Reports that is considering arming Iranian Kurdish groups point toward a familiar and dangerous strategy of proxy regime change — one that rests on a fundamental misreading of Iran’s demographic and political realities and carries potentially catastrophic risks not only for the US, but for the wider region and beyond.

A geographic misunderstanding 

To begin with, the strategy appears poorly informed about Iran’s internal political and demographic realities. Iran’s Kurdish population represents a relatively small minority of the country’s roughly 90 million people. Most place their numbers between 8% and 10%. 

They are concentrated largely in the mountainous northwest of the country along the borders with Iraq and Turkey, hundreds of miles from the political and economic center of gravity around Tehran. By contrast, the majority of the population is ethnically Persian, around 60%, with a long and deeply rooted sense of national identity stretching back more than two millennia. Two factors further make the idea even more problematic. 

First, most Iranian Kurds are Sunni Muslims in a country where more than of the population is Shia. That sectarian divide is not trivial. Sunni–Shia tensions have shaped Middle Eastern politics for centuries and continue to structure alliances and rivalries across the region. Arming a small Sunni Kurdish minority in the hope of toppling a Shia Persian state suggests a fundamental misreading of the country’s ethnic and sectarian realities by US national security advisers.  

Second, the largest Kurdish population in the region is not in Iran at all but in southeastern Turkey, where Kurdish groups have fought a bitter against Ankara, in the capital of Turkey, for more than 40 years. During the Syrian Civil War, the US armed and supported forces as part of its campaign against the Islamic State. 

Once that mission was largely accomplished and American support began to recede, Turkey intervened militarily to weaken those same Kurdish forces, fearing they would embolden its own Kurdish minority. In other words, Kurdish proxy strategies rarely remain neatly contained within national borders.

Poor strategizing and underestimating 

There is also a broader strategic risk. Attempts to overthrow regimes from the outside often produce the opposite of the intended effect. Rather than weakening the government in Tehran, overt foreign support for insurgent groups could encourage Iranians, many of whom are critical of their own leadership, to rally around the flag in the face of . 

Iran also possesses far stronger state cohesion than many outsiders assume. While the regime faces significant domestic dissent, as evidenced by the in recent months, the Iranian state itself has proven resilient, a war with Iraq, decades of sanctions and sustained external pressure.

The alternative scenario may be even worse. Iran is a country of 90 million people, geographically larger than Texas and California combined, with a complex ethnic mosaic and a long history of regional power politics. If the state were to fragment into civil war, the conflict would almost certainly draw in outside powers. Russia and China, both of which maintain with Tehran, could support competing factions to counter American influence.

History offers few examples where external powers successfully engineer regime change through minority proxies. Far more often, such strategies produce fragmentation, civil war and prolonged instability. Pursuing that path in Iran risks turning one of the Middle East’s largest and most historically cohesive states into the next Syria, only vastly larger and far more dangerous. 

 [ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Road to Quagmire in Iran: Why Arming the Kurds Risks Destabilizing the Region appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Corruption has deteriorated the region, and it is not an aberration in the Kurdish political order; it is deeply embedded in its structures. At the same time, economic fragility, political fragmentation and social disillusionment are converging to produce a crisis. Put simply, the system that once promised refuge and self-determination for the Kurds has become a vector of stagnation and grievance.

The political economy of corruption and power

At the heart of Kurdistan’s systemic malaise is the capture of the political system by a tribal power and entrenched elites. The two dominant parties — the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) — have long monopolized power. While corruption levels in the KRI may be somewhat lower than in the rest of Iraq, they remain significant and structurally , and have been worsening in recent years.��

This is largely due to the political entrenchment of party patronage networks and weak bureaucratic oversight mechanisms. Nepotism, clientelism and opaque revenue allocation have become the norm, not the exception.

Scholarly analyses further underline the role of as a legitimizing ideology for entrenched patronage. What began as liberation rhetoric has often been repurposed and instrumentalized to justify the concentration of state resources and to insulate powerful elites from accountability. The effect? A political culture where opposition voices are portrayed as threats to Kurdish unity and rendered as enemies, rather than essential actors in democratic governance.

This dynamic is not merely theoretical. In August 2025, armed clashes erupted in after the arrest of an opposition figure associated with internal PUK dissent, revealing how factionalized power struggles spill directly into violence and civil unrest. Security forces deployed tanks and drones in urban areas, and dozens were arrested amid allegations of destabilization — underscoring how political authority is increasingly enforced through security rather than consensus.

Economic stress and public frustration

Kurdistan’s economy, long reliant on oil exports and federal transfers from the central government of Baghdad, has been under severe stress. Disputes with Iraq’s central government over budgetary allocations and revenue sharing have periodically led to salary freezes for public employees in 2025 — aggravating already precarious livelihoods for teachers, civil servants and healthcare workers. This dispute is not just a technical fiscal issue; it has become a flashpoint of political resentment and constitutional contention.

Beyond salaries, basic services continue to deteriorate. Reports from media outlets widespread power cuts, water shortages and weakened public services across the region, heightening public frustration with a government that seems unable or unwilling to deliver essential infrastructure and social support.

The current situation in the Kurdistan Region increasingly mirrors the post-1990s era in Iraq, when international sanctions crippled the economy, public services collapsed and widespread poverty became an inescapable reality.

These economic pressures accentuate the perception of a kleptocratic order, where public wealth is siphoned through patronage networks and strategic contracts, while everyday citizens with economic insecurity. Such conditions stoke social disillusionment and feed narratives of hopelessness that resonate across households and communities.

Civic space, media and human rights

Corruption not only destroys economics and politics, but it also corrodes civic space, the general rhetoric and media freedom. Independent journalism in the KRI has long struggled under political pressure and, more recently, cuts in support have further hampered investigative reporting. As one outlet documented, investigations into sensitive issues like human organ trafficking are often self-censored out of fear of political backlash.

International human rights reporting also highlights a worsening environment for in both federal Iraq and the Kurdish region. Restrictions on peaceful assembly, allegations of arbitrary detention and the use of force against protesters have been documented over the past several years.

This suppression of dissent may yield short-term control, but it furthers the alienation of broad segments of society, especially the youth, civil society activists and independent journalists who see little space to advocate for reform without risking repression.

Social fractures and the weight of public discontent

The combination of corruption, economic decline and political repression is driving a broader social crisis in the KRI. Widespread inactivity and hopelessness among young people, rooted in high unemployment and lack of economic opportunity, fuels both frustration and a sense that the promise of Kurdistan’s autonomy has been hollowed out.

In numerous online videos, Kurdish citizens have voiced growing frustration with the regional authorities, openly calling for their salaries to be paid directly by Baghdad and expressing disillusionment with the KRI’s self-governance.

Public protests have a history in the region: the in Sulaymaniyah were driven by corruption, unemployment, and service failures, and were met with violent crackdowns. Meanwhile, across Iraq, in 2025 have resurfaced around salary delays, electricity shortages and poor economic conditions, of which the Kurdish region is a microcosm.

When the state consistently fails to provide basic needs or meaningful participation in governance, people inevitably turn to various forms of expression. This polarization is dangerous in a region already marked by sectarian and ethnic complexity.

The breaking point: when governance fails its people

If current trends persist, the Kurdistan Region faces a deepening convergence of political, economic and social crises. Internal fragmentation among ruling elites and between the government and civil society threatens to reignite violent rivalries, as seen in the Sulaymaniyah clashes. Economic stagnation, opaque fiscal management and inconsistent coordination with Baghdad continue to erode living standards, pushing many, especially young professionals, toward emigration.

Equally alarming is the steady erosion of public legitimacy. A governance model that privileges partisan interests over public welfare undermines the very foundations of the Kurdish social contract. Unless the ruling class embraces transparency, power-sharing and reform, the region risks sliding from fragile stability into systemic decay, betraying the promise that once defined the Kurdish aspiration for self-rule.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Governance Without Legitimacy: The Kurdish Region’s Descent into Stagnation appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Fatima is just one of of Shia Muslims across the globe who travel to Iraq to participate in the world’s largest annual peaceful gathering, known as Arbaeen, every year. For Shia Muslims, who make up the majority in Iran and Iraq, Arbaeen, which translates to “40” in Arabic, is a significant occasion and one of the largest religious gatherings in the world. The event marks the 40th day of mourning of Prophet Mohammad’s grandson, Imam Hussain, who was killed by the Umayyad ruler Yazid bin Mu’awiya. He assumed the charge following the death of his father, Muawiya.��

Despite the sweltering temperature, pilgrims from different schools of thought participated in the annual event. This year, temperatures topped , with pilgrims being cooled down with sprayed water during their walk to Karbala before visiting the holy shrines.

Between the shrines of the Prophet’s grandson, Hussain, and his son-in-law, Imam Ali, pilgrims of different ages and nationalities travel 80 kilometers from the city of Najaf to Karbala. They frequently return from the walk feeling famished and exhausted, but their love for all people has spiritually rejuvenated them. It is thought that one’s sins are being forgiven with each step. 

To protect the safety of those participating, Iraqi officials hundreds of miles of road, and local and international charities set up stations called “mawkibs” along the route, providing free food, drink, sweet tea and shelter for those who need it.

From a security point of view, the Arbaeen gathering has always been a challenging for the security grid in Iraq. In the past, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) carried out multiple suicide attacks, hundreds of Shia pilgrims who had been on their way toward Karbala. This year, the Iraqi Government a plot by ISIS terrorists to carry out an attack on the Arbaeen gathering.��

The governor of Karbala, Nasif Jassim al-Khattabi, that his governorate’s Al-Suqur (Falcons) intelligence organization conducted an intelligence operation with a high degree of accuracy and secrecy.����

Twenty-two ISIS terrorists were apprehended who intended to commit crimes, such as setting roadside bombs along the Arbaeen pilgrims’ path, attacking security personnel and religious procession participants, and trying to contaminate the pilgrims’ gathering spots, particularly in the southern regions of the governorate.

Why do Shia Muslims support Palestine?��

The Shia world’s center is Karbala, where Hussain and his brother Abbas are buried in two massive mausoleums facing one another. In honor of Hussain, who died in 680 in a fight with the Umayyad caliph Yazid in Karbala, pilgrims openly express their anguish by crying and lamenting. In light of the conflict in Gaza, pilgrims have prominently displayed Palestinian flags throughout the event.

On October 7, 2023, a Hamas-led onslaught on southern Israel claimed an estimated 1,139 lives. The Israeli counterattack on Gaza has proven to be devastating. According to the Health Ministry in Gaza, Israel has murdered over Palestinians in Gaza. People across the Muslim world are in a state of shock over the bitterness of the conflict and have expressed their sympathy for the Palestinians through a variety of political rallies and religious gatherings. Approximately 21 million pilgrims attended the Arbaeen celebrations this year, which are always held under strict security.

This year, the official slogan of the Arbaeen gathering was “Inna Ala Al-Ahd-Ahd,” an Arabic phrase which means “we are in the covenant”, to show loyalty to the ideals and principles of Imam Hussain. Keeping this year’s theme in mind, Syed Ajaz, 35, from India’s Uttar Pradesh, traveled to Iraq just to fulfill his religious responsibility in the annual Arbaeen gathering. 

While speaking with the freelance journalist Sameer Hussain, Syed Ajaz says that as a Shia Muslim, it is incumbent upon them to support the oppressed class of society. “T��� state of Israel has imposed a war of starvation on Gaza. I’m taking part in the Arbaeen gathering just to express my solidarity with the people of Palestine,” Syed told the author. 

There is no official order in India to control pro-Palestine protests, yet pro-Palestine voices have been criminally charged since the outbreak of war between Hamas and Israel.

India has criminalized pro-Palestine voices by booking people for holding pro-Palestine demonstrations. To avoid being arrested, Syed Ajaz thought that Iraq was a suitable place to protest against Israeli war crimes. 

“T��� Modi government has booked dozens of people involved in pro-Palestine protests. I saved my annual earnings just for the Arbaeen walk, and registered my protest peacefully over there,” Syed added.

What connects Gaza and Iraq’s Karbala? Fundamentally, it is a common tale of resisting persecution and not allowing tyranny to crush hope. Let’s examine it more closely. Hussain chose truth and stood alone against an unjust tyrant in 680 CE.

With an unwavering resolve, people in Gaza today fight occupation and voicelessness in the face of overwhelming power. Pilgrims who spoke with the author described Arbaeen as a collective call for justice and dignity, a protest in motion, and termed this walk a campaign — a nonviolent demonstration that utilizes social media to spread the word about ending the suffering in Gaza.

