The end of Political Shi’ism
Israel’s war on Hezbollah ushers in a new era

The concept of “Political Maronitism” emerged in Lebanon’s political discourse just before the outbreak of the country’s civil war (1975–1990). Used extensively by Muslim and leftist forces, it sought to challenge what was seen as the dominant (and undue) role of the Maronite Catholic community within Lebanon’s confessional political system. Political Maronitism represented the desire of Maronite leaders to shape Lebanon’s domestic and foreign policies in a way that preserved their privileges and influence - often by skewing democracy and leveraging foreign intervention. This concept has now faded away as Maronites no longer wield that kind of power. Instead, a new concept has emerged: “Political Shi’ism.” 

Twenty-year growth  
Since the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iran-backed Shia groups and their offshoots and allies have become the dominant force in the politics of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Non-Shias have retained some role in the domestic affairs of Lebanon and Iraq, given the democratic structures there, but the final say on security, foreign, and economic policy is decided by Shia groups and their allies in consultation with Tehran. 

It was not just that the four countries were “under Iranian influence” as some like to phrase it; the Shias regarded these countries as theirs, and everyone else had to re-adjust. Their anti-West narrative became the State narrative, and their alliances (and security burdens) became the State’s. If a politician got in the way, he was assassinated. If a popular uprising took place, it was crushed. And if the task of defeating local opposition proved too difficult, cooperation with the US and Russia was justified on the grounds of “fighting terrorism”, as occurred in Iraq and Syria. “Shia National Security” is a thing.

Now, the twenty-year reign of Political Shi’ism (2003-2023) is coming to an end. The 7 October Hamas attack exposed for all to see the inherent falsehoods that lie at its heart.  

Axis of false marketing 
The brand name for Political Shi'ism was the “Axis of Resistance.” This portrayed Iran's project as an essentially anti-US and anti-Zionist undertaking deserving of global solidarity and support. This was the only way in which a project of this nature could be marketed to the world. It worked too, with much of the European and American Left urging a softly-softly approach on Iran. 

Part-and-parcel of the Axis of Resistance package was the untested assertion that any military confrontation with it would be ruinous. Widely trumpeted victories such as the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, where the Lebanese group was said to have “fought Israel to a standstill”, were in reality questionable political victories snatched from the jaws of defeat. In 2006, it was only the frantic diplomatic intervention of Arab leaders and Lebanon’s Sunni prime minister that saved Hezbollah with a ceasefire deal. That didn't stop it from declaring that it had won, a claim that went largely unchallenged. In Iraq, Shia groups fought Sunni insurgents alongside US forces, and in Syria they did so under the cover of the Russian air force. In Yemen the Houthis were lucky to face Arab militaries that lacked ground forces and aggression. 

The reality of the Axis is that it wasn’t meant to fight a modern, well-equipped, well-motivated army. Rather, it was mainly geared for terrorism, skirmishing, and fighting Sunni rebels. Iran never wanted to come to blows with the US or Israel, let alone to defeat them. The real goal was to pressure the West to recognise its sphere of influence: i.e. to accept Political Shi’ism in the Arab world as the norm.

Some in the West were willing to play along. President Emmanuel Macron of France for instance was more than happy to see Iran’s power project preserved as long as Maronites in Lebanon were taken care of; but it was President Barack Obama who, more than any other Western leader, endorsed the idea of “Iran’s equities.” The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was predicated on suspension of nuclear activity in return for Iran stretching its legs. Helping Political Shi’ism along were legions of Western think tankers and foreign policy experts who warned of WW3 should Iran be harmed, and constantly called for “diplomatic solutions” (i.e. relenting to Tehran’s nuclear blackmail.)

