Khaberni - Written by the Secretary-General of the Azm Party, Engineer Zaid Nafaa:
Expiration Date
A Political Analysis in Times of Decisive Transformations.
1979/2/1 - 2026/2/1
Engineer Zaid Nafaa
Secretary-General of the Azm Party.
Many institutions and bodies around the world operate as sovereign national institutions, such as: the Standards and Measures Institute, and the Public Authority for Food and Drug.
By the nature of their work, these institutions are linked with coordinative and technical relations with specialized international organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), aiming to ensure the safety of food and pharmaceutical products and achieve the highest standards of quality and health and safety.
However, the essence of this relationship remains clear and constant:
The national institutions remain national in their powers and decisions, even if they rely on international recommendations or standards. This clearly distinguishes them from international organizations with transboundary nature, such as: UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Trade Organization, the World Tourism Organization, and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), which derive their legitimacy from broad international consensus, not from the sovereignty of any particular state.
Returning to the essence of the matter, the discussion of powers—whether national or international—is not a marginal administrative detail, but a core entry point for understanding major shifts in international politics.
For example, the Standards and Measures Institute is the nationally authorized body for approving the use of various equipment and tools, and the Public Authority for Food and Drug is officially authorized to approve foods, drugs, formulations, determine their expiration dates, and withdraw them from markets when those dates pass, either because they continue to be sold or marketed, whereupon they are destroyed immediately, or held for a specified period pending destruction according to approved legal procedures.
However, the decisions of international organizations are not based on limited national considerations or narrow local interests, but on international balances, major interests, and long-term strategic readings.
A few days ago, during an extensive debate that included a group of politicians specialized in Middle Eastern security policy, a direct question was posed to me about current changes and the future of the region.
I asked the questioner to specify the question more accurately because a general answer would have led us to a full lecture and perhaps to a deep and lengthy discussion, starting with Iraq, passing through Syria, the Hezbollah file, and ending with the most complex and dangerous files related to the state of occupation, the future of the West Bank, the Gaza file, and the new Peace Council.
He immediately asked, clearly and professionally:
«The file on the table... Iran.»
I paused for a moment, and took a deep breath.
The Iran file is, undoubtedly, the most complex, impactful, and intertwined in the stability of the region—politically, economically, geographically, and militarily—not only since the establishment of the regime of Velayat-e Faqih but since the formation of modern Iranian state, and perhaps even before that.
But time constraints imposed a condensed and direct answer, so I chose a practical and intelligent analogy:
I likened the political system to the expiration of pharmaceuticals.
Just as:
• National institutions determine the validity of a product within its sovereign scope,
• And international organizations set broader standards that exceed the borders of the state,
We witness today a new phase where traditional powers have diminished, actually concentrated in the hands of faster and stronger powers, capable of ending the “validity” of any political system whenever they see that it is no longer fit for use, or has become a burden on international stability, or conflicting interests are involved, as happened earlier this year.
And here was the clear and direct answer to the question posed:
Yes, the decision has been made.
And the validity has expired.
We are now in a stage of precise inventory of “goods”, withdrawal of “formulations” from the markets, and perhaps the irony is that the disposal process might take place in situ, not outside, as the infrastructure
for the “new formulations” is much more complicated than what was seen globally at the beginning of this year.
It is not just a metaphor.
Rather, it is an accurate descriptor of an international political stage, managed with a mindset of validity and expiration,
not with the mindset of slogans or speeches.
And the real question is no longer:
Has the validity expired?
But it has become:
Who will be the replacement?
And by what standards and measures?
And, of course, without any neglect for taking a prior opinion from the “Food and Drug Administration”, regarding the validity period of the new product.
