A few days ago, on the 20th anniversary of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri’s assassination, many of those who remember what happened reiterated that they had remained confident he would not be killed until it happened. They believed that Hariri’s extensive Arab and international ties, as well as his many friendships, would protect him, assuming the would-be assassins would not kill him because they would surely "take the world into account." On February 14, 2005, it became clear that his relationships did not weigh on his assassins, and they did what they did.
Those who chose not to take "the world into account" spoke to an inclination deeply rooted in our mainstream value system, and in political ideas that remain compelling in our region, to do just that: the "world’s account" should not be taken. Blending an anarchic consciousness and a parochial and improvisational rural consciousness, this refusal to account for the world is often seen as an act of courage and a source of pride. After all, "the world" is a hostile entity that should not be accounted for. Through poetic interpretation of patriotism, and under the weight of a contrived reading of history, severing ties with the world has become associated with liberation, independence, breaking free from dependency, and defying imperialism...
Hariri’s assassins managed to turn his assassination into the first chapter of a dark era in which Lebanon was isolated from a world that had been deemed unworthy of being taken into account - a phase of impoverishment and regression on all fronts. Before long, Bashar al-Assad - one of the key architects of this crime - plunged both himself and his country into even deeper and more acrid isolation.
However, twenty years on, one cannot fail to notice that we have begun to take the world into account, with occasional moronic and dubious actions by the remnants of Hezbollah - another architect of that crime - the only anomaly.
Today, earning the trust of Arab and Western nations is the overriding concern in Lebanon, as they alone have the capacity to save its faltering economy, help with the implementation of Resolution 1701, and remove the Israeli troops on its territory. In Syria, some figures of the new order, and some of their critics as well, have not shied away from openly recognizing their reliance on the outside world. Only foreign powers can lift the sanctions weighing on Syrians, ensure that investment flows into their devastated country, and pressure the authorities in place to adhere to more acceptable, stable, and modern governance standards.
Two things heighten the pertinence of relying on the outside world and taking it into account. First "the world" (regardless of the actor it designated to represent it) triggered the major shifts of Assad’s downfall in Syria and Hezbollah’s decline in Lebanon. Second, leaving us face to face with our internal affairs effectively amounts to leaving us to deal with the burden of our unsettled and unsettling social relations on our own - without a powerful force that can be a source of arbitration - at a time when the sort of consensus required to build societies and states remain frail.
When we speak of "the world," we mean many things. But in political terms, it ultimately refers to actors who have something beneficial to offer the country - something that leaves a tangible and empirically measurable impact that is reflected in the population's freedoms, living standards, education, and healthcare... And if the governments in question are elected, these considerations come to carry more weight because voters would reward or punish them according to what they achieve or do not achieve.
However, what we know for certain is that any party that provides only arms (because it has nothing else to offer) ceases to be part of what a state seeking assistance would recognize as "the world."
In this sense, Iran has willingly chosen to position itself as an adversary to the world that has the capacity to benefit others. While a few countries, such as North Korea, have made the same choice, North Korea’s reach and its damage are relatively limited in comparison to the Khomeinist state.
Sadly, even after Iran became the antithesis of the world, with the sanctions, unattractive governance model, and misery that surrounds it on all fronts, some continue to insist that we replace our newfound openness to "the world" with exclusive openness to Iran. Doing so would mean dragging us back to the days of "glorious" isolation and submission to the so-called resistance.
However, as we discovered then, we would once again discover that openness to the world and an openness to the anti-world, i.e. to Iran, are irreconcilable. Since we have already tried to do so - and have tried repeatedly - bluster about patriotism, resistance, or animosity to Israel cannot cushion this hard fact. The inevitable repercussions of ignoring the world are patently apparent in the dire conditions of Iran itself, but also in the dark years we endured - when not accounting for the world led to nothing but violence, militia rule, and a trafficking economy - which only ended when Bashar al-Assad was toppled and the other figures of the Iranian axis ultimately met their fate.
That is why, contrary to the assumption that ties to the word offer protection, a different formula is applied under isolationist regimes that present themselves as ultra-patriotic and stand for resistance. Under such regimes, connections and friendships lead only to assassination, as they led to Hariri’s. This state of affairs calls for reassessing many commonplace notions in our quarters, including our conception of patriotism and resistance.
