For the second — and perhaps not the last — time, Iranian officials have amplified the bewilderment of the present with an odd mix of misplaced overtures. In their initial exuberance about the Egyptian revolution, Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, hailed it as an “Islamic revolution”, hinting that it was inspired by the Islamic Revolution in Iran 34 years earlier. The fact is that Islamists played a minor role in Egypt's revolution. Salafis opposed any insurrection against the ruler, denouncing such actions as sinful, or haram. The Muslim Brotherhood, for its part, was the last to go to Tahrir Square and the first to leave it. So eager were its officials for a compromise that they rushed into talks with Omar Suleiman, the man Hosni Mubarak under siege appointed vice president, and then struck a hasty alliance with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). The Iranian statements were a source of embarrassment to the Muslim Brotherhood, bringing into question its commitment to the creation of a modern and democratic state. Interestingly, the Iranians never described the Syrian revolution as “Islamic”, simply because this revolution aims to bring down one of their key allies in the region. Tehran has consistently backed Bashar Al-Assad and labelled the revolution in Syria as “foreign conspiracy”. Iran's labelling of the Egyptian revolution as “Islamic” and its backing of Al-Assad's regime in Syria grated against Egyptian sensibilities. The Salafis, of almost all denominations, found the Iranian remarks offensive and denounced the Iranian backing of Al-Assad as “sectarian prejudice”. The Iranian remarks made it hard for any Egyptian official to even think of opening a new chapter in relations with Iran, not even to restore some equilibrium to the regional balance of power. As for Egyptian liberals, they reject the idea of strong ties with Iran for intellectual and political reasons. The young revolutionaries, too, are angry at Iran for siding with a regime that is killing its own people. Iran could have spared itself this situation had it paid attention to what President Mohamed Morsi keeps saying. Speaking at recent gatherings in Mecca and Tehran, Morsi made it clear that the Syrian people have a right for freedom, dignity and justice. Iran could have also spared itself embarrassment had it understood that the Egyptian revolution is about democracy and equal rights. It is no secret that the Egyptians are in no mood to tolerate military or religious rule. Cairo is not going to be able to improve its ties with Tehran unless Iran quits interfering in the internal affairs of Arab countries and begins thinking in terms of a political-economic partnership that is not based on sectarian or religious grounds. Egyptians are naturally loath to sectarianism and wish to create a civil and democratic state. Still the Iranians are not getting it. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came recently to Cairo, he was booed by Salafi demonstrators in front of Al-Hussein Mosque before being ushered into a lukewarm reception in Al-Azhar. The meeting of the Iranian president and the grand imam of Al-Azhar didn't go well at all. And it is significant that the grand imam didn't go to the airport to receive Ahmadinejad, or to send him off. The grand imam didn't even attend the press conference the Iranian president held after the meeting. Instead, he sent one of his aides to read out a statement that was both displeasing and disappointing to the Iranians. In this statement, the grand imam called on Iran to respect the sovereignty of Bahrain, quit interfering in the affairs of Gulf countries, and seek an end to the bloodshed in Syria. He also called on Tehran to treat its Sunni citizens well, and to refrain from proselytising in Sunni countries. Egypt is not yet prepared for closer ties with Iran, or even for discussing the way to reconcile conflicts among theological doctrines. Both Al-Azhar and the Salafis are worried about the spread of an Iranian “Shia tide” into the region. But Iran is not taking heed of these messages, nor is it willing to understand the reasons why Egypt is still averse to sending an ambassador to Tehran. What the Iranians don't seem to notice is that the current Muslim Brotherhood-led regime in Egypt retains much of the international, regional and economic outlook of the past regime. Egypt's new regime is a friend of the US, and committed to the peace treaty with Israel. Cairo has not discontinued its security coordination with Israel, and remains committed to its security. The current Egyptian regime is still reliant on foreign aid and international finance. This is why it is eager to maintain close relations with the US and the West in general, as well as with Arab Gulf countries. The regime is also a political partner with the Salafis, who have no lost love for Iran. For all of these reasons, Egypt is not going to run into Iran's arms. The Iranians were wrong to call Egypt's revolution “Islamic”. And they failed to see the negative impact of the Iranian president's visit to Cairo. Recently, 17 Iranian scientists and intellectuals sent a letter to President Morsi advising him to introduce the system of velayat-e faqih (rule by Islamic clerics) to Egypt and promising to help Egypt reap the full advantages of this system. The letter was signed by the Iranian semi-official news agency Fars, which mentioned that among the signatories of the message were advisers to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, including former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati. The letter, which extols the “extraordinary experiences” of the Islamic revolution in Iran, declares that, “the best path in life is that inspired by velayat-e faqih.” How insane can one get? Is Iran totally incapable of finding a way to promote ties with Egypt other than this? Is it even aware that Egypt is a “stronghold of Sunnism”, to use the words of the Egyptian grand imam? And what kind of impact do the Iranians believe their advice would have in a country still striving to create a democratic and modern state, one that is not dominated by the military or the ulema (religious scholars), one that is truly committed to freedom, dignity and justice? Velayat-e faqih is a highly controversial proposal, even among Shias. It was opposed by Imam Abul-Qassem Al-Khui (d 1992), the chief scholar of Najaf. It was rejected by Ayatollah Mohamed Jawad Moghania, Ayatollah Mohamed Mahdi Shamseddin, and Mohamed Hussein Fadlallah. It was denounced by some of Iran's top intellectuals, including Mohsen Kadivar. So what exactly is the point? Those who wrote the message about velayat-e faqih are not doing Iran, or Egypt, a favour.