Schadenfreude 
The two falsehoods at the heart of Political Shi’ism – that Iran was a great military power and that the goal of Iran was to defeat Israel and the US – were cruelly exposed when Israel decided to change the “rules of engagement.” Within the space of only two weeks, Hezbollah (“the crown jewel”) was decimated by exploding pagers and targeted airstrikes that took out Hasan Nasrallah and his successor alongside many dozens of senior commanders, and wounded around 3,000 members, many missing eyes and limbs. Iraqi PMF leaders fled swiftly to Iran, Yemen's Houthis were cowed after a single Israeli bombing run, and Bashar Assad, it seems, has opted to remain a spectator in the unfolding conflict. Iran’s arsenal of missiles made for a thrilling light show over Tel Aviv but little else. The more Iran and its proxies attempt to fight back, the greater the humiliation. 

The shock of defeat was all the more resounding for the Shia communities of the region. In 2015 Hezbollah fighters revelled as they besieged Syrian towns and starved their inhabitants into submission, and mocked Syrian Sunnis while forcing them to ride the dreaded green buses to exile in Idlib. The arrogance that Shia leaders and commentators displayed towards other groups, and the “excess power” of which they boasted, and their complete disregard for legal or constitutional frameworks, has made them many enemies who are now full of glee. They will settle for nothing less than the disarmament of Hezbollah and the full return of state sovereignty and proper democracy. 

As Hezbollah continues to be pummeled and IRGC commanders are taken out one-by-one, it is worth noting the conspicuously low levels of solidarity in the Arab street. This is partly because of solidarity fatigue after a year of watching Israel kill Palestinians in Gaza; but the main factor is that Arabs are no longer easily duped. Thanks to social media, they don't have to rely on Al-Jazeera telling them what to think. 

Most Arabs realise that states ruled by Political Shi’ism tend to be weak and dysfunctional, with poor services and rampant corruption. They see that Iraq’s oil revenues have been plundered systematically by Shia politicians loyal to Iran; and that Lebanon has gone bankrupt under the stewardship of Hezbollah and its Christian allies. They see that Iran’s guiding hand turned Syria into an utterly broken narco-state, and Yemen into a basket case that can’t pay its own civil servants. They note, meanwhile, that Arab allies of the US have surged ahead economically. 

Rational Arabism 
In John Le Carre’s novel Smiley’s People, British spymaster George Smiley reflects on the character of his KGB opposite number Karla by saying: “He’s a fanatic, and the fanatic is always concealing a secret doubt.” Behind the propaganda and oh-so-clever plans of Ayatollah Khamanei and his IRGC generals, private doubts must surely exist about their own abilities and the worthiness of their cause. Little wonder that the Mossad has been able to penetrate Iran and its proxies so thoroughly. Even General Esmail Qaani, head of the much-vaunted Quds Force, is said to be under investigation for passing intelligence to Israel. Who else is an Israeli spy? 

It must surely be difficult to advance Political Shi’ism when it is predicated on the obvious delusion that Shias are special because they are the Party of God. Sunnis have of course endured similar delusions: pan-Arab nationalism (Nasserism, Ba’athism) and Islamist extremism (Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaida, ISIS.) They have had to learn the hard way that bombastic slogans and emotionally appealing solutions bring only ruin. Now the Shias are learning that same lesson. There is simply no substitute for what makes nations truly strong: education, hard work, planning, a strong economy, women’s rights, low corruption, and strong and stable state institutions, plus peace, rule of law, critical self-reflection, and an ability to self-right. In other words, a bit more than a military parade.   

As Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu goes about creating his legacy, expect rats to desert the Iranian ship. Many of those that once served Tehran will undergo a Damascene conversion and re-discover their loyalty to Arabism and the nation state. When the dust settles, those that have had to endure Iran’s harsh and inept rule will likely rejoice at seeing their governments free to make choices that are in their best interest and not the interest of Iran.

What might replace Political Shi’ism in the countries free of Iran’s control is Rational Arabism: the idea that Arab pride does not have to be expressed violently, and that Arabs can succeed in the modern world if they abandon grandiose and unrealistic ambitions and focus on building their societies along rational lines. Paradoxically, the embodiment of this spirit is to be found in Saudi Arabia, the undisputed leader of the Arab world. Today, the promise of Palestinian statehood, and with it the formal end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, rests with Riyadh. 

Despite the unfolding tragedy, the end of Political Shi’ism should be celebrated. A new, more hopeful era lies ahead.