Hawzah News Agency- In a world where arrogant powers seek to impose their order on the region by engineering new projects such as normalization deals and geopolitical corridors, explaining the roots of the crisis and the role of the Resistance has become one of the most important topics of the day. In this context, the Center for Studies and Responses to Religious Doubts at the Islamic Seminary conducted a series of television programs examining the key question: Is the Resistance a source of disorder, or the guarantor of independence and lasting peace? Hojatoleslam Mohammad Saber Sadeghi addressed this question in the following interview.

Some voices—both inside the country and across West Asia and the international arena—claim that “the Axis of Resistance is a source of disorder.” Is this claim accurate? Can the Resistance be considered disruptive to order?

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. To assess whether the Resistance is an “ordering” or “disordering” force, we must first define what we mean by resistance and what it stands against.

Resistance: A Natural Response to an Alien Identity Order

The fundamental point is that resistance means “standing firm for independence and identity.” This region possesses an authentic identity, a historical independence, an ancient culture, and a political geography. When an external, domineering force enters from outside seeking to challenge this identity, independence, and indigenous political structures—to dissolve them into its imposed order, subjugate them, or erase them entirely—that is precisely where “resistance” takes shape. Human beings, societies, and living political systems naturally resist being swallowed by a foreign hegemonic order.

Therefore, an indigenous order, a historical stability, and an identity-based arrangement existed before anything else. The Resistance cannot be called a source of disorder. On the contrary, the actual source of instability is the foreign force seeking to disrupt the indigenous order—and the Resistance responds to that disruption.

Of course, this foreign aggressor, relying on plunder, deception of certain governments and individuals, and various tricks, has managed to gain the upper hand materially. The Resistance may therefore find itself in an unequal position or at a tool disadvantage in the apparent balance of power. But standing firm in an unequal position, showing resilience, and paying the price never means we are “a source of disorder.” We are the rightful owners of this land and the guardians of our home and geography’s interests and stability. Attributing disorder to the Axis of Resistance is entirely false and a reversal of reality.

Let me add another point: the resistance of the Islamic Republic—or rather, the national resistance of the Iranian people—is rooted in a history and civilization spanning thousands of years. Looking back, we see that in this region we were the emperor, the ruler, and indeed the “ordering force” at the center of the world. In the East, China was the dominant power; in the West, Rome; and in the middle, Iran ruled. Numerous events—the weakening of governments, the Mongol invasions, and thousands of other factors—occurred, but these evidences show that we were the owners of this arrangement, this region, and these lands. Those who have come to our region today and impose their will are the actual agents of disorder.

The balance of power in the past was such that in Asia—China in the East, Rome in the West, and Iran in the center—a stable order prevailed, and people went about their lives. This order encompassed the entire world, to the point that America was entirely unknown and had no place in calculations. One of the authentic symbols of this past order is the Silk Road, which carried goods from China through Iran to Rome—a route showing that Iran was like “the hinge of the world,” balancing order on both sides.

This does not mean there were no disputes or conflicts; certainly, there were, and that is natural. But the important point is that today’s adherents of the Resistance and those who believe in its idea are the inheritors of the same people who once maintained outposts for security from central Iran to the Mediterranean coast—just as we had representatives and garrisons across the Persian Gulf.

Look at this theory: In the Syrian war and against Daesh, we offered many martyrs. Palmyra is where Sassanid kings once resided and established order, before it fell to the Romans. All this shows that the true owners of this land are those who side with the Resistance today.

Sykes-Picot and the Central Anchor of Colonialism: Creating “Satellite Fortresses” to Contain the Islamic Ummah

Nearly simultaneously with World War I, after about four centuries, the Ottoman government collapsed and lost its power and will in West Asia. At that point, the Arabs under Sharif Hussein (of the Hashemite family) launched an Arab revolt, aiming to establish a large Arab-Islamic state from the Hijaz to the Turkish coasts and the Mediterranean. They raised banners, formed armies, gathered equipment, and captured regions like Syria.

Meanwhile, a man named Lawrence—Britain’s special governor in Egypt—helped Sharif Hussein expel the Ottomans from the region. The Arabs thought they would finally achieve their dream of a large Arab-Islamic state. But behind the scenes, French and British representatives (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) had divided this vast geography on paper into multiple countries, each colonial power taking its share. Syria and Lebanon went to France, Palestine to Britain, and so on.

The people of that era resisted this colonial plan and were awake. In Syria, a battle occurred between Faisal (Sharif Hussein’s son) and French forces at Khan Maysalun, where their commander Yusuf al-Azma was martyred and the Arab forces were defeated. Shiites of southern Lebanon also corresponded and at one point said they were willing to be under this government, and the Americans mediated for this nation’s rights. But outwardly, the Shiites stood against colonialism and the French mandate, paid the price, and offered martyrs—the details of which are extensive.

