Islamic Revival

Transforming West Asia

The secular news media realise now that the attack by the United States and Israel on Iran was a disastrous military mistake. They are beginning to realise that the destruction of American bases in Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and Qatar is changing the security structure of the entire region. It is unlikely that the US will want to rebuild bases that are vulnerable to Iranian missiles and drones and have to be re-supplied through the Persian Gulf. The Gulf states are coming to realise that they cannot rely on the United States for their defence, because it has proved to be more loyal to Israel than to its other allies.

These changes will cause a massive shake-up for the security of West Asia (the middle east). It will affect the supplies of oil and other chemicals around the world well into the future. However, another change is taking place at the same time, but western commentators have not even begun to notice it. A massive Islamic revival is now underway, currently centred on Iran, but it will spread across the entire region. This will have an enormous effect on West Asia going into the future.

Islamic Revolution 1979

This revival first got underway in 1978 when the Islamic Revolution overthrew the secular government ruled by the Shah of Iran. His father had been Shah of Iran from 1925 to 1941. During the second world war, Britain forced the father to abdicate and installed Shah Pahlavi. In 1953, MI6 and the CIA organised a coup to overthrow prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had taken control of the Iranian oil industry away from the British. Following the coup, power was centralised under the Shah.

Shah Pahlavi ran an authoritarian government that ruthlessly and cruelly suppressed all opposition. SAVAK, his security organisation, tortured and murdered thousands of political prisoners. The list of SAVAK torture methods included “electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails”.

The Shah established close links with Western governments and pushed the secularisation of his nation. His policies advanced economic development, but the cruelty of SAVAK and his made him unpopular. Aggressive secular modernisation programs that undermined Islamic religious practice alienated traditional and rural religious communities.

In 1979, a people’s revolution overthrew the government of the Shah. In January, the Shah and his family fled the country following massive street protests and strikes. In February. the United States allowed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to return from exile in France, because they believed his religious influence would undermine the revolution. They were surprised when he received a massive, triumphant welcome in Tehran. When the military declared neutrality after heavy street fighting, the royalist government finally collapsed.

An Islamic Republic was established to govern Iran, with Ayatollah Khomeini as the supreme leader. This was a totally new type of government for the Islamic world.

Later in the year, it emerged that the CIA was trying to undermine the new government. Radical students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days. President Jimmy Carter’s attempt to rescue the hostages ended in disaster when two US helicopters crashed.

In 1980, the United States encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and overthrow the Islamic Revolution. The US provided satellite imagery to help Iraq destroy the Iranian air force and attack troops. Germany provided chemicals and equipment that were used to develop chemical weapons that injured a large number of Iranians. Toward the end of the war, the United States actively attacked Iraq. The war lasted for eight years and killed more than half a million people.

Islamic Revival

Western commentators perceived the change of government in Iran as a student-led, left-wing revolt, similar to other revolts in Europe that had overthrown monarchies and conservative governments in the past. They missed the reality that the political revolution was the consequence of an Islamic revival, and that the revolution and subsequent war further expanded the religious revival that took place in Iran.

The Shah had promised modernisation and prosperity, but young people had become disillusioned with the western life style in the same way as the sixties generation had become disillusioned a decade earlier. However, instead of throwing off their traditional faith, they returned to it with a new fervour. The tough battle against the overwhelming forces of the US-equipped Iraqi military was inspired by those whose commitment to Islam had been restored. The generation that fought the war was battle-hardened and rejuvenated in their faith in the Islamic cause.

I explained at the time that this Islamic revival was a fulfilment of the White Horse of Revelation 6.

As the first seal is opened, a white horse rode forth.

I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest (Rev 6:1,2).

There is considerable debate about the white horse. Some commentators see it as a picture of Jesus Christ and the victories of the gospel. The problem is that this horseman is armed with a bow, and there is no other place in the prophetic books where the Messiah is pictured as being armed with a bow. Bowmen are usually the enemies of God (Ps 46:9).

The rider on the white horse probably represents a false messiah or a false religion. He looks like Jesus and could be mistaken for him, because he rides on a white horse. But the fact that he has a bow shows that he is really an enemy of God. Thus, John has given a picture of a false messiah or a false religion making a powerful advance. It goes forth “conquering and to conquer”.