Speaking with the author, Islamic Scholar Sheeraz Hussain said that “It is the greatest manifestation of unity and solidarity that has no parallel anywhere else in the world.” He says Arbaeen carries a message. The purpose of Arbaeen is that the sacrifice of Imam Hussain (A.S.) should not be considered merely a historical event, but should be kept alive, so that the message of “Hayhat minna al-dhilla” (No to humiliation) continues forever in the face of oppression.

“Arbaeen is not just a gathering; it is a unique way of acting upon the sayings and deeds of Imam Hussain (A.S.) that we must always stand against tyranny and oppressors. This is why we raise the flag of Palestine,” Sheeraz told Sameer Hussain.

Hussain’s will to oppose oppressors

When Yazid, the son of Mu’awiya, came to power in 680, Islam’s basic principles and foundations were changed. Yazeed wanted all Muslims to pledge their allegiance to him. Hussain, the son of the Prophet Mohammad’s grandson, was the main target of Yazid. When Hussain was formally given Yazid’s ultimatum, he deftly requested some time at night to consider it.

He was granted this time after a difficult negotiation. He took his family and left for the safety of Mecca that night, while everyone was sound asleep. Fighting in the Holy City was severely prohibited for Muslims. Many Shi’as followed him. Denying Yazeed’s allegiance, Hussain took a firm stand against Yazeed’s tyrannical rule. Hussain announced to all: “Hal Min Nasirin Yan Surna”, an Arabic phrase that means, “Is there anyone who can help my cause?” This announcement cost Hussain 73 lives of his noble companions, including his six-month-old son, Ali Asghar.

Carrying forward the message of Hussain, Shia Muslims believe that Imam Hussain didn’t bow to Yazid. “His message has a lot of relevance today. Arbaeen serves as a global protest against countries that have committed human rights violations,” says a Shia pilgrim, Syeda Hijab Zehra, 20, who came from Pakistan. 

She adds that Karbala is a symbol of oppression and today, Palestine too is suffering under tyranny and injustice. “In the time of Imam Hussain (A.S.), the greatest issue facing Islam was the rule of Yazid, and today the greatest issue is the rule of Zionism.” Apart from religious pilgrimage, the Arbaeen gathering serves as a powerful protest for issues affecting the Shiite community around the region.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Devotees Express Solidarity with Palestine at the Arbaeen Gathering in Iraq appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While renewable energy is rapidly growing, Iraq’s energy market influence is not waning anytime soon. Iraq’s relative stability its conflict against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) provides an for Chinese and American companies to invest in reconstruction and development efforts, with significant political influence likely to follow.

A tumultuous past

Since the Iraqi government’s declared victory over ISIS in December , both the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and the Iraqi Federal Government in Baghdad have engaged in targeted, succinct efforts to attract investment. One such example is the Localization Fund, which Baghdad in October 2024 as a part of an agreement with Egypt-based Elsewedy Electric to attract foreign investment in strategic projects in nonpetroleum industries to diversify its portfolio. 

The relatively recent return to stability in Iraq has, until recently, kept most major investments at bay, with fears circulating of violence. Nevertheless, instability in Iraq has continued, particularly from Iran-backed Shi’a militant groups, a possible resurgence from ISIS and regime change in Syria, in addition to wider regional instability since October 2023.

Confluence of investment models

The American and Chinese models of investment differ significantly; yet, Iraq has shown potential to benefit from both models, thereby maximizing its development and reconstruction potential. From a governance perspective, US investment transparency, regulatory reform and civil society engagement, whereas China prioritizes expediency and delivers large-scale infrastructure projects through state-directed capital with minimal political conditions, a point often in Chinese government publications. 

Economically, American approaches often involve public-private partnerships and market liberalization, while Chinese investment is typically through state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and concessional loans, seen especially in Iraqi flagship oil-for-infrastructure agreements (despite speculation that some agreements have been practically ).

The American playbook: security and reform, then investment

Since the 2003 invasion, the US has had a multi-pronged approach to involvement in Iraq. Firstly, it established military bases to support the new transition government and to provide support to its counterterrorism mission. Secondly, the US has heavily relied on both development institutions and US government organizations, such as the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which provided reconstruction support and aid via the Iraq Rapid Assistance Program () to provide rapid relief operations to areas of need. The American playbook also included support for International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans that reconstruction while encouraging monetary reforms.

By the time of the victory over ISIS, American firms began stepping up investment projects in the country, which further encouraged business , regulatory reform and civil society engagement. American firms such as and GE Power began significantly investing in Iraq’s energy grid. 

In December 2020, GE Energy the overhaul of the Al Qudus Power Plant, delivering up to 125 megawatts of power to Iraq’s national power grid. GE also completed the upgrade of several power plants through an agreement with the Ministry of Electricity to enhance the performance and output of 46 gas turbines across 12 power plants. The support to Iraq’s power grid comes at a significant time. According to a Director at , a Baghdad-based energy company, Iraq is a power supply shortage of 12 hours per day during the summer.

American firms have also been involved in reconstruction efforts, especially in the petroleum sector. For example, a plethora of American firms are currently working with RASEP to develop the Nahr Bin Umar field in Southern Iraq, which Forbes could become “one of the world’s largest oil and gas fields.” 

Upon completion, the oilfield is expected to yield 300,000 barrels per day and 700 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually. Unlike previously, American firms — through their coordination with RASEP — have empowered local Iraqi firms to benefit from this reconstruction too.

Overall, the US development strategy in Iraq has relied on establishing business-friendly environments through security and fiscal reform to facilitate private investment. Private investment’s role in modernizing Iraq only kicked into high gear once security returned to the country, and not sooner. China’s strategy, on the other hand, has been far more flexible. 

The Chinese strategy: infrastructure without interference

China, which has not hesitated to invest in unstable countries, has seen Iraq as a golden opportunity for access to petroleum and strategic infrastructure in the Middle East. So far, Iraq has over $10 billion in investments from Chinese companies through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) since 2015, ranking it as the fourth-largest recipient among countries. China, being Iraq’s top export destination every year from 2019 to 2023 — 99.3% of which was crude petroleum — further highlights the countries’ economic relationship.

Unlike US private investment, Chinese investment in Iraq was not hindered by the country’s security situation. For example, the state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) bought some of the first oil licenses issued to foreign companies after the 2003 invasion. 

In November 2008, CNPC also won a $3.5 billion contract to develop the Al-Ahdab field. By 2014, CNPC was the foreign investor in Iraq. China has also invested in roads, telecommunications and education. 

Huawei, China’s largest telecommunications SOE, has also actively invested in Iraq, with projects like telecommunications infrastructure and solar power project underway. Huawei has even in the Iraqi workforce through investments in education at universities in both the Iraqi Federal Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Investment has only increased since then. In 2019, Baghdad a 20-year, $10 billion infrastructure-for-oil deal, which stipulated that Iraq would export 100,000 barrels a day to China in exchange for infrastructure investments. These deals have continued, with Baghdad another contract in 2021 with China to finance 1,000 schools in exchange for petroleum. S&P that Chinese companies operate 7.27% of Iraq’s oil and gas development projects, the largest slice of any country besides Iraq; American companies own less than 2%.

Finally, China has positioned its approach as distinct from the US, emphasizing its noninterference in Iraq’s internal affairs. Chinese officials consistently their commitment to “safeguarding national sovereignty” and “territorial integrity,” a core message frequently reiterated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This stance is framed as a strategic advantage, potentially giving China an edge over the US in securing investment opportunities in Iraq.

Looking forward: decisions to be made

While the models differ, Iraq still has the potential to benefit from both simultaneously by leveraging China’s rapid infrastructure delivery for critical needs — such as roads, energy and housing — while using American partnerships to strengthen institutional capacity, promote entrepreneurship and improve transparency. 

To do so, the government must develop a clear national investment strategy that aligns short-term projects with long-term development goals, strengthens regulatory oversight and diversifies financing sources. Iraq should also legally require knowledge transfer for every project and create a commission specifically designed for corruption in foreign-funded projects under the . 

Establishing a sovereign wealth fund would also promote economic stability and transparency, create better social services for Iraqi civilians and increase national wealth from oil revenue for future generations of Iraqi citizens. 

If successful, Iraq’s strategy may serve as a model to other nations on how to navigate the US–China power competition in a “win-win” manner. Still, China’s lack of a contentious military history in the country, a contrast to the US, is a big advantage. This perception will ultimately affect how the Iraqi government navigates the US–China power competition and decides which investment model delivers sustainable reconstruction and development that the Iraqis can trust.

[The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and not of any other entity.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Power Beneath the Sands: The Investment Approaches of the US and China in Iraq appeared first on 51�Թ�.

51�Թ� Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and Swiss diplomat Jean-Daniel Ruch, a veteran of the Turkish capital of Ankara and the Middle East, explore Syria’s dramatic upheaval and its regional consequences. The conversation highlights the fall of the Assad dynasty, the ascent of new Sunni leadership and the recalibration of regional power involving Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Strategic shifts in the region

Ruch opens by stressing that Syria is undergoing profound strategic changes. He recalls predicting a decade ago that the old Syrian order would collapse, though he did not foresee such rapid change. He lists key developments: the collapse of Iran’s land corridor to the Lebanese Shiite military group Hezbollah, Turkey’s renewed influence, Russian and American hesitation and the re-emergence of energy projects such as a long-discussed Qatari pipeline through Turkey to Europe. These shifts, he argues, will shape not only the Middle East but also West Asia and Europe, especially regarding refugees.

The fall of the Assad regime

Singh summarizes the dramatic recent events: former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fled to Moscow, ending 54 years of Ba’athist rule. The Alawite minority, dominant since 1970, has lost power, while Sunnis, led by Abu Muhammad al-Julani, the head of the former Islamist military group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), seized Damascus in a lightning ten-day offensive. Turkey’s intelligence chief prayed with Julani in the Umayyad Mosque, underscoring Ankara’s backing. Celebrations erupted across Sunni communities, from Pakistan to Bangladesh, marking the symbolic return of the Umayyad Mosque from Shia to Sunni hands.

Historical burdens and Turkish ambitions

Singh asks about Syria’s troubled past. Ruch traces its modern shape to the Sykes–Picot agreement and subsequent French mandate. He notes that outside powers have long dictated order in the region, from the Cold War to the Arab Spring. He emphasizes Turkey’s central role today, with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, intelligence head İbrahim Kalın and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan projecting power rooted in Ottoman legacy. Turkey’s ambitions rest on military strength, economic reach and religious conviction. However, Ruch notes Arab mistrust persists, recalling how Egyptian women during the Arab Spring dismissed Turkish claims of returning.

New balances and fragile alliances

Ruch argues that Julani’s victory is significant but unstable. The challenge lies in power-sharing among Sunnis, Arabs, Kurds, Druze and Alawites, with mediation from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar. He cites the risk of fragmentation: Lebanon may split, Druze may seek Israeli protection, Kurds resist HTS and Alawites retreat to Russian-backed enclaves. Regional powers must negotiate a new balance, while outside actors such as Russia seek to preserve bases in Tartus and Latakia. The 2012 Geneva Communiqué, Ruch believes, still offers a guiding roadmap.

Turkish grooming of HTS and Western involvement

Ruch attributes Julani’s success to Turkish grooming over at least four years, with HTS supplied and trained through Turkey. He estimates HTS commands around 30,000 fighters and speculates that Gulf or even Western funding contributed to the group’s rise. Turkey also relies on the Syrian National Army, effectively an extension of its military, to pressure Kurdish forces.

Ankara’s strategic aim is to establish a 30-kilometer buffer zone free of Kurdish fighters, possibly with US President Donald Trump’s backing. Singh adds reports that Assad’s army collapsed partly because soldiers were unpaid, while Julani benefited from foreign funding. Ruch notes Western efforts to rebrand Julani, once hunted with a $10 million US bounty, into a suit-wearing political leader named Ahmed al-Sharaa, raising doubts over whether this transformation is cosmetic or substantive.

The wider geopolitical picture

The conversation turns to broader dynamics. Ruch highlights Christian minorities’ anxiety, Alawite resentment and the risk of revenge killings. He stresses that justice mechanisms will be essential to avoid cycles of violence. Regionally, he underscores rivalry among Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt for Sunni leadership. Iraq, he suggests, could mediate despite its limitations, recalling its role in the 2023 Iran–Saudi rapprochement. Israel, meanwhile, destroyed Syrian air defenses and sought to prevent a hostile Sunni coalition.

While normalization with Gulf states advanced under the Abraham Accords, Ruch doubts lasting peace without a Palestinian state. He warns that, absent such a resolution, hostility will fester and could erupt in future crises as severe as the infamous October 7 attack on Israelis in 2023.