A key point for understanding the order of that region: In the same era when Lebanon was established under French mandate in 1920 (after the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916), a conference called the Paris Peace Conference was held to address the region’s affairs. A letter exists from Patriarch Hoyek (one of Lebanon’s great bishops)—its document survives today—in which he writes: “You must hand Lebanon over to us Maronite Christians so that we may create a fortress of Christianity against the region’s Arabs.”

What was colonial thinking saying? The colonialists said these Arabs had competed with the West from the Crusades through the Ottoman era and were now in a position of weakness; this opportunity must be exploited. Their idea was to turn Lebanon into a “fortress of Christianity” and Palestine into a “fortress of Judaism.” What was the purpose of these two fortresses? First, to create a strong barrier between the Islamic and Arab world and the Western world—for Westerners feared this Ummah’s power and knew that although these nations had been defeated in some wars, now that they were weakened was the best opportunity to suppress them so they could not return to power. Second, these two fortresses were to be the arms and executive agents of Western order in this region—representing Western interests, exercising oversight, infiltrating the Islamic world, and preventing this Ummah from returning to its era of glory and progress.

The stories here are many and cannot all be addressed in this short space. But let me note what happened after World War II. Europeans killed tens of millions of each other in the two world wars; estimates of total World War II deaths range from 50 to 80 million, and it is even said that due to war-induced famine in Iran, between 6 and 9 million people died.

Oil Plunder and the Beginning of the “Nakba” Catastrophe: From Forced Jewish Migration to the Occupation of Palestine

My point is this: After Europeans killed each other, they decided not to fight each other anymore but instead to plunder the resources of Arab and Islamic countries. Oil and gas wealth had been discovered and could supply the region’s energy. Instead of fighting each other, they dispatched displaced Jews from Europe to the region. Theodor Herzl, the renowned Jewish journalist, had laid the foundation for political Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish state, and now Jews were arriving in Palestine.

By 1948, when the first Arab-Zionist war occurred, Palestine’s population exceeded 600,000, predominantly Muslim, with minorities of Christians, Jews, and other faiths living alongside them. But Jews entered this land at the point of British bayonets, cannons, and guns. The goal was not only to kill or wound Palestinians but to forcibly drive them from their homes—the catastrophe Palestinians call the “Nakba.”

After that, several wars occurred over the years (including the 1967 Six-Day War). The nations of this region resisted the imposed Western order built on the bones and blood of Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, and Hijazis as much as they could—for they were an authentic people and owners of this soil. Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, and even Jordanians fought and gave many martyrs. But after those exhausting wars, the region’s governments and rulers became fearful and stopped entering wars.

In such an atmosphere, from 1979, with the Islamic Revolution in Iran, a new and novel meaning of “resistance” took shape in the region.

In subsequent decades, you see the emergence of the “First Intifada,” where the Palestinian people—without support from Arab countries or regional rulers—confronted the Zionist state with stones; then the Second and Third Intifadas. We have also witnessed numerous other wars: the 33-day Lebanon war, the 22-day war, and the 51-day and 55-day wars. These developments show that after the Islamic Revolution, resistance took on new meaning and a new spirit was breathed into this axis. The region’s rulers retreated, but it is the will of the nations that stands against the American and Zionist order.

Of course, this resistance movement has an axis called the “Islamic Republic.” We have no doubt that the Islamic Republic revived, expanded, and revitalized the meaning of resistance and stood against the American order. As the martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said: “The very fact that we stand firm, stand by our will and plan, exercise patience, endure, and pay the price—this standing itself is the cause of the enemy’s defeat.” Because the enemy wants us to empty this land and leave; he wants Shiites to emigrate from southern Lebanon, and he wants Palestinians to empty all of Palestine and leave.

Let me make this final point before reaching your question: Today, Gaza’s two million people are compressed into a very small area. Why is population density so high? Because 70 percent of Gaza’s people are “migrants”—those displaced from various parts of Palestine over 70-plus years, who reached Gaza step by step. If they leave Gaza too, Palestine’s cause is finished forever, and Israel will be recognized as the absolute ruler forever. Indeed, over these seventy years we have witnessed this people becoming more compressed, and today Israel’s goal is to expel them from this area as well.

Therefore, in response to those who say the Resistance is a source of disorder, we want to show how authentic and rightful the people of this region are—and that it is the external factor that is artificial and has constructed a false order.

You know that from 2001 onward, America entered our region under the pretext of the September 11 events; it attacked Afghanistan and kept it occupied for over twenty years; it attacked Iraq, which was also a pretext for dominating the region. It has become clear to the world that those events were largely manufactured to complete their order, sovereignty, authority, and hegemony in the region through a great military campaign. After occupying these countries, they established military bases: an air base in Qatar, the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, and presence in Kuwait, the UAE, and even Central Asian countries like Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey (two NATO bases). Why were these bases established? To keep the reins of the region’s order in America’s hands.

