Levantine Logic@TheAnalysisMan
According to the Axis of Resistance:
If a Syrian president visits Western capitals, meets heads of state, and shakes hands in palaces, then he automatically becomes part of the “Western camp”?
Fine. Then let us apply that standard consistently.
Did Bashar al-Assad not make similar visits? Did he not also travel, meet Western leaders, shake the same hands, stand in the same rooms, and take the same photos? So by this logic, was Bashar also part of the “Western camp”? Or does this accusation only appear when it is politically convenient?
This is precisely why so much of the so-called “axis” discourse collapses under its own hypocrisy. They want to turn every diplomatic image into a theological revelation. If they like the ruler, it is called strategy. If they dislike the ruler, it is called betrayal. The standard changes, but the photo remains the same.
As for Hizb al-Tahrir:
Meeting foreign leaders does not mean two presidents are identical. It does not mean one man is simply another man with a different beard, suit, or slogan. And it certainly does not mean history is frozen, with one face merely replacing another while everything else stays unchanged.
What it means is something much older, deeper, and more enduring:
﴿وَتِلْكَ الْأَيَّامُ نُدَاوِلُهَا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ﴾
“And these days We alternate among the people.”
This is the point they do not want to confront.
This Quranic verse is not just about victory and defeat in war. It is about the circulation of position, access, legitimacy, leverage, and historical momentum among people and nations. Doors that were once open close. Doors that were once shut open. Men who were once received are later discarded. Others who were once isolated are later received. That is not proof of moral purity, nor proof of treason. It is proof that history moves.
So no, a diplomatic visit does not prove that Syria has become “Western.”
And no, the existence of a handshake does not mean nothing has changed.
It simply means the wheel has turned again.
The real question is not who stood in the palace for the photograph.
Because once you compare the photos honestly, you are forced to admit that the act of diplomacy itself was never the issue. The issue is that they resent who now gets to occupy the frame.
وَتِلْكَ الْأَيَّامُ نُدَاوِلُهَا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ
And that verse remains the most elegant answer to all of this:
today does not belong to the same people as yesterday, and tomorrow will not belong to the same people as today.
So do what is just and upright while you are temporarily here.
After all, this life is transient and we are all from dust... 🍃 ⏳