In the Old Testament, a number of nations are referred to as bowmen. In Jeremiah 49:344-39 the nation of Elam is described as being armed with a bow (c.f. Is 22:6). Elam was situated in the western part of modern Iran. The Persian army, which came from the same area, is also described as being armed with bows (Jeremiah 50:14,29,42). Iran is the leader of the Islamic renaissance which is taking place throughout the world.

Ishmael was an archer (Gen 21:20). He is the father of the Arab nations, where Islam is strong. There are bowmen in Arabia (Is 21:13-16).

Islam claims to be based on the Bible. Mohammed is a false prophet who claimed to be a successor to Jesus. Thus, a bowman on a white horse would be a good description of the Islamic religion.

The Islamic Revival in Iran is the first action of the white horse. The Arab Spring was probably another advance of this horse, but it was snuffed out by secular rulers with the support of the United States.

Islamic Republic

Western commentators assume that the Iranian government is a dictatorship by the supreme leader, but this does not make sense. When Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader, they said he was the dictator. Then, when he died, they claimed that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the dictator, partly because he had very dark eyes, and claimed that he had seen light surrounding him when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. When he was voted out (some dictator), the same people claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei was the dictator, but that claim collapsed when the government carried on effectively after he was assassinated by the United States during the US attacks in February 2026.

The truth is that the Islamic Republic was a cleverly thought-out political system to ensure the continuity of religious influence (something that Christians should be really interested in). It was partly based on the US republic, but also influenced by the shape of the French republic, because Ayatollah Khomeini had been exiled in France for many years and had studied the French system carefully.

The American Republic was designed to prevent dictators from emerging, while constraining the power of the masses to take control of government to make bad decisions. Power was balanced carefully between the executive branch (president), the legislative branch (congress) and an independent judiciary. Each of these three branches was designed to keep the other two in check.

For much of American history, the balancing of powers has been effective. Christians who are accusing Trump of being a dictator don’t seem to understand that he is just doing what presidents have always done: try to expand their power. If Trump has gained too much power, it is because Congress and the judiciary are not doing their job. In practice, the judiciary has been fairly effective in overturning many of Trump’s executive orders, while Congress has become a lapdog.

The problem with the US system is that the power of the judiciary comes from its responsibility for testing the decisions of the president and Congress against the Constitution. Unfortunately, there is no mention of the scriptures or Christian faith in the US Constitution. This did not matter, while most of the Supreme Court justices were Christians, as they applied their Christian values to their decisions.

This weakness has become more serious now that the culture has become more secular. A constitution without Christian standards does not act as a constraint on the secularisation of culture and the laws of the United States. It does not prevent American society and culture from casting off the Christian influence that was so important during most of American history. Consequently, many Christians are upset by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the secularisation of their society.

The leaders, like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who designed the Iranian Republic, understood this problem. They established a system with an executive branch headed by a President and a 290-member legislative body called the Islamic Consultative Assembly or Majles, similar to the United States. The innovative or restrictive part of the Iranian system (depending on your point of view) is the judicial branch.

In Iran, the Supreme Leader is not the head of the government, as many western commentators assume. His role is primarily judicial. The Supreme Leader is the head of the judicial system, the third independent branch of government, with responsibility for ensuring that laws and the decisions of judges are based strictly on Islamic Sharia jurisprudence (sharia means “clear, well-trodden path to water”).

In addition to a full range of general and special courts, the Supreme Leader works with three important councils.

• The Assembly of Experts appoints, supervises, and can remove the Supreme Leader of Iran. The assembly consists of 88 members who are directly elected by the public to serve eight-year terms.

• The Guardian Council has 12 members equally divided between religious scholars appointed by the Supreme Leader and jurists elected by the Parliament. The Guardian Council monitors all drafts passed by the Parliament to ensure that they are in accordance with Sharia (Islamic law). It also supervises the elections and referenda.

• The Expediency Discernment Council has responsibility for resolving any conflicts between the Guardian Council and the Parliament and providing advice to the Supreme Leader. The English translation “expediency” is a bit misleading (probably deliberately by Western commentators). The Persian word is positive. It means “conducive to advantage in general, or to a definite purpose; fit, proper, or suitable to the circumstances of the case”, so the council has a strong problem-solving focus.