Therefore, we confirm that “the Axis of Resistance is a source of disorder”—but disorder to which order? The American order! We stand against the American order and want to be the agents of our own indigenous and regional order, just as in the past. We say the Resistance is itself an “order.” What does the Resistance Order mean? It means a people with authentic identity, based on independence, dignity, honor, and nobility, wanting to govern and decide their own destiny, capabilities, interests, and benefits. Afghans want to own their land, Pakistanis want to own their home, and the people of Gaza want nothing more than this.

In the Axis of Resistance, in the “Al-Aqsa Storm” operation (October 7), we witnessed a strategic shift in approach—a transition from a defensive to an offensive posture. Many declared this event the source of the Resistance’s weakening. What is your view? Did this happen, or was this action also in line with the Resistance Order strategy to confront the changing balance of power with the West and global arrogance?

Hojatoleslam Sadeghi: Your question is very precise. To understand what the “Al-Aqsa Storm” operation (October 7) did and whether it was order-building or order-disrupting, we must see what developments had occurred in the region in the years before it.

First, from Trump’s first presidential term, the “Abraham Accords” project was launched. What was its goal? The Zionist regime, which had for years built walls around itself and defined its security within those walls, shifted strategy. They said they would remove the walls and implement a policy of “open doors” and normalization with all regional countries.

Why did they move in this direction? Because America no longer had the capacity or tolerance to directly manage and order this region—whether due to exorbitant financial and military costs or involvement in other files with Russia and China. So, Washington’s plan was to delegate the mission of guarding this regional order—which until yesterday it pursued with its own soldiers, garrisons, and facilities—to Israel. In other words, the “American order” would be renamed the “Israeli order” on behalf of the West. This is similar to Marco Rubio’s recent remarks in Greece about the historical civilizational confrontation with Iran, seeking recruitment and support for his front—an approach showing the West’s impasse and desperation in maintaining the balance of power.

Because America could not achieve its goals directly, it decided to hand over the security, political, and economic management of West Asia to Netanyahu. Economically, they advanced the “IMEC” (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor) project—a connection line from India to the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and ultimately the occupied territories, to turn the Zionist regime into an “energy, transit, and technology hub.” According to this plan, any country in West Asia needing new technologies, artificial intelligence, energy lines, and goods networks would inevitably have to turn to Tel Aviv.

At such a juncture, “Al-Aqsa Storm” occurred—a fundamental and “order-building” move. Al-Aqsa Storm stood against the injustice, disorder, and brutality that killed tens of thousands of innocent people to establish its hegemony. Some imagine that if Al-Aqsa Storm had not happened, Gaza’s people would have lived in peace and their homes would not have been destroyed. Absolutely not! Israel’s pre-designed plan was the complete elimination of Gaza and the transformation of this strategic coastal strip into a commercial and economic center for multinational and Western companies—to the point that whispers of reoccupying the Sinai Peninsula to the Nile River were raised, and Egypt certainly could not withstand such an attack.

Al-Aqsa Storm: The Brake on the Normalization Train and the Beginning of the Resistance Order’s Revival

If Al-Aqsa Storm had not happened, the Zionist regime would have swallowed Gaza and Lebanon. Al-Aqsa Storm pulled the brake on the high-speed train of normalization and the imposition of the Zionist order. They were dreaming of isolating the Islamic Republic through imposed peace, disarming and subduing Gaza, leaving Hezbollah alone, and dominating the entire region. Thus, Al-Aqsa Storm became the beginning of the collapse of the Israeli order and the revival of the “Resistance Order.” May God’s mercy and pleasure be upon the martyr Yahya Sinwar, the Palestinian fighters, the mujahideen of Hamas, and other Resistance groups who vigilantly stood against this scenario.

Exactly; they were secretly preparing to transform the American order into an Israeli order, but with the vigilance of the Axis of Resistance and a preemptive action, their plans were foiled—for they had arranged everything to consolidate their desired order. With this insight, the Axis of Resistance completely transformed the balance of power, and the papier-mâché grandeur of the global arrogance’s army crumbled.

Hojatoleslam Sadeghi: Let me add a point: the “idea of the Resistance Order” for the region’s countries, nations, and neighbors is not an idea full of violence and war. On the contrary, the Resistance Order invites all countries and nations to have independence.

We are calling for “lasting peace”—a real peace that endures, where the people of this region live alongside each other for years and centuries without war, and growth and progress are available to all. The people of this region, with all their oil, gas, and human capital resources, can build the region in the best possible way—provided the external factor leaves the region.

In fact, it is the United States and the Zionist regime that are the main sources of disorder in this region. If they take their feet out of the region, the wealth and capital present in this land would be entirely sufficient for development, prosperity, and the establishment of lasting peace.