The broken map

Singh and Ruch agree that Syria, as once defined, will not return. The Humpty Dumpty metaphor looms over their discussion: the old order is shattered and cannot be rebuilt. Whether Julani and his Turkish patrons can forge an inclusive and durable framework remains uncertain. Regional rivalries, sectarian divides and unresolved grievances threaten renewed instability. Yet the stakes are immense: the future of Syria will ripple across West Asia, Europe and the balance of global power.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Examining Syria Through Swiss Eyes appeared first on 51�Թ�.

These systems do not want peace because their survival depends on sustained conflict. This is why diplomatic summits, ceasefire deals and foreign interventions consistently fail: they target symptoms, not causes. If the problem is structural, then so must be the solution. Peace in the Middle East will not come through negotiation. It will come through a civilizational shift, and it demands three acts of moral courage.

The first is capitalist liberalization. Every individual must gain the right to produce, to trade and to own. No government has the right to command his labor, confiscate his earnings or dictate his future. Capitalism is not a system of greed. It is the only system that recognizes the moral right of a person to live for his own sake.

The second is cultural conservatism. A society cannot survive without roots. When families collapse, when traditions vanish, when morality fades into relativism, chaos follows. A rational culture does not erase its past. It protects what gives life meaning, not by coercion, but by conviction.

The third is institutional transformation. No regime that survives by crushing liberty, spreading violence and fueling sectarian hate can remain in power without destroying the future. People must not reform such systems. They must replace them. Political freedom requires new institutions built on justice, law and individual rights.

This is the foundation of what I call Conservative modernism. It rejects both Islamic totalitarianism and secular technocracy. It affirms that peace cannot exist without liberty, and liberty cannot exist without moral strength. This is not a policy. It is a philosophy.

Sectarian wars and the legacy of doctrinal politics

We cannot understand the Middle East’s political instability apart from the theological and sectarian divides embedded within Islam itself. The — originating from a dispute over the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad — has long outgrown its historical moment to become the structural backbone of regional conflict. This divide was never merely theological; it became during the first Islamic civil wars and later into full-fledged state ideologies during the rise of rival empires like the Sunni Ottoman Caliphate and the Shia Safavid dynasty.��

These empires did not merely represent competing political centers — they embodied competing claims to spiritual authority. In modern terms, regimes seeking to legitimize their power through religious division have hardened, institutionalized and weaponized these doctrinal fault lines rather than letting them fade. 

The legacy of these doctrinal wars lives on in today’s proxy conflicts, from Yemen to Syria, Iraq to Lebanon. Iran, as the self-appointed guardian of the Shia cause, has instrumentalized this divide to its revolutionary ideology through paramilitary proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq and Syria.��

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, while less overtly ideological, have with their versions of sectarian patronage and security alignments. The result is not simply a clash between states, but a doctrinal cold war that perpetually destabilizes the region through religious identity and existential fear.

Political Islam, once unleashed as the doctrine of the state, does not merely challenge liberty — it annihilates the very concept. Its metaphysical certainty surpasses even the most dogmatic ideologies of the West. It does not see disagreement as an error. It brands it as blasphemy. What follows is inevitable. The state becomes paranoid. It cannot rest. It must constantly search for new traitors to purge. Reform becomes a crime. Dialogue becomes apostasy. There can be no middle ground, no compromise — only absolute control.

In this system, truth belongs to the ruling sect alone. To think differently is not a mistake — it is treason. The state no longer governs; it sanctifies itself. Power fuses with theology. Rule becomes divine command. And from that moment, every act of dissent becomes a threat to the sacred order. No regime built on this logic can tolerate peace. Peace implies coexistence. It suggests that another version of truth might exist. But in sectarian totalitarianism, there is only one truth — and only one authority to speak it. The heretic becomes more dangerous than the foreign enemy, because he corrupts the system from within. That is why these regimes live in constant fear of internal betrayal. They do not govern citizens; they hunt them.

Colonial powers did not build the modern Middle East into nations. They it into fragments. They drew their borders without reason. National identities remained shallow. In this vacuum, sectarian ideology offered a seductive substitute. It gave rulers a way to seize power without earning it. They did not ask for the people’s consent. They claimed divine authority instead.

Theocrats wrapped themselves in clerical robes to escape accountability. In Iran, the doctrine of placed unchecked political power in the hands of a cleric. Ayatollah Khomeini did not rule as a man — he ruled as a voice of God. Sunni radicals followed the same path. Groups like ISIS declared caliphates not to govern, but to sanctify tyranny. These regimes do not fear criticism, because they do not answer to men. They answer to the metaphysical fiction they claim to represent.

Islamic regimes use a dangerous illusion. They raise the banner of anti-Zionism not to unify but to distract. They Judaism and Israel as the ultimate enemy, hoping to forge a sense of solidarity across sectarian lines. But the truth remains: no propaganda can erase centuries of hatred between Sunni and Shia, between Salafi and Sufi, between Arab and Persian, between Turkic and non-Turkic. The hatred runs deep, and it does not disappear when leaders shout slogans against Israel.

This is not unity. It is manipulation. Anti-Zionism becomes a tool to dissent at home. It channels public anger away from corruption, poverty and tyranny, and toward an invented external enemy. It does not heal division; it hides it. The regimes that use this tactic know they cannot survive on truth, so they survive on scapegoats. But lies do not last. The cracks widen. The rhetoric grows louder, while the people grow poorer.

This is the real engine of Middle Eastern conflict. Not just land. Not just oil. It is the battle for the right to define God’s will — and to use that claim as a weapon. No treaty will break this system. No ceasefire will fix it. If regimes like Iran continue to export sectarian revolution as a matter of policy, the region will remain trapped in endless war. Peace will never begin on a battlefield. It begins in the mind. We must name doctrinal tyranny, expose it and defeat it. Only then can the Middle East escape from the chains of sacred war and step into the realm of civil peace.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution

The 1979 was not simply a change of regime; it was a civilizational rupture that produced a theocratic state with an unprecedented mission: to restructure the Islamic world according to the vision of Shiite clerical rule. Iran’s revolution claimed divine authorization through the doctrine of Vilayat al-Faqih. This doctrine, enshrined in Iran’s constitution, granted religious elites not only domestic supremacy but also a global mandate.��

Article 154 explicitly that the Islamic Republic was duty-bound to “support the just struggles of the oppressed” worldwide. This ideological euphemism laid the legal foundation for regional insurgencies, proxy warfare and transnational terror networks. This new paradigm made Iran’s foreign policy an extension of messianic doctrine.

The Islamic Republic institutionalized this transformation of ideology into action by creating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (), and specifically its external wing, the , which carried out the mission of exporting the revolution. These were not simply elite military units but ideological vanguards — armed missionaries designed to reshape the region in Tehran’s image.

The IRGC and funded Shia militant factions during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, inside Iraq, creating the blueprint for what would later evolve into militia-state fusion. As early as 1982, Iran establish Hezbollah in Lebanon, embedding its revolutionary DNA in a new Shia militia that would grow into the region’s most sophisticated paramilitary movement.��

But Iran did not confine its ambitions to its sect. Tehran built connections with Sunni groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran and its allies bypassed doctrinal differences when they faced a shared strategic enemy in Israel and the West, proving that ideology would bend to power.

Of all Iran’s ideological exports, Hezbollah remains the most enduring and institutionally complete. Born in the rubble of Lebanon’s civil war, �������DZ�������’s 1985 founding manifesto allegiance to Iran’s Supreme Leader and its goal of establishing an Islamic state in Lebanon. As Massaab Al-Aloosy has, Hezbollah evolved into a uniquely hybrid entity — a terrorist organization, political party and social welfare provider. This model of Islamic fascism does not simply mimic the authoritarian features of 20th-century totalitarian regimes. Instead, it integrates them with theological absolutism.��

In �������DZ�������’s worldview, the enemy is not merely political dissent or a foreign occupier. It is ideological impurity. Its of martyrdom, strict sectarian loyalty and rejection of pluralism form the core of an authoritarian theocratic identity, where the sect and the imamate define the sacred political community.

Iran’s reach and pragmatism allowed it to overcome sectarian lines when necessary. Nowhere is this clearer than in its alliance with Hamas, a Sunni group originally rooted in ideology. Initially antagonistic due to theological differences, Hamas gradually embraced Iran’s vision of resistance as its conflict with Israel intensified. Iran financial aid, smuggled weapons, supplied tactical training and built tunnel infrastructure that allowed Hamas to survive and militarize Gaza.��

By the mid-2000s, especially after the group’s electoral victory and its, Hamas began to mirror Iran’s revolutionary language, re-framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a divine struggle, not a solvable territorial dispute. Its leaders visited Tehran, received IRGC guidance and adopted a media strategy aligned with the broader.

This model of revolutionary partnership extended to Yemen, where Iran found a new ideological canvas in the , also known as Ansar Allah. Originally a local revivalist faction rooted in, Iran helped morph the Houthis into a more radicalized, Twelver-aligned militia. The group’s , “Death to America, Death to Israel,” is lifted directly from Iran’s revolutionary chant. By the 2010s, Iran supplied or engineered sophisticated missile and drone capabilities for the Houthis. These weapons the group to strike deep into Saudi Arabia and threaten global commerce in the Red Sea.

The of Saddam Hussein in 2003 provided Iran with its greatest strategic opening since 1979. Iraq, long a bulwark against Iranian expansion, became a vacuum of fractured authority in which Iran could embed deeply rooted proxies. The US-led dismantling of the Iraqi state allowed Tehran to co-opt existing militias such as the and new ones like Kata’ib Hezbollah and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.��

All these militias pledged spiritual allegiance to Iran’s Supreme Leader. These groups infiltrated Iraqi security institutions, won parliamentary seats and turned Iraq into what I call a militia democracy. What distinguishes them from conventional insurgents is their ideological DNA. Rather than acknowledging themselves as part of a civil war, they present their struggle as resistance to Sunnis and Western imperialism.

Syria’s civil war further deepened Iran’s ideological project. Though the ruling Alawite regime under Bashar al-Assad does not follow mainstream Shiism, its geopolitical vulnerability made it an ideal ally. As protests spiraled into war, Iran intervened with billions in military aid, deploying not just IRGC troops and Hezbollah fighters, but also recruiting tens of thousands of Afghan Shia fighters from the impoverished Hazara population into the.��

These fighters, lured by salaries and promises of martyrdom, became part of Iran’s transnational jihad. Syria thus became the geopolitical artery of Iran’s vision: a corridor of power from Tehran through Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut to the Mediterranean. Iran entrenched what many call the by establishing an ideological, financial and logistical presence in Syria.

Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are no longer just battlefields. They are proving grounds for a new form of tyranny. These lands have become ideological laboratories, where fanatics test how far they can bend reality to fit a totalitarian creed.

Islamic socialism

The ideological machinery of post-1979 Iran introduced a new hybrid: . While the term may appear contradictory at first glance, it captures the unique fusion of theological absolutism with populist redistributionism. Islamic socialism is an economic-political framework that retains the authoritarian hierarchy of religious fascism, complete with doctrinal obedience and paramilitary enforcement.��

At the same time, it borrows heavily from socialist structures such as centralized welfare, state control over key industries and class-based grievance politics. Just as European fascists in the 20th century adopted socialism to win popular support while retaining autocratic control (e.g., the Nazi “Strength Through Joy” ), the Islamic Republic has developed a theology of resistance economy. Here, economic hardship is not only tolerated but sanctified as martyrdom against global injustice. In this model, people must endure poverty collectively, heroically and violently rather than overcome it through liberal development.��

Shiite theology provides the foundation for this socialist-fascist hybrid, on concepts of suffering, resistance and collective martyrdom. Shiism glorifies the mustadʿafīn, a group that Islamic texts frame as the downtrodden destined for divine justice. Khomeini’s revolutionary rhetoric this religious concept into a political-economic category, portraying the global poor — and particularly the Shia masses — as victims of Western imperialism.��

Economic disparity is not a result of governance failures or global markets, but of cosmic injustice. Similar to how Nazi ideology peasant sacrifice and national suffering as the price of destiny, the Islamic Republic elevates economic deprivation into a moral calling. It framed subsidy cuts, sanctions and austerity as acts of loyalty to a divine cause.

Crucially, leaders do not just impose the model of Islamic Socialism from above; they enforce it through tribal structures and sectarian identities. It replaces civic institutions with kinship loyalty and doctrinal submission. In the Iranian-led axis, traditional tribal instincts are not suppressed but weaponized. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and the Shia militias in Iraq all demonstrate this structure. 

War footing as the foundation of economic life

These groups offer not only salaries and protection, but welfare, housing and education — all contingent upon ideological alignment and collective loyalty. They systematically erase individualism. One’s worth is not measured by merit or autonomy but by one’s allegiance to the sect, the tribe and ultimately, the martyrdom cause. This mirrors how Italian fascism and German Nazism pre-modern collectivism to erase individuality and convert citizens into functionaries of myth, soldiers of a destiny beyond themselves.