The reason for having these councils is to ensure that the Iranian government continues to be shaped by Islam, even if there are secularising pressures coming from outside the country. They do what the US Supreme Court cannot do because the US Constitution has no references to Christian principles or jurisprudence.

I am not a Muslim, so I don’t want to live under an Islamic government. But the people of Iran are Muslim, so it makes sense for them to have a system of government that protects the Islamic influence in the nation.

Christians in the United States want to protect the Christian influence in their nation. They have tried to elect presidents who will appoint Supreme Court justices who are Christian, or will apply Christian values to their decisions. These efforts have failed, because all justices have to apply the US Constitution, which is not a Christian document.

I think it is ironic that American Christians hate Iran, but the Iranians have produced a system of government that does for their religion what the American system of government fails to do for Christianity. Christians who are interested in political theory should be studying the Iranian Islamic Republic to see what would need to be done if they want to have a Christian Republic in America.

Shia Distinction

In Shia (Ja’fari) jurisprudence, there is a distinction from Sunni teaching that enables it to cope with modernity. ‘Aql (Intellect/Reason) replaces Sunni Qiyas (Analogical Reasoning) by acting as a dynamic, universal legal source rather than a mechanical comparison of case facts. Shia scholars reject Qiyas because they believe comparing two specific situations to guess God’s intent introduces human speculation into sacred law. Instead, they use ‘Aql to uncover the immutable, objective principles behind divine decrees, using the following practices.]

• Establishing the Spirit of the Law and applying these universal truths to evaluate new modern situations.

• Shia legal methodology dictates that whatever reason conclusively deems necessary, the divine law (Sharia) must also command.

• For handling unprecedented issues like cryptocurrency or bioethics, a Shia jurist does not search for an ancient text to find a surface-level analogy (Qiyas). Instead, they use ‘Aql to analyse the core benefits and harms and to deduce a fresh ruling.

• When all textual evidence is completely absent or ambiguous, ‘Aql establishes fallback logical frameworks. For example, the Principle of Innocence dictates that a person is rationally free from obligation until a clear divine command is proven.

These principles allow Shia jurists to resolve issues that Sunni theologians struggle to handle. Christians do something similar when applying OT principles to modern ethical issues. The US Supreme Court has a similar problem to the Sunni jurists, as they have to find solutions to modern problems in a 200-year-old constitution.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Ayatollah Khamenei was a senior Shia cleric and the second Supreme Leader of Iran, serving from 1989 until his death in February 2026. His 37-year tenure made him the longest-serving head of state in the Middle East at the time of his death. The western media portrayed him as a buffoon and a terrorist. When I read some of his writing, I discovered some different ideas that explain his popularity in the world of Islam.

• National Sovereignty: He viewed his primary role as protecting Iran’s independence. By building a self-sufficient military and a “Resistance Economy,” he aimed to ensure Iran would never again be a client state to foreign powers, as it was under the Shah.

• Foreign Policy: He maintained a stance of “neither East nor West,” defined by consistent opposition to the United States and Israel.

• Nuclear Stance: He officially issued a fatwa against the production of nuclear weapons while simultaneously advocating for Iran’s right to a civilian nuclear program.

• Asceticism: Unlike many global leaders, Khamenei lived in a relatively modest compound. His supporters point to his own modest lifestyle—eating simple food and living without luxury—as evidence that his devotion was a lived reality rather than a political slogan.

• Scientific Advancement: He was a major patron of Iran’s domestic scientific growth, specifically in nanotechnology, stem cell research, and aerospace, arguing that a Muslim nation must be at the forefront of knowledge to remain free. In his intellectual apparatus, the production of knowledge is counted as a religious obligation.

• Social Justice: His rhetoric consistently prioritised the “oppressed” (Mustad’afin). He viewed the upliftment of the lower classes as a religious obligation.

• Charity: Khamenei managed several massive “charitable” foundations, known as Bonyads, which were tasked with redistributing wealth to the poor:

• Anti-Corruption Rhetoric: He frequently warned government officials that they were “servants of the people” and that failing to address the needs of the poor was a spiritual failure.

• Critiquing Double Standards: Khamenei highlighted the hypocrisy in global politics. He pointed out that while the West mourns victims of terror in Europe, it has often remained silent—or contributed to—the systematic violence against the Mustad’afin (oppressed) in Palestine, Iraq, and Syria.

