If it weren’t for the ongoing clearing of Tehran’s streets from ambulant merchants and beggars; and if it weren’t for the decoration of the gardens and electric poles; and had the invitations not already been sent to officials in the non-aligned movement, the news of this movement’s summit being held in Tehran by the end of this week would have been a joke rather than a modern day political fact, especially in our affected areas where facts are more like oddities now. What is the connection between the non-aligned movement and the Islamic Republic of Iran that dictated the choice of the Iranian capital as a meeting place for the leaders of that movement?

The non-aligned movement was born in light of an international polarization between the American and Soviet poles at the beginning of the 1960s (in 1961 at the then-Yugoslavian capital, Belgrade.) The movement was originally established as a middle ground movement between the western and eastern blocs. Even though this was an anti-colonization movement (since it confronted the Soviet control over the Eastern European countries via the cold war), it followed a completely sovereign approach and worked on minimizing the severity of the international crisis whenever possible. But the only thing that still stands from that movement – which included major founders such as Joseph Tito, Jawaharlal Nehru and Gamal Abdel Nasser – is its name, since the world is now under the control of one pole. This is although Russia is trying to gain some ground through some international crises such as the Syrian crisis in order to prove its ability to play the part that was once played by the fallen Soviet Union.

And if the ideas of the non-aligned movement were to be revived, this will definitely not be achieved by Iran’s appointment at the head of this movement for the next three years. This is because, and without overstatement, there is a deep sea separating the principles and politics that constitute the basis of the non-aligned movement and those principles and politics that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been fighting for ever since it was first established. The founders of that movement wanted it to abstain from interfering in other countries’ affairs; to adopt the politics of complete neutrality in international conflicts; and to abstain from taking any hostile and one-sided steps against any of its members or any other country. Iran’s politics are as far as can be from the above. Indeed, ever since the success of the Islamic revolution, Tehran has been bragging about its desire to export its revolution. It is now engaged in a deep confrontation with the USA and the West over its nuclear program, which might lead to a major military confrontation. In addition, Tehran is investing in the fall of the old regimes and the establishment of alternative ones since it believes that the next regimes will have pro-Iranian policies. This has been Iran’s case with the revolutions of the Arab Spring whereby Tehran quickly considered that these revolutions are an “Iranian copy”, even though the people concerned with these revolutions had declared that they had nothing to do with Iran and even though they focused on minding their countries’ own domestic affairs away from the demagogy that characterizes the speeches of the Iranian officials.

However, this ideological debate over the function of the non-aligned movement and its success in playing its part is as far as can be from the concerns of the Iranian leaders. These leaders consider that Tehran’s leading this movement after Cairo is a “victory” to their stand against “the forces of arrogance” meaning the USA and its partners. Thus, the leaders and officials who are now packing to fly to Tehran must realize that their trip will not succeed in pulling the non-aligned movement away from its comatose state.