In these theocratic-socialist regimes, the individual disappears as a political subject. Rather than a bearer of rights, the person becomes a vessel of duty — primarily to the sect, then to the Supreme Leader. Ideological training begins early, often in religious schools controlled by paramilitary arms of the state or proxy groups. These institutions teach loyalty not just to God but to the revolutionary cause. 

The regime trains the youth, like those in Nazi Germany’s, not to think but to serve and sacrifice. �������DZ�������’s and Iran’s indoctrination programs illustrate this well. Here, Islamic Socialism becomes a mechanism for total identity control: dictating what to believe, what to fear, who to love and who to kill. Welfare is no longer a civic right — it is a weaponized privilege, allocated according to sectarian discipline and revolutionary usefulness.��

Moreover, this system depends on a dual moral economy: one inward-facing, promoting solidarity, and one outward-facing, glorifying hostility. Internally, Islamic Socialist leaders teach their communities to see themselves as pure, righteous and chosen. Externally, however, the world is divided into oppressors and enemies — whether they be the West, secular liberals, Sunni rivals or Zionists. 

The state’s leaders direct the economic and military engines toward this perpetual war footing. Iran’s leaders speak not of GDP growth but of jihad of production and economic resistance as if commerce itself were warfare. People allocate resources not to produce prosperity but to sustain ideological conflict. They Nazi Germany’s approach by fusing industry, propaganda and violence into a single war-making machine.

The myth of the Promised Land

Islamist regimes have spent decades weaponizing one of their most enduring myths: the belief that Israel seeks to fulfill a biblical prophecy by expanding its territory. According to this myth, Israel aims to restore the so-called Promised Land, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. Islamist leaders and propagandists frequently this claim in Friday sermons, regime media and militant manifestos.��

The narrative serves both psychological and strategic purposes by fostering a sense of perpetual victimhood among Muslim populations and justifying preemptive violence. However, no formal Israeli policy — past or present — has ever such a fantasy. This contradiction between perception and reality is not an accident. It is the product of Islamic fascism.

Arab and Islamic leaders never admit that the biblical Promised Land in the Old Testament covers far less territory than Islamist propaganda claims. While and do reference land covenants, these verses are highly symbolic, varied in interpretation and not presented as a modern political blueprint. The more expansive version — suggesting Israeli claims over half the Arab world — is a misreading or deliberate distortion.��

Even within Jewish religious scholarship, there is no consensus on whether the land covenant is literal, spiritual or eschatological. More importantly, Israel, as a modern state, has never built policy around these verses. The secular Zionist movement that founded Israel drove its actions with political pragmatism, not theological maximalism. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, contains no reference to religious prophecy as a legal or territorial foundation for the state.

Prominent biblical scholars have repeatedly argued that the Promised Land verses do not apply to modern statecraft. Walter Brueggemann, a leading Old Testament theologian, that the land promises in Genesis and Ezekiel symbolize divine fidelity and human obligation. Ezekiel 47:13–23 outlines a limited, region-specific territory tied to historical tribes, not a universal conquest map. Jewish exegetes widely the Nile to Euphrates phrasing in Genesis 15:18 as covenantal poetry, not a literal border plan. Contemporary Jewish religious institutions and Israel’s Chief Rabbinate have never endorsed any policy derived from these verses.

Oslo Accords and the recognition of a two-state framework

Israel’s territorial policy shows a consistent pattern of contraction and compromise, not expansion, contrary to the myth of expansionism. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel accepted the1949 rather than pressing beyond. In 1967, during the , Israel captured territory (including Sinai and the West Bank) but returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1982 under the.The (1993–1995) and subsequent negotiations all recognized the concept of a two-state solution, even with territorial compromises. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, dismantling settlements without a peace agreement.��

These historical milestones disprove the idea of a consistent theological or messianic territorial agenda. Even in contentious areas like the West Bank, Israeli officials and lawmakers debate expansion according to legal and political frameworks rather than divine mandate.

Regimes like Iran and ideological movements like Hezbollah and Hamas the Abraham Accords as an existential crisis. The accords, signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, were a public rejection of the expansionist myth. They demonstrated that Arab nations — particularly those with strategic awareness — do not believe Israel is seeking to fulfill some ancient prophecy. These are not naïve regimes; they signed normalization agreements based on economic cooperation, technological exchange and geopolitical calculations.

The path forward

Real peace in the Middle East requires structural change. This approach rejects the shallow cycle of summit diplomacy and short-term ceasefires. Structural change demands a civilizational shift: leaders must dismantle sacralized politics and stop using religious narratives to justify power. This isn’t Western-style secularism but a deliberate separation of divine claims from state rule. Only through this shift can the region build lasting peace — rooted not in utopias or despair, but in economic freedom, cultural cohesion and strong institutions.

offers a clear alternative to ideological extremes. It doesn’t fuse them. It escapes them. Unlike secular technocracy, which often alienates traditional societies, conservative modernism respects the cultural depth of the Middle East and promotes practical reform. It builds on Enlightenment ideals like individual liberty and economic autonomy while honoring civilizational continuity.��

Its foundation rests on three pillars: economic liberalism, cultural conservatism and institutional reform. It doesn’t force secularism, nor does it permit theocracy. Instead, it preserves spiritual identity while disarming messianic violence. It respects tradition without falling into tribalism, and religion without surrendering to religious absolutism.

offers a powerful historical model within this framework. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk launched it in the early 20th century as a bold top-down effort to secularize Turkey. He abolished the Ottoman Caliphate, replaced Islamic law with Western legal codes and built a civic nationalism rooted in republican values. Kemalism stands as one of the few successful cases in the Islamic world where state institutions stripped religion of political power without erasing faith itself. Yet, the project also imposed authoritarian control, censorship and bureaucratic rigidity.��

Today, the Middle East can draw lessons from Kemalism — not as a complete solution, but as a foundational blueprint. It shows how nations can curb clerical authority without destroying religious life and how civic nationalism can overcome tribal and sectarian divides by building loyalty to the state.

Kemalism needs a complement. Its authoritarian legacy demands correction through the principles of libertarianism, which counters centralized coercion. Many in the Middle East misinterpret libertarianism as a Western indulgence or a form of moral anarchy. In truth, it is a philosophy of restraint — placing clear limits on state power. 

Within conservative modernism, libertarianism protects individual dignity from being sacrificed for national unity. It upholds free association, freedom of speech, private enterprise and personal conscience as essential pillars of post-sectarian societies. When paired with Kemalist reforms, libertarianism softens the state’s edges and makes room for civil liberties to thrive where ideological control once prevailed.

This fusion directly targets what I call the tribal complex — the web of kinship, patronage and sectarian loyalty that cripples modern statehood across the Middle East. In tribal systems, the individual never stands alone; he serves as a proxy for his group, bound by blood ties and religious allegiance. Tribal logic dictates political loyalty, economic access and legal protection, leaving little room for citizenship or merit. 

This is the real enemy of peace: the absence of a civic concept of the individual. Kemalism dismantles tribal structures through land reform, education and militia disarmament. Libertarianism then builds the culture of self-ownership and economic agency needed to prevent tribalism’s return.  

Conservative modernism demands a profound psychological transformation. Middle Eastern societies must abandon the mythology of martyrdom and embrace the everyday heroism of building families, businesses, schools and institutions. Peace begins when people stop seeking symbolic sacrifice and start pursuing tangible contribution. The new citizen must become a rational actor — focused on dignity through property ownership, child-rearing and value creation. Economic liberalism, in this vision, goes beyond material systems; it launches a moral revolt against fatalism.

Turkey’s potential role in reshaping the Abrahamic framework

Turkey holds the key to securing lasting peace in the Middle East through its integration into the Abrahamic framework. Turkey is a historic power. Unlike the Gulf monarchies that are dependent on petroleum dollars and foreign support, Turkey possesses the internal civilizational strength to lead. Its NATO membership, industrial capacity and nuanced relationship with Islam give it a unique ability to balance religious heritage with strategic logic. Including Turkey in the Abraham Accords would shift the regional balance. It would show that Iran’s ideological barriers are not only penetrable but also collapsing. 

Turkey’s participation would also redefine Muslim solidarity, moving it away from perpetual hostility toward Israel and shared goals in economic growth and technological progress. A regional alliance among Turkey, Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia could create a new peace axis and weaken Iran’s grip on ideological leadership.

The Islamic Republic of Iran remains the greatest single barrier to sustainable peace. This is not merely because of its actions, but because of its doctrine. One cannot reach a lasting agreement with a state that must, by its very ideology, destroy its negotiating partner to remain legitimate. Any peace built upon negotiation with such a regime is a ceasefire with a time limit. We must replace the Islamic Republic not through foreign war, but through internal transformation.

Regime change imposed by foreign powers breeds dependency and resentment, as seen in Iraq. Instead, change must emerge from within Iranian civil society — through education, economic empowerment and ideological detoxification. This requires long-term investment in civic literacy, especially among the youth. Only a population that understands the moral and civic basis of pluralism can dismantle a system built on sectarian fear. Empowered with economic agency and a desacralized worldview, Iranians themselves can — and must — be the agents of transformation.

A stable society must depoliticize religion without erasing it. Secularism is not atheism or cultural erasure — it is a safeguard. By limiting the political misuse of faith, secularism protects mosques, churches and synagogues as spaces for moral reflection, not power. To end partisan abuse, sectarian violence and theocratic repression, states must build a legal firewall between belief and authority. In this separation, both faith and civic life can thrive.

To summarize the core prescriptions proposed throughout this work, the following principles outline a structural roadmap for achieving sustainable peace in the Middle East:

• Depoliticize religion by enforcing constitutional secularism that protects faith while preventing its weaponization.
• Embrace economic liberalism to dismantle tribal patronage and foster individual autonomy.
• Redefine conservatism as civil order, family cohesion and moral continuity — not authoritarianism.
• Promote education reform rooted in critical reasoning, pluralism and civic ethics over sectarian indoctrination.
• Foster internal regime change in Iran and similar regimes through economic empowerment and ideological detoxification.
• Reject foreign invasions, supporting revolutions that emerge organically from educated and self-actualized societies.
• Integrate Turkey into the Abraham Accords to establish a strong axis of pragmatic, non-apocalyptic Islam.
• Normalize ties with Israel as a regional partner in trade, security and scientific advancement — not as a messianic threat.
• Fuse Kemalism with Libertarianism to combine institutional reform with civil liberty and crush the tribal complex.
• Replace martyrdom cultures with economic liberalism that prioritizes life, dignity and opportunity.
• Establish conservative modernism as the only viable doctrine suited to Middle Eastern reform.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Conservative Modernism: A Roadmap for Sustainable Peace in the Middle East appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The speakers introduce the three primary actors: the US, Israel and Iran, framing the discussion around the American attack that occurred in the weeks preceding the conversation.

Israel’s perspective and objectives

The dominant political faction in Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is the right-wing, on whom Netanyahu’s political survival depends. Netanyahu is running a coalition government that includes hardline far-right figures like Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich and Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir. Netanyahu is keen to prolong his rule because he fears trial in court on corruption charges. Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have extreme objectives, including seizure and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza. This implies the expulsion of Palestinians and the destruction of the Iranian regime.

Israel assesses that Iran poses an existential threat because Tehran is developing a nuclear weapon. Israeli leaders deem this as “absolutely unacceptable,” because this would put “Israel’s and all Jews’ survival … on the brink of extermination.” Therefore, Israelis consider regime change in Iran to be fundamental and necessary to alter the current strategic equation. This task is believed to be beyond Israel’s sole capabilities — it requires US involvement.

Atul and Glenn highlight recent Israeli actions, including the decapitation of top Iranian leadership. This was a “spectacular special ops Mossad” operation and “one of the great intelligence operations in history.” Israelis also hit a number of Iranian nuclear and missile sites and claimed control of Iranian airspace. Despite Iranian counterclaims, the Israelis experienced far fewer casualties (an order of magnitude less) than they had anticipated, which led to a less pessimistic reality than their initial fears. This suggested Iranian counter strike capabilities were less powerful than feared. However, the economic dislocation for Israel has been immense.

There is a strong belief among Israelis that the Iranian regime is a “paper tiger,” which is utterly corrupt and infiltrated at all levels. Atul and Glenn cite the killing of the Palestinian leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, in a VIP guest house — equivalent to killing someone in Blair House that is next to the American White House — as evidence of the deep Israeli infiltration into the Iranian regime. This suggests that this regime, despite its outward appearance, is not as cohesive, effective or united as it was after the 1979 revolution.