• Rejection of Cultural Colonialism: He expressed concern over the “imposition of Western culture” on other nations, describing it as a “silent violence.” To him, true service to humanity involves respecting diverse traditions rather than trying to force every society into a single secular-materialist mold, which he believed led to a spiritual vacuum.

In Ayatollah Khamenei’s worldview, the Mustad’afin (the oppressed or downtrodden) are not merely a social class but a divinely favoured group whose empowerment is the primary goal of an Islamic state. This concept, rooted in the Quran, serves as the moral compass for his governance and spiritual service.

Khamenei often cited the Quranic verse (28:5) stating that God intends to make the oppressed “the leaders and the inheritors of the earth”. He viewed his service as a facilitator of this divine promise. (I presume that the Koran borrowed this idea from the Sermon on the Mount, but the irony is that Christians do not expect it to be fulfilled in this life).

• Moral Superiority: In his philosophy, the Mustad’afin possess a “purity of spirit” and “depth of faith” that those blinded by wealth and “arrogance” (the Mustakbirin) lack.

• Duty of Resistance: He taught that being “oppressed” is not a passive state; rather, the Mustad’afin have a religious obligation to resist their oppressors to reclaim their God-given dignity.

Building on the foundation established by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, during Khamenei’s era of leadership, political Islam in Iran passed from the phase of revolutionary fervour and the negation of the previous order to the maturity of institutional rationality and a coherent architecture for governing society. The theoretical essence of this transformation can be called “Guardianship as Institution-Builder”, a model that redefined political Islam.

• Jurisprudence of governance: The expansion of ijtihad beyond seminaries and books, linking it to the ever-growing complexities of governing the system.

• Legislation and policy-making: The translation of religious visions into legal documents and executable pathways for professional governance. •

• Social structuring: The reproduction of political identity through science, media, and civil institutions committed to values.

• Formation of the resistant ummah (people): Supporting the oppressed and creating a global front against the System of Domination.

With regard to institution-building, Ayatollah Khamenei redefined the role of jurisprudence in the governance process, using a model of ijtihadic rationality. The logic of jurisprudence transitions from individual and ritual to macro-governmental jurisprudence. In this intellectual framework, jurisprudence is no longer confined within the narrow enclosure of worship rulings and the reduction to a collection of personal religious duties; rather, it is redefined as the practical philosophy and comprehensive theory for administering man and society.

Ayatollah Khamenei transformed political Islam from a movement into a system of government. His teaching explains how Islam relates to state power.

Now that I understand more of his teaching, I can understand why so many millions of people respect his leadership and chose to participate in his funeral celebrations.

Misunderstanding

When riots took place at the beginning of 2026, a few thousand Iranians were killed. Unfortunately, the Western media vastly amplified the numbers, and the number of casualties grew quickly from 3,000 up to 30,000 without any evidence. They also ignored the reality that many of those killed or injured were shot with weapons smuggled into Iran by Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, for use by the provocateurs they were supporting. This is why a significant number of policemen and women were amongst those who were killed.

I presume the Iranian government quickly realised what was happening and by the end of the week, the protests had collapsed, despite both Donald Trump and the son of the Shah, who has lived in luxury in the United States for much of his life, calling on the Iranian people to rise.

The problem with using propaganda is that after a while, the people who write the propaganda and spread it around start to believe it, even though they know it’s not true. Western commentators and intelligence services believed that the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse. They believed that if they bombed Iran and killed some government and military leaders, the Iranian government would fall apart. This belief was totally wrong.

Believing that the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, the United States and Israel started bombing Iran, taking out several important leaders. They believed that this was sufficient to collapse the government. Unfortunately, the opposite happened. The bombing of civilian infrastructure, assassination of political and military leaders, and slaughter of school children united the Iranian people in support of their government.

US and Israeli Attacks on Iran

During 2025 and 2026, Israel and the United States launched unprovoked bombing attacks against Iran. On the first day of the attacks in 2026, 163 school girls were killed when their school was bombed, supposedly by mistake due to reliance on obsolete intelligence. Even if it was a mistake, it was extremely careless, which reflects badly on the values of the United States military.

After bombing Iran for several months, the United States has had to call off its attacks because it had not achieved any benefits and was in danger of using up scarce weapons. Western commentators are claiming the war as a victory, but more astute observers realise that the war has been a disaster for Israel and the United States.

