righteousness is still a regional power that rushes and imposes another cost on our people, despite the knowledge and experiences gained at various levels domestically (even in some parts of the established power) on one hand, and the weakness and economic incapacity of the country on the other hand, as well as the international opposition from European powers and the Obama administration, it is unlikely that this conflict will lead to a direct, costly and bloody confrontation. However, what can be predicted at a minimum is proxy wars that the parties involved will carry out in Syria and Yemen, and these basic rights, as well as the lives, well-being and joy of millions of people in the region will be destroyed and each side, with absolute self-righteousness, will accuse the other of violating human rights, national sovereignty and political and religious greed.

Remember the late Toufanianfar, who did not live to see the conflict between the two Egyptians and Israelis replaced by the rivalry between the two governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a tangible manner, Israel has essentially been removed from this equation and the personal dimensions of the conflict have taken on a wide and governmental scale. If the result of this conflict was a few casualties on both sides, the outcome of this conflict is millions of human beings killed, displaced, disabled, hungry, hopeless, and without a future. If only these rulers, who consider themselves to be right, could be stripped of their absolute political-oil power for a moment, perhaps they would open their eyes to a reality that, apart from the war of words and the domination of vocabulary and expressions, in the real world it is the sweet life of humans that is being destroyed and this is the hope and desire of children that is being turned to dust and ashes.

Can we have hope for the growth of peace and kindness from the ruins of these bloody and proxy wars? Only in one case: if the gentle breeze of peace and kindness, dialogue and reason, from the “public opinion” and “civil society” have a significant impact in the region and the world, and prevent the continuation of this situation and the violation of the rights of millions of people and the destruction of what has emerged from the suffering and torture of millions of people, and act as a lighthouse for true politicians; called “human rights”. This is the wind.