For Netanyahu, the timing of the attack on Iran was crucial: “If not now, when? If not us, who?” He views himself as the “savior of Israel” and the “guarantor of Israeli security.” With Hamas weakened, �������DZ�������’s top leadership dead and the Assad regime in Syria gone, Israelis perceive a significant opportunity to strike Iran. Netanyahu believes the Iranian proxies present minimal danger, giving Israel a historic opportunity to attack Iran.

The ultimate goal for Israelis is regime change in Iran. A new liberal, tolerant and friendly regime could potentially restore the pre-1979 amicable relationship between the two nations. Atul and Glenn believe that the 1979 revolution, which brought in a “crazy Islamic regime” based on Shia ideology, fanaticism and opposition to the US, was an unnecessary development. The US was manipulated by the UK in 1953 to conduct a coup against a democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh. In 2025, some even believe the best course of action would be to eliminate Ayatollah Khamenei. Israelis think they can exert pressure and squeeze Iran due to its declining birth rate and persecution of Sunni minorities.

Atul and Glenn also explain the Begin Doctrine, which underpins Israeli national security. Per this doctrine, “none of Israel’s enemies or potential enemies should have or be able to have nuclear weapons.” Israel followed this doctrine to destroy an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syrian nuclear facilities in 2007. Note that Netanyahu attempted to apply this doctrine against Iran twice between 2009 and 2013. 

Netanyahu champions a hardline national security strategy but not all of Israel supports it. Many Israeli politicians, as well as intelligence and special forces personnel, oppose Netanyahu and his right-wing allies. The former head of Shin Bet left after much controversy. Historically, a strong majority of the Israeli population has favored a two-state solution and a negotiated solution with Iran, but this group is not currently in power. Many Israeli politicians and security professionals view the far-right’s desire for regime change as “a bridge too far.”

The US perspective

The US intelligence community’s assessment, as presented by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, differs from Israel’s dominant view: Iran is not manufacturing or possessing a nuclear weapon, and Ayatollah Khamenei has not reauthorized its manufacture. However, Iran has been “secretly developing weapons-grade fissile material,” which has only one use: a nuclear weapon. Iran is estimated to be anywhere from “days,” as Israelis assert, to “a good number of months” away from manufacturing one.

US President Donald Trump faced a dilemma: He had vowed not to engage in “forever wars” (precluding an invasion) but also stated he would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. He ultimately aligned with the right-wing Israeli assessment that Iran’s capability to manufacture a weapon constituted an existential threat, irrespective of whether they currently possessed one. Faced with an “impossible dilemma,” Trump chose a minimalist attack on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and declared victory. He came to realize that regime change in Iran was not feasible and attempting it would make the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq “look like a birthday party.”

Iran’s perspective and resilience

The Iranian regime’s top priority is survival. Many analysts view them as “not crazies at all” but “very subtle and astute,” repeatedly signaling a desire for a resolution short of open war. In response to the US attack, Iran informed the Qatari government (and thus the US) in advance of their planned response, which involved a one-off missile attack on America’s largest base in the Middle East — symbolizing a strike at the heart of the US presence — before stopping.

Despite Israeli beliefs, Iran is more cohesive than its enemies imagine. It has demonstrated an ability to survive chaos, notably during the eight-year war with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Note that Western powers and the CIA backed Saddam. After the attacks, Iran could experience zeereh parcham — “rally to the flag” — and nationalism could make regime change far more difficult.

Atul and Glenn emphasize that Iran retains the potential to manufacture a nuclear weapon because “knowledge” cannot be killed, even if all involved scientists were assassinated. Iran is a “sophisticated society with millions of brilliant people who can study science.” They also note that Iran’s nuclear program was initiated by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, not the mullahs. The Iranian moral police have reportedly “dialed down” because of protests. There is little likelihood of an imminent revolution. Significantly, 20% of Iran’s population still lives in villages and largely supports the current regime. The Iranians want “nuclear insurance.” They note that poorer neighboring Pakistan has managed to avoid foreign interference for all its faults because it has the nuclear weapon.

Note that the Iranian counter strike was not “painless for Israel.” It hit business districts and apartment buildings, causing immense economic strain.

Broader implications and strategic changes

Atul and Glenn highlight profound strategic and structural changes to the power dynamics in the Middle East since October 7, 2023. Israel’s “brilliant decimation” (more than decimation because that means a tenth) of Hezbollah and Hamas has forced them into a defensive posture. The Assad regime in Syria has fallen as well. Israel has achieved lasting structural change.

However, the deeper issue of Iran’s nuclear potential remains unaddressed. While the Iranian regime may be weakened and subject to collapse in the long run (“stable until the day it’s not,” “things last until they don’t”), it has survived to fight another day. If the mullahs fall, they are unlikely to be replaced by women protestors in the streets. Rather, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) might replace the mullahs unless the women can convince a section of the military to side with them.

The British, drawing on a longer historical memory, express skepticism about swift regime change. They recognize Iran’s “imperial memory” and argue the nation is more cohesive than its enemies imagine. The Brits also point out that killing top military officers, while providing short-term tactical advantage, might lead to their replacement by younger, more competent and potentially more aggressive higher-testosterone individuals (“proper nutters” who are happy to have bullets with their names on them).

The most recent conflict has broader implications:

• The US is now back in the Middle East, leading to lower attention and lesser support for Ukraine.
• China will have a freer hand in the Far East. It can now increase pressure on Taiwan’s sovereignty through more incursions into international and Taiwanese waters. The Chinese will shift the status quo of what is acceptable before military intervention.
• Pakistan will feel less constrained and controlled by the US, potentially leading to increased assertiveness against India and “fireworks by September.”

The current situation is a “fragile truce,” with both Israelis and Iranians believing there is “unfinished business.” While there may be no immediate large-scale flare-up, Iran will “lick its wounds” and strive to obtain nuclear weapons for “insurance” against foreign intervention and regime change.

The “most likely happy solution” from a Western perspective is proposed as an “Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) evolution,” where the Iranian regime evolves without collapsing. The current doctrinaire mullahs who are in their 70s and 80s are replaced by more educated and internationalist successors.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Exclusive: What Will the Middle East Look Like if Iran’s Islamic Regime Falls? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The proposed legislation marks a pivotal moment in Iraq’s post-ISIS political trajectory, one that raises serious questions about the country’s sovereignty and the future of its security institutions. Crafted under the shadow of Iranian influence, the bill seeks to cloak the PMF, a network of heavily armed militias, some designated as terrorist groups, with the full legal authority of the Iraqi state.

What does it mean for Iraq’s fragile democracy when someone elevates a force operating with sectarian motives and external loyalties to the status of a national institution? How will this affect Iraq’s already strained relations with Western allies and Gulf Arab partners, who view the PMF as an extension of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps?

If passed, the law could entrench a parallel chain of command within Iraq’s armed forces, making future reform virtually impossible and deepening the sectarian divide. It signals a shift away from state-building toward factional entrenchment, one that may come at the cost of Iraq’s long-term stability, international credibility, and independence. The real question, then, is not just how long Iraq will remain under Iran’s shadow, but whether this bill will mark the point of no return.

The roots of a crisis: unpacking the real threat

The PMF, also known as Hashd al-Sha’abi, constitutes a predominantly Iran-aligned Shi’a paramilitary conglomerate whose ambiguous legal and institutional status continues to pose a to the coherence of the Iraqi state. Simultaneously portrayed as a national defense force and criticized as a proxy for foreign influence, the PMF occupies a liminal space between legitimacy and lawlessness, an entity some view as a terrorist organization due to its opaque operations, sectarian affiliations, and alleged human rights violations.

The PMF has consistently undermined Iraq’s efforts to normalize relations with Western powers and Gulf Arab states, or to chart a course independent of Iranian hegemony. This obstructionism has manifested in repeated attacks on U.S. and military personnel, as well as in the sabotage of Gulf-led investment initiatives in Iraq’s central and southern provinces.��

Over the past two years, the PMF has not only consolidated its political leverage, positioning itself as a dominant institutional force, but has also strengthened its economic networks, extending its influence across various sectors. This confluence of paramilitary capacity, economic reach and political ascendancy is transforming the PMF from a wartime auxiliary into a parallel state apparatus, one that increasingly blurs the line between national defense and factional hegemony.

PMF today: shifts in strategy and influence

Though formally recognized as part of the Iraqi state, the PMF has leveraged this official status not to serve national interests, but to tighten its grip on Iraq’s political, economic and security architecture. Under the guise of legitimacy, the PMF has obstructed foreign investment, particularly from Gulf states and operated with near impunity across state institutions, cultivating deep patronage networks and influencing electoral outcomes.

Facing growing pressure from the United States and Israel, the PMF has its strategy. Rather than provoking confrontation abroad, the group has turned inward, consolidating its domestic power base and recasting its public image. Today, it positions itself not as an Iranian proxy, but as the indispensable guardian of Iraq’s Shi’a population against the specter of Sunni extremism. Yet this strategic rebranding raises troubling questions: Is the PMF moderating its behavior, or merely entrenching itself more deeply, under a more palatable narrative?

What the PMF bill means for Iraq

By capitalizing on its formal status as a state-sanctioned entity, complete with government salaries and budgetary allocations, the PMF has steadily transformed into one of Iraq’s most formidable politico-military actors. Far from being a neutral component of national defense, the PMF’s various factions have weaponized their institutional legitimacy to block any political or economic initiative that might weaken Iran’s influence, effectively casting themselves as the arbiters of Iraq’s foreign policy direction and regional alignments.

The proposed Authority Law only deepens this trajectory. If passed, it would grant the PMF and its estimated the legal and structural authority to operate as a parallel military force, autonomous, deeply politicized, and loyal to its leadership rather than the state. It would enshrine within Iraq’s security sector an entity reminiscent of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), not as a temporary emergency force created during the ISIS war, but as a permanent, quasi-ministerial institution shielded from reform and insulated from oversight. The implications are stark: this legislation could fundamentally alter the balance of power in Iraq, institutionalizing a force with regional ambitions and foreign loyalties at the very heart of the state.

If this legislation passes, Iraq won’t just see the legitimization of a controversial militia; it will face the quiet dismantling of the state itself, brick by brick, from within.

Embedding an ideologically driven, Iran-aligned force into the very architecture of Iraq’s security sector risks transforming the republic into a garrison state, where military loyalty is no longer to the people or the constitution, but to foreign-aligned commanders and opaque political agendas. This is not simply a policy misstep; it is a historic gamble with Iraq’s sovereignty, one that could ignite future civil strife, paralyze reform, and permanently fracture the state’s already tenuous legitimacy. Suppose this is the new definition of national unity. In that case, Iraq may soon wake to find its republic replaced by a shadow state, militarized, sectarian and beholden to powers beyond its borders.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post From Paramilitary to Powerbroker: The High Cost of Legalizing the PMF in Iraq appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has a mission to spread Shi’ism in the Middle East, which is why it created the . Their greater goal is to destroy the state of Israel.

An unintended consequence of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was that Iran became a force in Iraqi politics due to democratic elections. The Shia of Iraq and Iran may be very different, but they’re both influenced by Iran.

Iran is connected to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. These three nations were key elements in the creation of the Shia Crescent that encircles Israel with pro-Iranian, Shia-dominated powers. Syria and Lebanon became the main targets for Iranian influence. The Iranians invested heavily in Syria, even sending citizens there — according to rumors, up to 800,000 earned Syrian citizenship. The current and upcoming rulers in Damascus won’t tolerate this for long.

Crushing defeats

Iran turned Syria’s Qalamoun area, the mountains on the Syrian–Lebanese border, into a . Here, long-range missiles were smuggled to the Lebanese Shia paramilitary group, Hezbollah.

Fed up with the arms-dealing, Israel waged a low-intensity war with Syria in 2012. Syria became a major place of Iranian investment, on top of their efforts in Iraq and Lebanon. They sent thousands to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the civil war — not just Shia Iranians, but also people from Afghanistan and other Shia communities. Due to their dire economy, they were investing money they didn’t have, estimated at tens of of dollars.

The downfall of the Assad regime in December 2024 is a disaster for Iranian plans to create the Shia Crescent around Israel. Israeli Hezbollah in Lebanon after 11 months of Lebanese aggression. This defeat was far more devastating than their previous in the 2006 .

The Iranian defeat is resounding. There were elements in Syria who opposed the Iranian involvement and were ready to support Israeli military efforts. The Iranian presence in Syria even caused a rift within the Assad clan. Maher al-Assad, Bashar’s younger brother, was in Iran’s pocket, while Bashar had his own reservations. Before that, Russia did not like the Iranian involvement, as it viewed Iran as competition to be the dominant force in Syria.