The bombing united the Iranian people of all ages behind their government. Thousands gathered in public places in various cities as air raid sirens sounded because the US bombs were arriving.

In the first few days of the bombing, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed when his house was targeted by American bombs. The site of his home was not a secret, and it had no bomb shelter, so this was a cowardly attack. The Americans believed that the Iranian government would fall if they killed him, but the opposite happened. Over a week-long period of mourning, tens of millions of people gathered to mourn his death.

The perceptive observers noticed that the American attacks had united the people of Iran behind their government, but what they did not notice was that another religious revival had taken place across the nation.

Secularisation

Before the latest war, the strength of the Islamic religion in Iran was declining. The people were touched by the original Islamic revival, and who had fought in the war against Iraq had become grandparents and were being seen as less relevant. Younger generations were becoming more secular in their thinking.

• NGOs funded by the United States and Britain were bombarding young people with anti-government propaganda using shortwave frequencies or digital streaming methods to bypass government restrictions. About thirty western-based or foreign radio stations regularly stream and broadcast live Persian-language programming targeting audiences in Iran. They mostly carry an anti-Islamic message.

• Economic sanctions have hit the Iranian economy hard. Some younger people had forgotten the victories achieved by earlier generations and were beginning to believe that the intransigence of their government was harming their economic prospects.

• Young people in Iran are extremely well-educated, and I suspect that the tension between religion and science became a problem for many of them. causing them to lose the faith that they had been taught by their parents.

• Via the internet, young Iranians could feel the appeal of western music, western movies and television programs, Western consumer goods, and many began to believe that they had missed out on something that they needed.

• I presume that some young Iranians who were ambivalent about Islam had come to believe that the Islamic Republic was not the form of government that they wanted.

All these changes contributed to an increase in secularisation amongst young Iranians.

Islamic Revival Plus

The bombing of Iran and the assassination of the leaders have reversed these trends. The support for the Islamic Republic has increased dramatically, especially amongst young people. This renewal of support for the government has been accompanied by a revival of support for Islam. Many events confirm this resurgence.

• The funeral celebrations for Ayatollah Khamenei were vastly bigger than the funerals of the British Queen Elizabeth and Pope Francis put together. Nothing like it has been seen before. These were Islamic celebrations.

• The people of Iran have political and military leadership that they can be proud of. In contrast, the United States leadership is often an embarrassment to its citizens. Young Iranians are proud of what their leadership have achieved. When key Iranian political and military leaders were assassinated by American bombs, new leaders stepped up in their place, and the government and military continued to function effectively. This confidence in their government has spilled over into trust in Islam.

• The Iranians have a political system (Islamic Republic) that they can be proud of, at a time when all over the world people are losing faith in their governments, regardless of which party is in power. The Islamic Republic has operated effectively, despite hostile attacks from Israel and the United States. This has increased confidence in Islam.

• In Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran had a philosopher/theological thinker whom they can be proud of. In contrast with American leaders who use political power to get rich, he lived a simple life and developed a philosophy of caring for the poor in his nation and the poor of the world. Following his death, there has been an upswing of interest in his writings. His teaching is now respected in Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan.

American and Israeli attacks on Iran have produced a resurgence of Islam across Iran and Iraq. They have unwittingly rejuvenated the Islamic faith among the younger generation in Iran.

For example, the Arbaeen pilgrimage in Iraq is the largest annual public gathering in the world, drawing over 20 million Shiite Muslim pilgrims to the holy city of Karbala to mark the 40th day of mourning for the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Over 3.2 million people have transited through Iran’s borders in recent days to join in the devotion of the faithful. This mass movement, coordinated seamlessly between Tehran and Baghdad, is a sign of the vitality of Islam in Iran.

Aras

I recently came across the writing of a young man who grew up in Iran. His experience has been interesting.

His hostility to Ayatollah Khamenei changed to respect and honour.

As a teenager in Iran, I hated Khamenei. But if you had asked me why, I could not have told you. I had never listened to a single one of his speeches. I had never read a word he wrote. I blamed him for everything wrong in my life because I was soaked in gharbzadegi (westoxification) the quiet conviction that everything of ours was backward and everything of theirs was freedom. My hatred was inherited, not earned.

