A year into Israel’s War on Gaza and recent devastating strikes in Lebanon, the movie “Dune: Part Two” brings to mind many connections between the film’s fiction and real-world events.
Arrakis, the desert planet where Dune takes place, is home to the Fremen, a nomadic group clearly inspired by Middle Eastern cultures—a connection evident in Frank Herbert’s original books.
Watching “Dune: Part Two,” one cannot ignore the parallels to contemporary political realities. Herbert’s Dune universe is heavily influenced by Islamic and Near Eastern cultures, incorporating elements from Arabic, Persian, and Turkish traditions.
This connection is reflected in terms like ‘Lisan Al Gaib’ or ‘Mahdi’ for the messianic figure Paul Atreides, ‘Shai-Hulud’ (meaning eternal thing) for the sandworms, ‘Fedaykin’ for the desert warriors (from the Farsi ‘Fedayeen’), and ‘Padishah’ for emperor.
The Fremen men wear keffiyeh-like scarves, while the women, except those fighting in the Fremen guerilla force, cover their hair with something resembling a hijab. These cultural references prompt international audiences to draw comparisons between the film’s narrative and the situation in the Middle East, particularly in Gaza and Lebanon.
For instance, the Harkonnens, the colonizers controlling the spice mining on Arrakis, aim to eradicate the Fremen to maintain power without opposition. Their language—referring to the Fremen as “rats” and demanding to “exterminate them all!”—bears an unsettling resemblance to statements from some Israeli officials, such as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who has referred to their adversaries as “human animals” and called for the destruction of Gaza.
Frank Herbert’s Dune universe, set in a distant future, is a complex tapestry that mirrors our own world, where politics, religion, ecology, and power intersect. Through the story of Paul Atreides, Herbert explores the intertwining of religion and leadership, showcasing how belief systems can be manipulated by leaders to shape society and drive their own agendas.
Dune 2 is not a story of heroism
Is Dune a tale of heroism or a cautionary narrative about the dangers of leadership and societal collapse? Frank Herbert delivers a potent warning through the evolution of Paul, the central figure in this universe. Herbert urges readers to maintain critical thinking and resist the temptation to place blind trust in leaders, particularly those who cloak themselves in religious authority.
So, when Paul, the messianic leader, ascends to power, he doesn’t just hold onto his position; he actively expands his influence, wealth, and dominance. This is not a story of heroism but a reflection of the historical patterns of power and control that have played out repeatedly in the real world, echoing the relentless and often destructive struggle for power that characterizes human societies.
The narrative centers around a few survivors of a bloody power struggle, who fled to Arrakis. Though hostile, this region is strategically vital as the galaxy’s only source of spice. They found refuge with the Fremen, who now see the young teenager Paul as the prophesied Mahdi. Initially resisting this role, Paul foresees the dangers of fanatical followers but ultimately embraces leadership, uniting the Fremen and using their military strength to achieve his goals.
Herbert, through Paul’s journey and his manipulation of the Fremen’s faith, underscores how easily leadership can become corrupted when it exploits the motivations and beliefs of the masses. The narrative serves as a stark reminder of the dangers inherent in the concentration of power, especially when it is coupled with religious authority. Herbert’s message is clear: leadership, when unchecked by critical thinking and accountability, can lead to catastrophic outcomes.
A transformational journey
We see Paul’s journey from a reluctant savior to a pragmatic leader who manipulates the Fremen’s faith to achieve his political aims. He gains their trust by presenting himself as their prophesied messiah, inciting them to revolt and seize control of Arrakis. This leads to a devastating holy war that claims sixty billion lives. In Villeneuve’s second film, Paul openly declares war, prioritizing his power over moral considerations, showcasing the dangerous consequences of political power intertwined with religious fervor. Herbert uses this narrative to critique the dangers of leadership, illustrating how religion, when wielded by those in power, can become a destructive force.
Herbert’s portrayal of the Fremen’s faith as an organized religion serves as a caution against the uncritical acceptance of prophecies and beliefs. Paul’s transformation of the Fremen into followers who abandon individual thought highlights the peril of religious leaders imposing their will. Though Paul initially seeks to free the Fremen from external oppression, his rule ultimately imposes a more insidious form of control, as the Fremen become unwittingly enslaved by their own faith. Herbert’s narrative, thus, serves as a cautionary tale against the dangers of absolute power and the importance of maintaining critical thinking, even in the face of seemingly heroic leadership.
Herbert’s central message is that leaders, no matter how admirable they appear, are fallible humans prone to mistakes. He warns against surrendering critical thinking and autonomy to leaders, as their errors can have catastrophic consequences, amplified by the blind obedience of their followers. This critique extends to the followers who support leaders without question. Herbert emphasizes that true power lies with the masses, and it is a collective responsibility, not just the leader’s, that drives the course of history. The notion that Paul alone is responsible for the universe-ravaging holy war is flawed; rather, it is the Fremen’s collective will that awakens the sleeping giant within him.