The Russians allowed Israeli activities in Syria, but these were always targeted at the Iranians. The Syrians will not accept a Turkish occupation by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The Turks will face problems in Syria, especially in Kurdish areas.

What will happen now?

The Syrians will not allow domination by Sunni-run Turkey. This is a historic rivalry. Iran wanted to use Syria against Israel, but failed.

Will Iran realistically assess the cost-benefit? Will they still be committed to destroying Israel? Or will they realize they’re now under siege and need to be careful?

This could lead to two options: One, they minimize their involvement in Syria and Lebanon. But then, they’ll feel under siege. Two, they speed up their nuclear program to deal with the perceived danger. This might pressure US President Donald Trump to talk to the Iranians. The situation could create conditions for a dialogue, though they would have to make concessions.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Josef Olmert on Syria, Part 5 — Iranian Alliance and Investment appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The legislative process requires the amendment to undergo two additional readings and a parliamentary debate before a final vote determines its adoption. However, with a parliamentary majority supporting these amendments, the law is at risk of passing despite significant protests and warnings about its societal impacts. Without decisive action, this trend of escalated civil rights violations will deepen societal inequality and compromise Iraq’s standing as a responsible member of the international community.

Basic human rights are at stake

The ramifications of this amendment on Iraq’s social fabric are profound and far-reaching. If enacted, the law threatens to dismantle safeguards for the vulnerable populations of young girls and exacerbate gender inequality. Child marriage, already a persistent issue in the ecosystem of Iraqi society, could become even more pervasive under the proposed system. The psychological and physical toll of child marriage on young girls is well-documented, ranging from disrupted education to heightened risks of domestic violence, sexual abuse, early pregnancy and maternal mortality.

The law would effectively remove the current nationwide legal framework that sets the minimum marriage age at 18​. These changes could also legalize unregistered marriages and eliminate penalties for clerics or adults involved in such problematic underage marriage cases. Human Rights warns that the normalization of child marriage could have a ripple effect, undermining related rights such as inheritance and custody arrangements. Furthermore, the legislation undermines existing protections for divorced women regarding housing and .

While existing violations have been happening already, particularly in conservative communities where the practice is culturally normalized, the uniform state law that requires a minimum age of 18 for marriage has at least ensured a consistent legal framework. By allowing sectarian and religious councils to apply more restrictive interpretations without oversight, the proposed amendment threatens to exacerbate existing disparities. Inheritance laws and other legal systems will also undoubtedly be skewed under sectarian governance.

A legal system under threat

The ramifications of this legislative change extend beyond cases of children’s rights violations. By weakening the state’s role in safeguarding personal rights, the amendment signals a retreat from secular state governance and an embrace of sectarianism, further fracturing a society already grappling with deep .��

Since the 2003 of Iraq, the ascendancy of Shia clerical dominance in Iraqi governance has gradually replaced the secular frameworks that once underpinned certain legal protections, particularly those enshrined in the Personal Status Law of 1959. While the previous dictatorship regime that preceded the 2003 war was defined by its authoritarianism and destructive wars, it paradoxically preserved a degree of equity for women. Its centralized legal system safeguarded women’s rights in marriage, inheritance and family law. In stark contrast, the growing influence of sectarian ideologies has systematically eroded these protections, threatening to undo decades of progress.

For the past seven decades, Iraq’s Personal Status Law has stood as a critical bulwark against gender discrimination and child exploitation. When first enacted in 1959, the law was considered one of the family codes in the Middle East. The law also incorporates a provision enabling religious authorities to officiate marriages for individuals as young as 15, provided the girl’s father grants consent. Despite its loopholes, the Personal Status Law consolidates legal authority over marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance within a unified framework. This is what helped reduce the dominance of sectarian interpretations, fostering greater equity for women across diverse religious and ethnic communities.

The recently proposed amendment threatens to dismantle these achievements by male guardians and authorities to operate within their own doctrinal principles. Opponents to this bill argue that such fragmentation opens the door to practices that contravene Iraq’s obligations under international human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ().��

Furthermore, the amendment risks tarnishing Iraq’s international standing and exacerbates the violations of human rights in the region. As a to numerous human rights conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (), Iraq has supposedly committed to upholding the principles of equality and non-discrimination. Passing this amendment would place Iraq in direct violation of these commitments, inviting rage and condemnation from the international community and potentially jeopardizing foreign aid.

The path forward

As the amendment moves through the legislative process, the likelihood of approval is high. The amendment, spearheaded by the Shiite Coordination Framework (CF), reflects a strategic political maneuver aimed at resonating with conservative constituents. As the parliamentary majority holder, the CF wields significant influence over the legislative process. This enables it to champion the establishment of religious authority favored by .

However, we should not ignore those who are speaking out against the proposal. The amendment has received resistance from a broad coalition of civil society groups, human rights organizations and activists. Grassroots organizations, both within and outside Iraq, amplify the voices of those most affected, ensuring that the amendment’s implications remain in the public eye. Women’s rights advocates have been particularly , organizing protests and launching awareness campaigns to draw attention to the amendment’s regressive nature. Prominent Iraqi activists, such as of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, have denounced the bill as a betrayal of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

International organizations have also joined the ensemble of condemnation. Human rights activists and organizations must continue to express their opposition to such a grave violation. In a strongly worded statement, Human Rights Watch urged Iraqi lawmakers to reject the amendment, calling it a “dangerous precedent” that could erode decades of progress in women’s rights. Meanwhile, global human rights advocacy networks are mobilizing to apply pressure on Iraq’s government, emphasizing the need for legislative reforms that strengthen, rather than undermine, human rights protections.

Iraq stands at a pivotal juncture. The proposed amendment represents more than a legal change; it is a failure of the nation’s justice system and human rights. To pass this amendment is to abandon Iraq’s most vulnerable populations to the whims of sectarian governance. 

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial��policy.

The post Unparalleled Threats to Iraqi Women and Children are Looming appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The ISIS terror group took responsibility for the latter. However, in 2025, the terror dynamics have changed. This recent attack perhaps has indicated a dangerous shift in ISIS’s striking patterns. 

ISIS lone wolf attacks��

ISIS has a classic pair of striking patterns: Suicide bombings and lone-wolf attacks. The former has been the most frequent type since January 2024, as it was used in the January 3 in Kerman, Iran, and the March 22 Crocus City Hall in Moscow, Russia. ISIS has used high-intensity bombings ever since their capabilities began dwindling.

The last reported lone wolf attack in a metropolitan city took place last year in Solingen, Germany, where a Syrian ISIS member stabbed three men during a festival. Similarly, two lone wolf attacks took place on October 16 and December 2, 2023 in and , respectively. The assessment shows ISIS was not able to execute a deadly lone wolf in the West as it did in Nice, France on July 14, 2016, when a truck rammed a crowd celebrating Bastille Day, killing 86 people and injuring 434 more.

Most ISIS strikes have been recorded in Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East; these have mostly been suicide bombings or coordinated mass shootings. ISIS attacks in Western countries were fewer and limited to stabbing incidents; these can be viewed as multiple attempts to execute a lone wolf attack or coordinated lone wolf attacks on a large scale, like they did in Paris in the November 13, 2015 and Nice in the aforementioned 2016 attack.

Capabilities are limited, but resurgence is possible

Since 2017, ISIS’s capabilities started declining after the US intensified its counterterror operations. The nation’s ongoing has led to some notable success against ISIS, causing the group’s terrorist presence to dip substantially from 2017 to 2019. In 2019, ISIS was defeated in Syria and Libya. That October, US forces ISIS Chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in . In 2023, the US killed senior leaders of ISIS and detained around 79 of its terrorists.

The greatest blow came when US forces Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the head of ISIS’s intelligence/foreign branch, Emni, on August 30, 2016. Adnani’s death crippled ISIS’s striking and recruitment capabilities. The terror group is now scrambled, with its capability to strike the West destroyed. ISIS’s presence is now limited to Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East. For the past two years, high-intensity attacks have only been recorded in those regions.

ISIS is weakened, but perhaps its potential for resurgence has not been meaningfully considered. The patterns also suggest that whenever its influence is seen to be dwindling, it tries to send a message to the West by carrying out major attacks in West African or Middle Eastern countries.

The US-led coalition has intensified its operations against ISIS’s limited and fragmented presence for one year, leading to against the group since January 2024. According to reports, the US-led forces have killed 44 terrorists and detained around 166 others.

Despite an intensified operation, the outfit still holds a tight grip over its fragmented network and has attempted to capitalize on various opportunities to make a comeback. There are arguably three primary reasons why ISIS could see a strong revival: The first is the US’s shifting focus on Iran due to the Israel–Hamas conflict. The second is the increased destabilization in Syria and West Africa, and now the of the Syrian government. The third is the increasing freedom ISIS’s Khorāsānis — residents of the area of the Iranian Plateau — are finding to operate in South and Central Asia, especially in Afghanistan.

These have facilitated ISIS’s regrouping at the regional level, which has given the outfit occasional opportunities to carry out low-intensity terror strikes across the globe. The fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad government and the mobilization of various Islamic coalitions there have given ISIS, especially Khorāsānis, a to further resurge and increase their striking capabilities.

However, the resurgence factor is not the only thing to worry about; a possible shift in the ISIS striking pattern could help ISIS showcase its capabilities as well.

A shift in striking pattern

ISIS terror strikes can be classified into three patterns. The first is direct: ISIS directly carries out its strikes. The second is indirect: ISIS enables an attack and indirectly carries out its strikes by connecting to attackers through the Internet. An example of this was the Curtis Culwell Center attack in Garland, Texas on May 3, 2015 — one of the attackers who opened fire at the community center was in contact with ISIS through encrypted texts.

The third pattern is : Using online propaganda, ISIS inspires self-radicalized individuals to carry out lone wolf attacks on their own. An example is the 2016 Nice attack. Though the perpetrator, , acted on his own, ISIS later took credit for his actions. Conversely, there is the April 7, 2017 truck in Stockholm, Sweden, where a similar vehicle ramming incident took place. In this case, ISIS did not take credit for the self-radicalized man’s attack. The organization was under intense pressure at that time, and its presence and capabilities had been significantly damaged by US-led coalition forces; by the end of the year, ISIS was defeated in Iraq.

ISIS is once again , this time in Syria, thanks to US airstrikes. As it weaves an opportunity to resurge, some believe the group has resorted to enhancing online propaganda and carrying out inspired attacks without direct involvement. The reason for this possible change to its striking pattern is to ensure resurgence and keep limited striking capabilities intact without exposing itself. Additionally, it seeks to avoid instant retaliatory and offensive responses from the US, which could severely damage ISIS’s chances of resurgence in Syria and elsewhere.

If left unchecked, a new, lethal wave of inspired ISIS terror could emerge.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post New Orleans Attack: ISIS’s Lone Wolf Terror May Take an Alarming New Direction appeared first on 51�Թ�.

It turns out to be a very efficient way of gleaning information, compared to comparing accounts in commercial media. I’m looking to follow this up in the coming weeks as well explore the question of how an AI chatbot can “think about” breaking news and craft its “understanding” of the events. I began with a simple prompt: “Tell me everything I need to know about Abu Mohammed al-Julani.”

The chatbot offered this response:

“Abu Mohammed al-Julani is a prominent and controversial figure in the Syrian conflict, best known as the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a powerful jihadist group in northwest Syria. Here’s an in-depth overview:

1. Background and Early Life

• Real Name: His real name is believed to be Ahmed Hussein al-Shar’a (or al-Sharaa).
• Nationality: Syrian. Born in 1982 in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in 1967.
• Education: Little is publicly known about his early education, but he reportedly studied in Damascus and spent time in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion.

2. Role in Jihadist Movements

• Iraq War: Al-Julani emerged as a jihadist during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s. He allegedly joined al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), then led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
• During this time, he developed strong connections with jihadist networks, gaining experience as both a fighter and a strategist.

3. Founding of Jabhat al-Nusra

• 2011-2012: With the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, al-Julani returned to Syria and established Jabhat al-Nusra (‘The Support Front’) as an offshoot of al-Qaeda.
• Goals: Initially, Jabhat al-Nusra focused on fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Its tactics—suicide bombings, coordinated attacks—quickly gained notoriety.
• Al-Qaeda Ties: Julani pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, then leader of al-Qaeda, officially aligning Nusra with the global jihadist group.

4. Rift with ISIS

• 2013: A major split occurred when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), claimed that Jabhat al-Nusra was part of ISIS. Al-Julani refused to merge under Baghdadi’s leadership.
• Tensions: Julani reaffirmed loyalty to al-Qaeda, leading to a violent rivalry between Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS. This schism shaped the Syrian jihadist landscape, as the two groups competed for fighters, resources, and dominance.

