News reports alleged that Washington received “several” offers from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf allies to assist the US-led coalition against the nascent Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). On Monday, officials from 24 countries pledged at a hastily arranged crisis meeting in Paris to use “whatever means necessary” to destroy what they called a “global threat”.

Iran, a key regional player and the source of some of the tensions that plague Iraq and Syria directly, and Lebanon — indirectly via Hezbollah — was not invited, which irritated its leaders. Even if President Francois Hollande of France wanted Iran to join the conference, US Secretary of State John Kerry ruled out the possibility, maintaining that such an invitation was inappropriate because of Tehran’s support of the Baath regime in Damascus. When asked after the conference whether Tehran might join the coalition at a later stage, a spokesperson for the American diplomat said there might be a future opportunity, most likely at the margins of ongoing discussions either during the annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York in a few weeks or at the next phase of nuclear negotiations in November.

Notwithstanding this minor opportunity, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claimed that Tehran had rejected American requests for cooperation. In a typical moment of hubris, the Ayatollah re-echoed his latest gem: “I saw no point in cooperating with a country whose hands are dirty and intentions murky.”

How could anyone take Khamenei’s assertion seriously — that he vetoed an American request — given Iranian activities throughout the Arab world? Although Iran forged a strategic relationship with Syria several decades ago, few deny that it provided and continues to channel unprecedented financial and military assistance to Damascus — assistance which has significantly increased during the past three years. It may even have dispatched Special Forces’ units from its Revolutionary Guards — the so-called Al Quds Brigade responsible for extraterritorial operations — to fight the Syrian opposition.

Moreover, it propped up Hezbollah in Lebanon, whose leaders openly pledged to implement the velayat-e-faqih [guardianship of the jurist] in what was a multi-cultural and multi-religious republic; armed Hamas. Under the circumstances, why would Washington, or for that matter any other power, wish to coordinate with Iran?

Ironically, the IRNA news agency statement, which quoted the Supreme Guide as saying “the American ambassador in Iraq asked our ambassador for a session to discuss coordinating a fight against Daesh [Isil],” revealed serious internal problems because Khamenei’s rejoinder was telling. The alleged offer was apparently “welcomed by some [Iranian] officials, but I [Khamenei] was opposed [to it]” which further reflected deep divisions between the clerical establishment that saw President Hassan Rouhani take the lead in opening direct channels of communication with regional and international actors.

Even so, and while it may be too early to determine who ‘caliph’ Ebrahim Al Baghdadi really is and what his nascent “state” will amount to, there can be little doubt that the latter’s rise was a reaction to events on the ground — first in Iraq and then in Syria. Beyond the rotation of power that saw Sunnis marginalised in both countries, successive governments failed to adopt inclusive policies that protected all citizens equally, even if past dictators were not the paragons of impartiality. Of course, consecutive leaders in Baghdad and Damascus talked the talk, but they seldom walked the walk, which led to the rise of the latest barbarians whose contributions to civilisation include beheadings, massive expulsions, and coerced conversions.

Contradictions

Although long overdue, today’s resolve to fight Isil is a natural phenomenon, even if what is equally clear is the determination not to include an enabler of such groups among allies working to eradicate this scourge. Few quibble with the fact that Iran was a major regional power whose leaders sought inclusion in the family of nations, even if past approaches proved to be problematic. Sometimes, a country’s leaders create their own worst dilemmas and pose serious challenges that stand in contradiction to what ordinary men and women aspire towards.

Iranians are gentle, frugal and humble people, though the same cannot be said about their leaders that probably led several to commit a multitude of errors. Neither the Shah nor his successors learnt from Lao-tzu, the Chinese philosopher and poet who contributed to the rise of Taoism, and who once said: “I have three precious things which I hold fast and prize. The first is gentleness; the second is frugality; the third is humility, which keeps me from putting myself before others. Be gentle and you can be bold, be frugal and you can be liberal, avoid putting yourself before others and you can become a leader among men.”

— Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of the forthcoming Iffat Al Thunayan: An Arabian Queen, London: Sussex Academic Press, 2015.