Liberal Hypocrisy and Crocodile Tears for Martyr Qassem Soleimani

January 3, 2020 — it was just over three years ago that Lieutenant-General Qassem Soleimani, one of the greatest military masterminds of the past century, hero of the Islamic Resistance worldwide, and loyal and faithful servant of the cause of Islam, was martyred in the streets of Baghdad. Shaheed Soleimani was killed in the presence of several other heroes of the Resistance, including the great Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis of the Hashd al-Sha’bi, while he was on his way to meet with the Prime Minister of Iraq as part of his tireless efforts to aid the Iraqi and Syrian people in their defense against the forces of Wahhabi terrorism, Western imperialism, and Zionism.

The murder of Qassem Soleimani was in many ways an unprecedented event. A military official of an independent and sovereign country was brutally killed by the military forces of a foreign power that was not [officially] at war with his homeland, and on the soil of a third — and also neutral — country to boot. There has been little comment over the past years about this matter in public discourse, but it needs to be said. The Islamic Republic of Iran was not, and still is not, in a state of war with the United States of America. The same goes for the Republic of Iraq, which had its national sovereignty and territorial integrity shamelessly violated.

Of another important note is the fact that, for once, the US aggressor had not even tried to hide its traces, with the murder openly carried out by a US drone, and the American government openly claiming responsibility in the typical style of a terrorist organization.

Obviously, such a rash and violent act was bound to be met with outrage and condemnation, not only in Iran or even the Islamic world alone, but worldwide. And indeed, this was the case. From Resistance movements to heads of state around the world and even the UN official rapporteur on extrajudicial killings Agnès Callamard, the condemnation of the terrorist attack was nearly omnipresent. With the exception of the worst and most shameless toadies of imperialism such as Masih Alinejad, and some representatives of the United Kingdom (by far the most genocidal and destructive empire in human history), across the board it was generally agreed that the murder was criminal, unjustified, and frankly evil.

The most notable example of retaliations were of course the response by Iran and Iraq, with numerous attacks on US military bases following in the weeks and months after the terrorist attack. Both Iran and Iraq also issued arrest warrants for US president Donald Trump and several other US officials, under charges that could lead to the death penalty if they were to actually be tried.

Other sources of condemnation were far less trustworthy, however. Both the Democratic Party and organizations such as Code Pink jumped on the bandwagon of condemning Trump for the assassination as well, keen to show off their “peace activism” and “common sense” in an ever more polarized world. Just a quick glance at the content of these statements, however, shows how insincere this talk really is.

The 2020 declarations of the Democrats revolved for a major part around the lack of Congressional approval for the strike against the Shaheed, and the question on whether or not the US president technically has the legal right to make such decisions. Organizations like Code Pink, from their side, focused on how the assassination could escalate things into an open conflict with Iran, stating that “Trump’s tearing up of the Iran nuclear deal and imposing brutal sanctions laid the groundwork for the conflict to snowball.”

The problem, from a liberal point of view, is not the fact that the United States yet again murdered someone who they considered to be standing in the way of US hegemony and Zionism. They don’t even particularly mind the extrajudicial killing as such, nor the fact that the targeted killing happened on the territory of a sovereign nation that never gave permission for its airspace and soil to be used for that. After all, liberal hero Barack Obama carried out no fewer than 563 drone strikes during his term in office, compared to only 57 under George W. Bush.

No, the issue at hand for the most part boils down to optics and methodology. A direct strike against such a high-profile person like Qassem Soleimani, who represents a country that was not at present engaged in an official state of hostility with the United States, quite simply looks bad. The attack came across as brazen, rash, and not very well thought out. And perhaps that is exactly what it was, as after all the attack was approved by Donald Trump.

Compare this to the assassination of the brilliant Iranian scientist Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, which took place later in that year of 2020. Dr. Fakhrizadeh was martyred on November 27, while traveling on a quiet rural road between his personal residence and the capital of Tehran. The attack itself reportedly lasted three minutes in total, and according to official sources was carried out by a satellite-operated machine gun that used facial recognition software to specifically recognize and target Dr. Fakhrizadeh, and self-detonated immediately afterwards.

The attack was textbook Mossad handiwork, in all likelihood backed by the MEK death cult that has been serving Iran’s enemies as lapdogs of imperialism since 1979. It was meticulously planned and carried out, and did not cause any blemish to the United States or any other country, as all signs pointed exclusively to “Israel”. One would be inclined to draw the conclusion that the imperialist warmongers had drawn some lessons from the mess that was the murder of Shaheed Qassem Soleimani.

Unsurprisingly, there were very few waves made in the West about the brutal and cowardly murder of Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, if it was even mentioned by mainstream media at all. The attack could be spun as just another bout of fighting between Iran or “Israel,” or even as “proof of Iranian discontent with the theocratic regime” when focusing on the MEK mercenaries.

Liberals care about optics and virtue-signaling more than about any actual policies. This has been shown by their co-opting of the Black Lives Matter movement while condemning actual Black Liberation movements such as the Nation of Islam or the Black Panthers.

It was shown once again in the aftermath of Soleimani’s martyrdom. Leading Code Pink members such as Ariel Gold and Medea Benjamin, not coincidentally of a liberal Zionist worldview, were quick to play gatekeeper for the Zionist lobby in the United States and portray the terrorist attack against Lieutenant-General Qassem Soleimani as exclusively the brainchild of Donald Trump’s personal delusions.

When the Islamic Republic of Iran rightfully retaliated, when popular anger took to the streets to condemn the decades of imperialist aggression against the country, and when the electoral results in Iran swung into the favor of the Islamic Revolutionary camp led by Sayed Ebrahim Raisi, US liberals once again showed their true colors.

Mourning the end of Reformist rule in Tehran, and in particular of the legislature of politicians such as foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and president Hassan Fereydoun (Rouhani), whom had shown themselves to be extremely patient with the US and always hopeful for bonafide negotiations, Code Pink and like minded liberals seemed keen on framing the victory of Sayed Raisi as exclusively Donald Trump’s doing.

In the Western liberal mindset, all is eventually returned to what is beneficial for the Empire. The liberal may be less brazen, less prone to sudden outbursts of open violence, and less openly racist than the typical Western neoconservative, but this does not make them any less dangerous. Their plan in regards to Iran is not peaceful coexistence and happy acceptance of diversity and a multipolar world. Their goal is destabilizing the opponents of US hegemony while putting up a facade of friendly demeanor. They mean to lure Iran into trusting the United States as a cordial partner, while backstabbing the country with cultural, economic, and social pressure to bring about the internal collapse of the Islamic Republic.

Like the great Shaheed Malcolm X warned his followers already over half a century ago: “The white liberal differs from the white conservative in one way. The liberal is more deceitful and hypocritical than the conservatives. Both want power. But, the white liberal has perfected the art of posing as the negro’s [sic] friend and benefactor.”

It seems that these wise words apply to Muslims, and indeed the oppressed people everywhere, of the world in general. The neoconservative may be a wolf for the oppressed people of the world, but by comparison the liberal – including the “antiwar” radical liberal variety – is a fox. They are both out for the kill.

It was perhaps best said in a press statement by the Islamic Republic of Iran itself on the occasion of the third anniversary of Shaheed Soleimani’s martyrdom: “Examples of this kind of double standard and hypocrisy by the US are galore in the contemporary history of the international community.”