5. Rebranding and Transformation

Al-Julani has shown a remarkable ability to adapt his image and strategy:

• 2016: Jabhat al-Nusra rebranded as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS), claiming to have severed ties with al-Qaeda to appeal to Syrian rebels and local populations.
• 2017: JFS evolved into Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a coalition of jihadist factions. While HTS claimed independence from al-Qaeda, many analysts believe its leadership and ideology remained aligned with the group’s core jihadist principles.

6. Leadership of HTS

Under al-Julani’s leadership, HTS emerged as the dominant force in Syria’s northwest, particularly in Idlib Province:

• Control of Idlib: HTS exercises de facto governance over Idlib, imposing its interpretation of Islamic law while managing civil administration and local services.
• Relations with Turkey: Al-Julani has pursued pragmatic ties with Turkey, which exerts influence in northern Syria, despite Turkey’s historical opposition to jihadist groups.
• Shift in Rhetoric: In recent years, al-Julani has positioned HTS as a ‘Syrian nationalist’ movement focused on defeating Assad, distancing himself from transnational jihadist ambitions.

7. Western Perception and Sanctions

• Terrorist Designation: The U.S. designated al-Julani and HTS as terrorists, citing their jihadist origins and extremist tactics.
• $10 Million Bounty: The U.S. State Department offered a $10 million reward for information leading to al-Julani’s capture.
• Media Appearances: Al-Julani has attempted to rebrand himself as a legitimate opposition leader, even granting interviews (e.g., to PBS Frontline in 2021), where he wore a suit instead of jihadist attire to appeal to Western audiences.

8. Ideological Stance and Strategy

• Shifts in Focus: Al-Julani’s leadership shows a tactical shift from global jihadism to localized insurgency. This pragmatism includes:
  • Collaborating with non-jihadist factions against the Assad regime.
  • Balancing extremist ideology with efforts to govern Idlib effectively.
• Criticism: Hardline jihadists accuse him of abandoning al-Qaeda’s ideology, while others see his pragmatism as a survival strategy.

9. Current Status

• As of 2024, Abu Mohammed al-Julani remains in control of HTS and Idlib Province.
• Challenges:
  • Ongoing pressure from Assad’s forces and Russian airstrikes.
  • Internal dissent from rival jihadist factions.
  • The delicate balancing act of maintaining relations with Turkey while evading direct Western intervention.

Conclusion

Abu Mohammed al-Julani is a complex figure whose trajectory reflects the evolution of the Syrian jihadist movement. He has shifted from a staunch al-Qaeda loyalist to a pragmatic insurgent leader focused on local governance. His ability to rebrand HTS, adapt to political realities, and consolidate power in Idlib highlights his strategic acumen, even as he remains a deeply polarizing figure in the Syrian conflict.”

I followed this useful information up with a second question, which I propose to continue to explore in future columns.

“What do we know about the support his movement has received from Türkiye and possibly NATO as well as any other sources of Western support? Given that he has had the kind of support that has enabled his movement to topple the Assad regime, how is he likely to mobilize the force his allies represent to craft a new system of government of Syria?”

ChatGPT offered a detailed response, but I’ll simply reproduce just the conclusion.

“C�DzԳ����ܲ����Dz�

Abu Mohammed al-Julani’s HTS has received indirect support from Türkiye and tacit Western tolerance, enabling it to consolidate control in Idlib. However, its ability to topple the Assad regime remains constrained by military, geopolitical, and ideological challenges. If al-Julani can continue his pragmatic rebranding and align HTS with external actors’ interests—particularly Türkiye’s—he may position himself as a key player in shaping a new Syrian governance framework, albeit under a localized Islamist model rather than a transnational jihadist agenda.”

I then followed up with a new question:

“What position has the US taken on his challenge to the Assad regime and has that engendered any assistance or even complicity in his success? Have there been any official statements about what role the US could play in the new Syrian regime?”

In the interest of relative brevity, here are the key elements of ChatGPT’s response. 

“T��� United States’ position on Abu Mohammed al-Julani and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is complex, characterized by a combination of outright opposition, quiet pragmatism, and geopolitical calculation. While the U.S. has firmly designated al-Julani and HTS as terrorists, the evolving situation in Syria and HTS’s local dominance have led to a more nuanced approach.

1. Official U.S. Position on HTS and Al-Julani

• Terrorist Designation
• Reward for Al-Julani: The U.S. State Department placed a $10 million bounty on al-Julani under its ‘Rewards for Justice’ program. This remains in effect.

2. U.S. Policy Toward Assad and Indirect Dynamics with HTS

The U.S. has long maintained a position that Bashar al-Assad should not remain in power, but regime change has not been an active policy since at least 2015. This nuanced position creates an implicit dynamic in which HTS’s challenge to Assad aligns with U.S. interests in some ways, even if HTS itself remains a U.S.-designated enemy:

3. Allegations of Indirect U.S. Complicity

Some analysts and regional observers have suggested that the U.S.’s focus on ISIS and its reluctance to directly target HTS have enabled al-Julani’s success in northwest Syria:

• Shift in U.S. Priorities: Since 2014, the U.S. military intervention in Syria has centered on combating ISIS. This has created a de facto prioritization of ISIS over other jihadist factions like HTS.
• Unspoken Pragmatism: HTS’s crackdown on ISIS and its efforts to position itself as a more moderate insurgent group may have led to quiet U.S. tolerance, even as it continues to label HTS as a terrorist group.
• Humanitarian Aid Dilemma: U.S.-backed humanitarian aid to Idlib is often distributed through local governance structures that HTS dominates. While aid is intended for civilians, it inevitably strengthens HTS’s administrative control.

4. U.S. Engagement with Al-Julani and HTS

While the U.S. has not formally engaged with al-Julani, there are notable developments signaling a possible shift in Western perceptions:

• Al-Julani’s Media Outreach: In 2021, al-Julani gave an interview to PBS’s Frontline, in which he downplayed HTS’s jihadist roots and presented his group as a localized Syrian movement fighting Assad.
• Expert Opinions: Some Western analysts and policymakers have argued that engaging with HTS—despite its history—may be necessary to stabilize Idlib and contain Assad, Iran, and Russia. These discussions remain unofficial and have not translated into a change in U.S. policy.

5. U.S. Statements on Syria’s Future Government

The U.S. has not made any official statements regarding a potential role for HTS or al-Julani in Syria’s future government.

6. Role of the U.S. in Syria’s Post-Conflict Governance

• Diplomatic Limitations: The U.S. does not have the leverage or interest to play a central role in shaping Syria’s governance.
• HTS and the U.S. Exclusion: The U.S. would likely oppose any formal inclusion of HTS in a future Syrian government due to its terrorism designation. For HTS to be considered a legitimate political actor, al-Julani would need to:
  • Fully sever ties with al-Qaeda and other extremist networks.
  • Accept a political process under international mediation.
  • Demonstrate meaningful moderation of HTS’s ideology and actions.

Conclusion

The U.S. position on Abu Mohammed al-Julani and HTS remains ambivalent: while it designates HTS as a terrorist organization and opposes al-Julani’s leadership, U.S. policies—such as targeting ISIS and avoiding direct conflict with HTS—have indirectly contributed to HTS’s ability to consolidate power in Idlib.”

ChatGPT’s responses point to a number of issues that need to be explored further. We will follow this up in further columns by asking similar questions and further probing questions.

I invite readers who wish to join in this interrogation of contemporary history to submit their own remarks, insights or questions, which we will integrate into the experiment. This is an opportunity to participate in a “crucible of collaboration” on a story that already has global significance and is likely to affect all of our futures, directly or indirectly. It has multiple dimensions, which we can explore together, accompanied by our AI friends.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51�Թ�, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Outside the Box: Gathering Artificial Intelligence About the Syrian Revolution appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The agreement is based on the terms of United Nations Security Council , which ended the previous Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006. The truce will be enforced by 5,000 to 10,000 Lebanese troops and the UN’s 10,000-strong United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon () peacekeeping force, which has operated in that area since 1978 and includes troops from 46 countries.

The truce has broad international support, including from Iran and Gaza’s Hamas leaders. Israel and Hezbollah were apparently glad to take a break from a war that had become counterproductive for them both. Effective resistance prevented Israeli forces from advancing far into Lebanon, and they were inflicting mostly senseless death and destruction on civilians, as in Gaza, but without the genocidal motivation of that campaign.

People all over Lebanon have welcomed the relief from Israeli bombing, the destruction of their towns and neighborhoods and thousands of casualties. In the Lebanese capital of Beirut, people have started returning to their homes.

In the south, the Israeli military has warned residents on both sides of the border not to return yet. It has declared a new (which was not part of the truce agreement) that includes 60 villages north of the border, and has warned that it will attack Lebanese civilians who return to that area. Despite these warnings, thousands of displaced people have been returning to south Lebanon, often to find their homes and villages in ruins.

Many people returning to the south still proudly display the yellow flags of Hezbollah. A flying over the ruins of the Lebanese city of Tyre has the words, “Made in the USA,” written across it. This is a reminder that the Lebanese people know very well who made the bombs that have killed and maimed thousands of them.

The truce’s success seems unlikely

There are already many reports of ceasefire violations. Israel shot and two journalists soon after the truce went into effect. Then two days after the ceasefire began, Israel attacked five towns near the border with tanks, fired artillery across the border and conducted on southern Lebanon. On December 2, as a UN peacekeeper told CNN that Israel had the truce “roughly a hundred times,” Hezbollah finally with mortar fire in the disputed Shebaa Farms area. Israel responded with heavier strikes on two villages, killing 11 people.

An addendum to the truce agreement granted Israel the right to strike at will whenever it believes Hezbollah is violating the truce, giving it what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “complete military freedom of action,” which makes this a precarious and one-sided peace at best.

The prospect for a full withdrawal of both Israeli and Hezbollah forces in 60 days seems slim. Hezbollah has built large weapons stockpiles in the south that it will not want to abandon. Netanyahu himself has warned that the truce “can be short.”

Then there is the danger of confrontation between Hezbollah and the Lebanese military, raising the specter of Lebanon’s bloody civil war, which killed an estimated 150,000 people between 1975 and 1990. 

So violence could flare up into full-scale war again at any time, making it unlikely that many Israelis will return to homes near the border with Lebanon, Israel’s original publicly stated purpose for the war.

The truce was brokered by the United States and France, and signed by the European Union, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. France was a colonial power in Lebanon and still plays a leading role in UNIFIL, yet Israel initially rejected France as a negotiating partner. It seems to have France’s role only when French President Emmanuel Macron’s government agreed not to enforce the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against Netanyahu if he comes to France.

The United Kingdom also signed the original truce proposal on November 25, but doesn’t appear to have signed the final agreement. The UK seems to have withdrawn from the negotiations under US and Israeli pressure because, unlike France, its new Labour government has publicly that it will comply with the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant. However, it has not explicitly said it would arrest them.

Netanyahu justified the truce to his own people by saying that it will allow Israeli forces to focus on Gaza and Iran, and only die-hard “Security” Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir voted the truce in the Israeli cabinet.

While there were hopes that the truce in Lebanon might set the stage for a ceasefire in Gaza, Israel’s actions on the ground tell a different story. Satellite images show Israel carrying out new mass demolitions of hundreds of buildings in northern Gaza to build a new road or between Gaza City and North Gaza. This may be a new border to separate the northernmost 17% of Gaza from the rest of the Gaza Strip, so Israel can expel its people and prevent them from returning, hand North Gaza over to Israeli settlers and squeeze the desperate, survivors into an even smaller area than before.

Syria complicates the conflict

And for all who had hopes that the ceasefire in Lebanon might lead to a regional de-escalation, those hopes were dashed in Syria when, on the very day of the truce, the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a surprise offensive. HTS was formerly the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. It itself and severed its formal link to al-Qaeda in 2016 to avoid becoming a prime target in the US war in Syria, but the US still brands it a terrorist group.

By December 1, HTS managed to seize control of Syria’s second largest city, Aleppo, forcing the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian allies onto the defensive. With Russian and Syrian jets bombing rebel-held territory, the surge in fighting has raised the prospect of another violent, destabilizing front reopening in the Middle East.

This may also be a prelude to an escalation of attacks on Syria by Israel, which has already Syria more than 220 times since October 2023, with Israeli airstrikes and artillery bombardments killing at least 296 people.

The new HTS offensive most likely has covert US support, and may impact US President-elect Donald Trump’s reported to withdraw the 900 US troops still based in Syria. It may also impact his nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard is a longtime critic of US for al-Qaeda-linked factions in Syria, so the new HTS offensive sets the stage for an explosive confirmation hearing, which may backfire on Syria hawks in Washington if Gabbard is allowed to make her case.

