Thread by @trhxianl

There is a lack of understanding, in the West, about the cost of the Empire’s approach to West Asia, or what is commonly known, for Eurocentrics, as the Middle East (a term that reflects the West’s imperial gaze). & so there is an urgent need to speak clearly about the long-term consequences of the Empire’s current policies toward West Asia. One of the least acknowledged realities in Western discourse is that the Empire, through all its actors, still treats this region not as an equal geopolitical actor, but as a space to be managed—still governed by the logic of colonial domination. 1/

The West continues to approach the region & its peoples with strategies more fitting to the 19th century: suppress what resists, reward what complies, & rely on regional instruments—precisely, “Israel”—to discipline both the States & movements that are seen as “threats.” The idea is not just to confront armed actors, but to dismantle the entire ecosystem of the Resistance. That includes political leaders & parties, academic & social institutions, religious voices, media networks, & independent governance models that operate outside Western/the Empire’s influence. & the underlying strategy is to prevent the emergence of alternative centres of power that question the legitimacy of occupation, foreign military presence, or enforced economic dependency. 2/

& here’s the problem that Western audiences still do not understand (because had they understood, they’d have moved a long time ago): when institutions of thought & leadership are crushed or even weakened, the outcome isn’t “peace,” but unmanaged anger. Resistance doesn’t disappear (& that is not poetry)—it becomes decentralised, reactive, & harder to contain. The leaders & movements currently targeted serve as a buffer. They absorb pressure, make calculated decisions, & act within a framework of rules, logic, & consequences. They are intermediaries between deeply angry, oppressed communities & the outside world—& the evidence is plenty on social media: see how people react versus how Resistance groups make their decisions & what tactics they use. These movements translate that rage into political & military strategy, they set red lines, they negotiate, calibrate, & often restrain escalation. Instead of letting that pressure explode uncontrolled, they channel it. Remove that framework, & what fills the vacuum is unpredictable. If these actors are destroyed, banned, or assassinated, there will be no leadership left to contain or redirect that anger. The result won’t be peace but an explosion of uncoordinated violence or chaos—not for the peoples of the region, but for the Empire itself, in the West itself. 3/

Western societies may feel disconnected from this (from this reality but also from their governments’ actions) but they are not immune to its consequences. The policies carried out in their name will eventually return to them—sometimes as backlash, sometimes as loss of credibility, & sometimes in more direct, human costs. & this isn’t a theoretical warning but a historical pattern. When entire regions are denied justice & dignity, & when equality is replaced by domination, no amount of border control or surveillance or violence can contain the fallout. Stability doesn’t come from crushing opposition but from addressing root causes, recognising the agency of people, & stepping back from a model of control that treats sovereign nations as if they are still colonies. & this is obviously relevant today in light of the United States & “Israel’s” threats to assassinate Sayed Ali Khamenei. 4/

Threatening Sayed Ali Khamenei is not a tactical statement but a colonial act. When the United States, supported by European approval, openly entertains the idea of assassinating Iran’s Supreme Leader & leader of millions of Shiites around the world, it is not simply engaging in some sort of sick “military deterrence,” but enacting the logic of Empire. & this logic is older than modern geopolitics. It is the belief that certain nations do not have the right to sovereign leadership, & that their political, spiritual, & ideological heads can be treated as obstacles to be removed, simply, rather than legitimate figures & powerful leaders in their communities. It is the same logic that once justified the toppling of governments in Tehran (1953), Baghdad (2003), & Tripoli (2011). & what makes this case more revealing is that Sayed Khamenei is not just a political leader but a spiritual & intellectual figure whose legitimacy comes from within a living religious tradition, not from the approval of foreign powers. To speak casually, or even strategically, about killing such a figure is to assert that religious authority & popular sovereignty in West Asia are subordinate to imperial interests. 5/

It is not hard to imagine the outrage that would follow if any non-Western power discussed targeting the Pope (who is less loved & respected by Christians than Sayed Ali is by Muslims). But when it comes to Shia leadership—precisely the one that articulates a clear rejection of the Empire’s domination over the world & not merely Iran—the rules are suspended. This asymmetry is not accidental. It reflects a worldview in which some political orders are seen as natural & permanent (the West), while others (West Asia) are conditional & disposable. Let’s call it a colonial lens repackaged in modern strategic language. & like all colonial actions, this one misjudges its impact. Assassinating leadership does not erase ideology but inflames it. It does not bring stability but removes the very figures who are often containing popular anger within a framework of thought, law, & moral restraint—& it is perfectly the case with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The question is not just whether it will happen, but what it reveals about the international order… that is not a global order. That is Empire. End/