Years later I finally did the thing I had never done: I listened. I read. And what I found was not the cartoon I had been handed. I found a man who took his responsibility with deadly seriousness, who spoke with consistency and clarity across decades, who was fluent in several languages and never needed a speechwriter to hide behind. He was the reason Iran did not build a nuclear weapon — he ruled it out and turned the country toward defending itself, bracing for exactly the attack that eventually came. His real crime, in the eyes of the powers that killed him, was refusing to let Iran become one more obedient client state. He stood for our dignity and our independence, and he would not sell them.

He made this comment about the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei.

I know how deep this event will run, because I have seen how my people mourn. In my village, one of the most important days of the year is the ceremony for Imam Hussein — a man martyred more than 1,300 years ago, more than a thousand kilometers from where we live. No one is forced to come…. People bring their children, and their children will bring theirs. That is how long grief like this lasts with us.

That is what the West failed to understand when it decided a man could be erased with a missile. You can kill a body. You cannot kill what a people decides to carry. For centuries to come, people will gather in his memory, and his influence will reach further in death than it ever could in life.

He explains how he went from being secular to becoming a devotee of Islam.

Why have I been recently feeling such an urge to practice my religion? For most of my life, I hated Islam and anything that resembled it. I had associated it with all the oppression and injustice that my fellow Iranians and I experienced. Most of my academic friends believe the world would be a much better place if everyone forgot about religion, became secular, and simply followed the rule of law.

When I was younger, I was so upset about the fact that my religion had been assigned to me at birth. I always thought to myself: if I ever became religious, I would study a whole range of religions and choose the one that best aligned with my own values. But here I am, waking up at 4:30 am, fasting for Ramadan, praying to God in Arabic on my prayer mat that is covered in Islamic sacred geometry, and doing Zikr. I don’t even know how it happened. Did I choose Islam, or did Islam choose me?

Many young Iranians had had a similar experience.

Not Christian

As a Christian, I wish that it was a Christian revival that is taking place in Iran, but that has been made impossible by a hundred years of bullying by Christian nations like the United States and Britain. A Christian revival was never going to happen in Iran, despite the optimism of Christian organisations that collect money for this purpose. Why would young people choose the religion of the people who think that it is fine to shoot down an airliner with 300 people on board, mostly women and children (Iran Air Flight 655 1988) and never apologise? Who would want to adopt the religion of people who think it is acceptable to send missiles into a school and kill 163 school children without apology?

It is really sad, but why would the Iranian people accept the gospel proclaimed by churches in the United States, but also from Britain, as good news? Imposing punitive economic sanctions in efforts to destroy the Iranian economy and a failure to honour agreements like the JCPOA, which Iran signed in good faith, means that a Christian gospel was never going to be welcome.

Christians in the United States and the UK like to think that the actions of their governments have nothing to do with the gospel that they proclaim, but that just reflects the compartmentalisation of their lives and the personalisation of their faith. Unfortunately, this is not the way people on the outside of the United States and Britain see the gospel. They don’t make the distinction between the state and the church, so when bombs are dropped by a so-called Christian nation, the people of Iran see them as Christian bombs and are naturally hostile to the Christian gospel. They’re not going to welcome this gospel, no matter its promises.

Islamic Revival Spread

This Islamic revival will spread across West Asia (middle east), and this move has already started. For example, millions of people of all ages participated in massive funeral parades for Ayatollah Khamenei in the three biggest cities in Iraq.

Gulf Monarchies

The Gulf States are extremely vulnerable to an Islamic revolution. Most are ruled by corrupt, unelected monarchies installed by the British when they still dominated the region. The Middle East was divided up by France and Britain after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War 1 in the Sykes-Picot agreement. The borders were drawn in a way that would give both Britain and France access to oil resources. They installed kings and emirs to rule these oil-rich nations in their interest. As the power of the British and French declined, the United States moved in to fill the void, and the monarchs became American clients instead.

The Milestone Pact agreed between the United States in 1974 following the First Oil Shock allowed the Saudis to charge whatever price they chose for their oil on condition that their surplus profits were invested in the United States. The United States guaranteed military protection for Saudi Arabia, provided it purchased American weapons and paid for the construction of American military bases within its borders.