Hassan Nasrallah’s Ascent in Lebanon: A Parallel to Paul’s Journey with the Fremen
Hassan Nasrallah’s assassination on 27 September in an Israeli bomb attack on the movement’s HQ in Dahiyeh, Beirut, marks a turning point for his organization, and, more broadly, Lebanon.
Nasrallah has been a pivotal figure in the landscape of Middle Eastern politics, particularly as the leader of Hezbollah, a group established in the early 1980s with the intent of resisting Israeli occupation in Lebanon. Ascending to leadership in 1992 following Israel’s assassination of his predecessor, Nasrallah was just 32 years old.
Central to Hezbollah’s ethos is muqawama – resistance to Israel and its allies. His leadership marked a transformative period for Hezbollah, which evolved from a militia into a significant political force within Lebanon and a significant military actor in the region, equipped with advanced weaponry. Nasrallah’s reputation as resistance leader received a significant boost when Israel concluded its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000.
Central to Nasrallah’s influence is his deep-rooted connection to Shiism, a branch of Islam that shapes much of Hezbollah’s ideology. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 significantly influenced Nasrallah, then a young cleric, to pursue a political career.
Hassan Nasrallah was born in Bourj Hammoud, where he immersed himself in Islamic texts while his siblings engaged in sports. When civil war broke out in 1975, his family sought refuge in their ancestral village of Bazourieh, close to Tyre. It was during this tumultuous period that Nasrallah joined Amal, a largely secular Shia movement.
In 1976, at the age of 16 and with limited resources, he relocated to the renowned Shia seminary in Najaf, Iraq. There, he found a mentor in Al-Musawi, a fellow Lebanese exile. After Lebanese students were expelled from Iraq in 1978, Nasrallah continued his studies with Al-Musawi in Baalbek, located in the Beqaa Valley, and became involved in Amal’s politburo.
By 1982, younger Shia leaders like Nasrallah began to break away from Amal, gravitating toward Khomeini’s ideology. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards, operating in Lebanon, transformed these young idealists into the hardline Hezbollah movement. In 1989, Nasrallah relocated to Iran to further his education at the Qom seminary.
Nasrallah often invokes the concept of the Mahdi, a messianic figure in Shiite belief who is expected to emerge in times of great turmoil. This connection not only bolsters his legitimacy among Shiite Muslims but also frames Hezbollah’s struggle against Israel as part of a larger divine narrative. However, critics of Nasrallah reject his religious rhetoric. They labeled him an Iranian proxy, accusing him of eliminating adversaries, including Shia intellectuals and prominent Lebanese figures like Rafiq al-Hariri. They highlight his inhumane tactics during the Syrian civil war, ranging from starving besieged Syrian towns to committing significant war crimes.
Nonetheless, Nasrallah’s ability to mobilize grassroots support has been significant. He has cultivated a dedicated following among Lebanese Shiites, leveraging religious teachings to inspire his fighters, instilling a sense of martyrdom among his followers.
During his time in leadership, Nasrallah has consistently employed rhetoric that aligns with his Shiite identity and the ideological framework of the Mahdi, which has significantly influenced Hezbollah’s actions and narratives. His skill in intertwining religious zeal with manipulative political strategy draws striking parallels to the rise and rhetoric of Paul Atreides in Dune 2.
A double critique for leaders and followers
Paul embodies the desire for power, while the Fremen represent the tendency to be ruled. When a community places its trust in a leader to determine what is right, it risks falling into a state of submission, regardless of the leader’s intentions. Despite Paul’s promise to free the Fremen from exploitation, he ultimately capitalizes on the conditions that grant him power rather than challenging them.
Herbert critiques both the desire for dominance in leaders and the willingness of followers to surrender their autonomy. He urges caution not only in following leaders but also in the inherent human tendency to obey without question. Herbert’s work serves as a reminder to maintain a skeptical view of human nature, advocating for careful reflection on the leaders we choose and the motives behind our allegiance. His insights into leadership remain relevant, rooted in the unchanging aspects of human nature.
Frank Herbert’s Dune is more than just a tale of interplanetary conflict; it is a profound exploration of the dangers of power and the complexities of leadership. Herbert’s central message remains strikingly relevant: the importance of maintaining critical thinking and skepticism in the face of seemingly heroic leadership. Whether in the distant future of Arrakis or the present-day Beirut, the dangers of unchecked power and blind obedience are ever-present, urging audiences to question Machiavellian leaders who use religious myths to drive their followers for earthly motives.