These commitments spread to all the Gulf monarchies. In return for paying for the construction of military bases, the United States agreed to protect them from attack. The Sunni Gulf Monarchies also agreed to support the petro-dollar mechanism whereby Gulf oil revenues are recycled into US debt, to prop up US military spending beyond what the nation can afford.

Unfortunately, the United States is not just providing ‘protection’ for the Gulf oil producers; it is propping up deeply corrupt, dynastic families, ruling over cowed subjects. There is an associated risk that half a dozen monarchs would lose their crowns overnight if the oil revenues that they use to bribe their subjects suddenly stopped. This could be happening now.

The position of the Gulf monarchs is now quite shaky.

• The Gulf rulers sold out to the US in return for promised military protection. They spent huge amounts of money on American weapons. They paid for the construction of American bases. They invested their profits in the United States. Now the American promise of protection has failed. When the United States and Israel attacked Iran, the United States was unable to protect its bases from drone and missile attacks. Hotels where American service people went to hide were bombed. The war has proved that American promises of protection are meaningless. In fact, hosting US bases brings a nation into danger of attack.

• The military forces in these countries tend to be corrupt. Soldiers are well paid, but they are not serious fighters. For example, when the Saudi Arabian air force bombed Yemen, they could not cope without US logistical and technical support. These nations usually have a palace guard of some kind that is loyal to the ruler and his family, but much of the army is more loyal to their tribal leaders than to their ruler.

• The Gulf states are tribal. The leaders of the tribes surrendered power to their king/sultan in return for military protection, freedom to do business, and a share of their country’s oil wealth to fund their businesses. Now that the US promise to provide military protection has proved to be a sham, the loyalty of the tribal leaders has been undermined.

• The Gulf monarchies have invested massive amounts of their surplus profits in US Treasuries. Now that the US budget deficits have grown so large, and it is getting harder to sell US government debt, the Gulf monarchs might find it hard to get their surplus back when they need it. The US government might obstruct their efforts to sell Treasuries, as it will push up US interest rates.

• Due to massive oil wealth and small populations, the Gulf monarchies have a rich ruling class. Everyone connected to the royal family is prosperous, while many who disconnected are poor. A big pool of people is hostile to their king/sultan. Many of these are in the military. They could easily be encouraged to rebel.

• The Gulf rulers are secular in practice, if not in belief, while the population is Muslim. They fly to London and party for a fortnight, and then fly back home and pretend to be religious. The support of religious leaders and their people for their rulers is weakening.

• The youth of the Gulf nations are often disillusioned. Many have been educated in religious schools (madrassas), but they have not received the technical training needed for participation in a modern economy. They have access to western culture through music, movies, television, and the internet, but it does not provide spiritual meaning. This has left many disenchanted, so they might welcome an Islamic revival.

• The Gulf monarchies need a huge number of temporary workers from Asia to keep their economies going. These workers are often on temporary visas, so they can be forced out at any time. They are there for income to support their families back home, so they have no loyalty to the nation they are working in. They are free to leave at any time if the situation deteriorates.

Each of the Gulf monarchies faces these issues, but they each have unique problems as well.

• Under the Ottoman Empire, Kuwait was administered with the Basra province of Iraq. The British established it as a protectorate to ensure it continued to have access to oil. Iraq considers that Kuwait belongs to it, and without American support, it could not be defended from a serious invasion.

• Bahrain has a majority Shia population, but is ruled by a Sunni monarch, controlled by Saudi Arabia. The population has long-standing links with Iran, so if the king has lost support. If he were overthrown because the Saudis could not protect him, the population would choose closer ties with Iran.

• · At various times in its history, Oman was controlled by the Portuguese, Persians and the British. During the Arab Spring, protests destabilised the situation, but the sultan retained power. He is a member of the Al Bu Said dynasty. Stretched government finances, a bloated public sector, and inadequate non-oil revenue sources are serious problems.

• The UAE (United Arab Emirates) consists of seven disunited emirates, each ruled by an emir. They have submitted to the emir of Abu Dhabi in return for abundant revenue, because he controls most of the oil wealth of the region. If the oil wealth were to disappear, their loyalty could disappear too.
  
  The UAE’s foreign nationals constitute 88.5 percent of the population — roughly 10 million people out of a nation of 11.35 million. The engineers who run refineries, finance workers who manage sovereign wealth funds, construction labourers who build the infrastructure, and hospitality and logistics staff without whom airports, hotels, and ports do not function are all foreign nationals. They are there voluntarily, under contract, with the freedom to leave. The economy would be seriously disrupted if they left.

• Qatar has been ruled as a hereditary monarchy by the House of Thani since an agreement was made with Britain in 1868. The Al Udeid Air Base, located in the desert southwest of the capital city of Doha, has been an important base for the US Air Force, but it has suffered serious damage due to the war.

  
  Expatriates make up approximately 88.4 percent of its residents. These are not immigrant communities in any conventional Western sense. What happens to Qatar’s LNG infrastructure when its technical workforce evacuates?

• Jordan is not a Gulf monarchy, but it is in the same boat. The King of Jordan is a member of the Hashemite family, who were shipped in from Saudi Arabia by the British in 1921. The majority of the population are Palestinian. The Arab people are more loyal to their tribes than to the King.

• Iraq has developed very close ties with Iran. For many years, Iraq was controlled by a secular Baathist government, but that ended when the United States invaded to topple Saddam Hussein, a person they had helped put into power. The Iraqi state is now dominated by the majority Shia population, who recognised Ayatollah Khamenei as an important spiritual leader. Millions of people of all ages participated in massive parades for his funeral in the three biggest cities in Iraq.
  
  Several private Shia militia groups operate within Iraq. They wield substantial political and military influence within the nation. One of the most important is the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), which drove ISIS out of Mosul, where it had declared a caliphate when the regular army abandoned it. The Shia militia are supportive of Iran. The PMF has attacked a military base in Saudi Arabia in support of Iran.

• Since the invasion, the United States has exerted control over the Iraqi government, but that influence is declining, as American military forces are being forced to withdraw (the last US forces are due to leave by 30 September 2026). Iraq has found a way to sell oil that bypasses United States control. The influence of the United States is diminishing, while the influence of Islam is increasing.

• The Saud family seized control of Saudi Arabia with the help of the British at the beginning of the 19th century, but it could become unstable.

  
  Islam in Saudi Arabia is dominated by Wahhabism, one of the most rigid sects of Sunni Islam. It adopted “takfirism”, the right to accuse other Muslims of apostasy, strip them of legal protection, and make them legitimate targets of violence. Takfiri justified the violence inflicted by both Al Qaeda and ISIS.
  
  The Saud family provided financial support for the Wahhabi sect in return for their political support, on the condition that they directed their missionary activities to other nations. The Wahhabi leaders have used their share of Saudi oil wealth to fund radical Islamic mosques right across Asia. Turned off by the violence of Wahhabism, the people of Saudi Arabia might become more open to a gentler form of Islam.
  
  Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is a crown prince, not the king. He seized power without waiting for his father to die, with the support of younger people, but this weakens his moral authority.
  
  MBS has supported westernisation, but westernisation is not modernisation. He has built nightclubs near Mecca, which offends many Muslims. He also established strong links with the United States and Israel, but these causes are unpopular with his Muslim people.
  
  The war against Iran is leaving MBS vulnerable to a coup, as he has lost the support of many of the tribes that were bought off using oil wealth. He undermined the authority of the tribes by privatising water and electricity utilities that they controlled and selling them to American companies.
  

  The province with the most oil has a large Shi population with strong religious links to Iran and Iraq. This is a risk for the Sunni rulers.
  
  The Saudi Royal army and the security forces (controlled by his brother) are loyal to MBS. Many in the regular army and the national guard are more loyal to their tribe than to him.

The Gulf monarchies are ruled by hereditary kings/sultan/emirs, who were not elected. Most of them were put in place by the British less than 100 years ago, so they don’t have long-term legitimacy. US military protection and abundant oil money have corrupted these monarchs and the people who are around them. US military protection has failed and the oil money risk, so the power of these rulers is vulnerable.

In the modern world, where some form of democracy is the norm, unelected rulers are seen as a primitive form of government. The Gulf monarchies probably cannot survive for much longer.

If the Gulf Monarchies collapse, the people of the Middle East who are staunchly Muslim will want a more democratic form of government that retains and protects a strong Islamic influence. In many of these communities, the Iranian system of `leadership/government will be appealing. I would not be surprised if we see Islamic Republics, based on the Iranian model, forming across the Middle East.