Arab and Muslim state strategies

Elsewhere in the region, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and war on its neighbors have led to widespread anti-Israel and anti-US resistance.

Where the US was once able to buy off Arab rulers with weapons deals and military alliances, the Arab and Muslim world is coalescing around a position that sees Israel’s behavior as unacceptable and Iran as a threatened neighbor rather than an enemy. Unconditional US support for Israel risks permanently downgrading US relations with former allies, from Iraq, Jordan and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Yemen’s Ansar Allah (or Houthi) government has maintained a blockade of the Red Sea, using missiles and drones against Israeli-linked ships heading for the Israeli port of Eilat or the Suez Canal. The Yemenis have a US-led naval task force sent to break the blockade and have shipping through the Suez Canal by at least two-thirds, forcing shipping companies to reroute most ships all the way around Africa. The port of Eilat filed for in July, after only one ship docked there in several months.

Other resistance forces have conducted attacks on US military bases in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and US forces have retaliated in a low-grade tit-for-tat war. The Iraqi government has strongly condemned U.S. and Israeli attacks on its soil as violations of its sovereignty. Attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria have flared up again in recent months, while Iraqi resistance forces have also launched drone attacks on Israel.

An emergency of the Arab League in Cairo, Egypt on November 26 voted unanimously to support Iraq and condemn Israeli threats. US–Iraqi talks in September drew up a for hundreds of US troops to leave Iraq in 2025 and for all 2,500 to be gone within two years. The US has outmaneuvered previous withdrawal plans, but the days of these very unwelcome US bases must surely be numbered.

Recent of Arab and Muslim states have forged a growing sense of unity around a rejection of US proposals for normalization of relations with Israel and a new solidarity with Palestine and Iran. At a meeting of Islamic nations in Riyadh on November 11, Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin-Salman publicly called the Israeli massacre in Gaza a for the first time.

Arab and Muslim countries know that Trump may act unpredictably and that they need a stable common position to avoid becoming pawns to him or Netanyahu. They recognize that previous divisions left them vulnerable to US and Israeli exploitation, which contributed to the current crisis in Palestine and the risk of a major regional war that now looms over them.

On November 29, Saudi and Western officials told Reuters that Saudi Arabia has on a new military alliance with the US, which would include normalizing relations with Israel. It is opting for a more limited US weapons deal.

The Saudis had hoped for a treaty that included a US commitment to defend them, like treaties with Japan and South Korea. That would require confirmation by the US Senate, which would demand Saudi recognition of Israel in return. But the Saudis can no longer consider recognizing Israel without a viable plan for Palestinian statehood, which Israel rejects.

On the other hand, Saudi relations with Iran are steadily improving since they restored relations 18 months ago with diplomatic help from China and Iraq. At a meeting with new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Qatar on October 3, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal Bin Farhan, “We seek to close the page of differences between the two countries forever and work towards the resolution of our issues and expansion of our relations like two friendly and brotherly states.”

Prince Faisal highlighted the “very sensitive and critical” situation in the region due to Israel’s “aggressions” against Gaza and Lebanon and its attempts to expand the conflict. He said Saudi Arabia trusted Iran’s “wisdom and discernment” in managing the situation to restore calm and peace.

The ball is in Trump’s court

If Saudi Arabia and its neighbors can make peace with Iran, what will the consequences be for Israel’s illegal, genocidal occupation of Palestine, which has been enabled and encouraged by decades of unconditional US military and diplomatic support?

On December 2, Trump on Truth Social that if the hostages were not released by the time of his inauguration, there would be “ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” “Those responsible,” he warned, “will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America.”

Trump and many of his acolytes exemplify the Western arrogance and lust for imperial power that lies at the root of this crisis. More threats and more destruction are not the answer. Trump has had good relations with the dictatorial rulers of the Gulf states, with whom he shares much in common. If he is willing to listen, he will realize, as they do, that there is no solution to this crisis without freedom, self-determination and sovereignty in their own land for the people of Palestine. That is the path to peace, if he will take it.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Truce in Lebanon: Can Diplomacy Rise from the Ruins? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Before the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic terrorism was not well organized. Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran’s last monarch, laid the groundwork for the rapid growth and spread of Islamic terrorism by severely suppressing progressive and liberal forces in the country.

With liberal and progressive forces weakened, Islamic terrorist forces led by the cleric Ruhollah Khomeini seized control of the Iranian government in 1979 in a massive coup against the inhumane Pahlavi Dynasty. With Iran’s resources at their disposal, Islamists were able to terrorist organizations in countries across the Middle East.

Iran Supports Islamic Terrorism

The attack on the American embassy and the suicide bombing on the headquarters of the barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, was a major turning point in how Islamists carry out terrorist operations. 241 US soldiers, 58 French soldiers, and six civilians were killed in the attack on the barracks. The culprits were affiliated with Iran.

These attacks ushered in an age of unending Islamic terrorism. But who is responsible for this disaster?

Inaction from Western governments regarding terrorism, especially from the US, sent a direct message to Iran’s leaders: you are allowed to establish and arm terrorist organizations. Western leaders did not have the determination and courage to respond to the new terrorist threat because they did not recognize or understand the ideological nature of the other side.

After these attacks, a joint plan to attack the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and centers in Lebanon was planned and approved by the presidents of the US and France. However, the US Secretary of Defense lobbied and successfully stopped it, claiming there was no clear evidence of Iran’s role in the previous attacks.

The leaders of the free world, especially the US, continue to be double-minded and indecisive in dealing with Iran and its terrorist regime. This wrongheaded policy created a suitable environment for the growth of Islamic terrorism and turned our world into a less safe place.

The formation of and its September 11 attacks, the rise of and its assault on the — including the abduction and sale of thousands of Kurdish women as sex slaves — numerous terrorist attacks across the West, and the profound sense of insecurity in these nations, culminating in the terrorist attack against Israel and Iran’s subsequent missile attacks against Israel in April and October 2024, highlight the consequences of failing to address Tehran decisively.

The Appeasement Policy

After almost five decades of toward Iran, the October 7 invasion of Israel by Iran’s proxy, Hamas, pushed Israel to take a defensive posture and cut off the arms of the Islamic terrorist regime by attacking the source of the satanic ideology: the Islamic Republic of Iran itself.

Unfortunately, the international community and the free world still insist on this appeasement policy. For this reason, Israel is alone in the fight against terrorism, bearing the weight of the world in its struggle against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Poor policy choices concerning Iran’s support of terrorism do not end there. On September 28, the US announced an with Iraq to withdraw American troops from parts of the country. This is likely the beginning of another global disaster produced by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The withdrawal will mean the complete handover of Iraq to Iran, providing a safe space for Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations affiliated with Iran to hide from Israel by moving to Iraq. If this agreement is implemented, Iraq — with all its riches — will become a hub for the growth and spread of Islamic terrorism supported by Iran.

This will nullify all Israeli efforts to combat terrorism supported by Iran, as well as all Western efforts to create a secure Middle East. If Western countries are not more decisive in dealing with Islamic terrorism, our future will be more uncertain.

History has shown that Iran is the head of a snake. To kill a snake, you have to cut off its head. This is not an endorsement of an all-out war with Iran. Instead, free countries, especially the United States, should support liberation movements in the region. This support should be extended to the Kurds, who may be powerful enough to destroy the Islamic Republic but presently lack international support.

The lack of support from Western countries for the Iranian popular in December 2017 and and the Kurdish Woman, Life, Freedom movement that started in 2022 sent a message to the Islamic Republic that it can carry out its crimes domestically and continue its terrorist activities internationally without fear of retribution.

The West must end the appeasement policy with Iran and crush the snake’s head in Tehran by supporting the progressive and liberal movements of the Iranian people, thereby ending five decades of terrorism fostered by Iran.

[Joey T. McFadden edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Islamic Republic of Iran Should Be Overthrown appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Back then, the airport was like a fortress. I was a young officer having my last thrill by riding around on the machine gun nests of military trucks and walking to posts on the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. Some of the fighters we had been facing were battle-hardened Pashtuns who would come swinging down from Afghanistan, which was then (as now) ruled by the Taliban.

After my flight reached its destination, I went to my parents’ home and unpacked my uniform. In a few days, I would leave for Oxford to read for a degree that would change my life. My parents and I were having a late dinner when a fellow officer, now in India’s Intelligence Bureau, called on our landline. (In those days, we did not yet have mobile phones.) He told me that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York were crumbling after a spectacular terrorist attack.

The following is a piece about the man who engineered those attacks and changed the world as we knew it that day.

A story of a chap named Osama

Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, better known as , was the one of more than 50 children of Muhammad bin Laden, a self-made billionaire who made his fortune executing construction projects for the Saudi royal family. Osama’s mother, Hamida al-Attas, was Syrian whom good old Muhammad divorced promptly after the child’s birth. Muhammad recommended Hamida to an associate, Muhammad al-Attas, with whom she had four more children. Of his father’s $5 billion, Osama inherited $25–30 million.

Osama reportedly liked reading the works of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and French President and General Charles de Gaulle. Osama also played football — soccer for our American friends — as a center forward. He was an Arsenal fan.

For all his wealth and Western interests, Osama was discontented with the state of the world. As a devout Sunni Muslim, his main interests were the Quran and jihad. In 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Osama left for Pakistan and used his own money to fund the mujahideen fighting the Soviets. Soon, he was in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who were fighting Charlie Wilson’s War to give the Soviets a bloody nose.

The carousing and cavorting Congressman Wilson funded the mujahideen lavishly. Yet this did not endear Wilson’s beloved homeland to Osama. This pious Muslim (who left behind 20–26 children and probably had more sex than the playboy Wilson) founded al-Qaeda in 1988. As per the Federal Bureau of Investigation (), the goal of this organization was a worldwide jihad. Osama was virulently opposed to American presence on Muslim lands, especially his native Saudi Arabia.

Osama began training young men in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan to unleash a campaign of terror against the US. On February 26, 1993, two al-Qaeda operatives a van packed with explosives into the public parking garage beneath the World Trade Center and set off a big blast. Six people, including a pregnant woman, died, and over a thousand were injured. The FBI arrested five of the seven plotters promptly and found the mastermind Ramzi Yousef later in Pakistan.

Yousef’s plan was to topple North Tower with his bomb, and the collapsing debris of this tower was to knock down South Tower. This cunning plan failed, but his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, succeeded in knocking the towers down more than eight years later.

The (known this way because unlike the British or the Europeans, Americans put the month before the day) involved 19 of Osama’s boys four hijacking planes and flying them to kamikaze-style suicide attacks on chosen targets. A third plane struck the Pentagon, and a fourth, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was apparently meant to hit the White House. Osama’s Pakistani henchman had pulled off a huge massacre on a shoestring budget, killing 2,997 people and injuring an estimated . Now, Osama had worldwide attention for his global jihad.

The US tilts at windmills

The 9/11 attacks led to mourning and shock in the US. Even the Japanese had only struck Pearl Harbor in distant Hawaii, which was not even a state yet. Osama had managed to strike the mainland US itself. This was a really big deal.

Later, the 9-11 Commission Report that Osama’s al-Qaeda was “sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal.” Osama had issued two fatwas, one in August 1996 and in February 1998, calling for a jihad against the US. He declared that it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels. This charming chap was inspired by Egyptian Islamist author Sayyid Qutb and “unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith.”

The murderous ideology that had inflicted such spectacular 9/11 attacks was bound to provoke a response. Under George W. Bush, who was not as bright as his father George H. W. Bush, this came in the form of the War on Terror, later jargonized as the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The US rushed into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and succeeded speedily. Then, they engaged in a quixotic endeavor to build democracy in this famously fractious, mountainous land.

The US installed one notoriously corrupt leader after another into office. These men stole hundreds of millions of American taxpayer dollars. In the end, US darlings and Ashraf Ghani became lackeys of the Taliban, who are now back in power despite the blood and treasure successive US administrations poured into Afghanistan.

More importantly, the GWOT morphed into an invasion of Iraq in 2003. This was both unwise and unnecessary. Certainly, Saddam Hussein was no lovey dovey cuddly teddy bear. He was a murderer fond of chemical weapons and had gassed both Shia Arabs and ethnic minority Kurds.

Hussein had invaded Iran (in 1980) and Kuwait (in 1990) as well. The latter provoked the 1990–1991 Gulf War, where US troops annihilated Iraqi forces spectacularly. By 2003, Hussein’s Iraq was a shell of its former self. Besides, Hussein was a Baathist — a political philosophy that advocates a single Arab socialist nation — and no friend to al-Qaeda. Yet deranged American neoconservatives — many of whom were the children of Trotskyites — argued that Hussein would collaborate with Osama to unleash weapons of mass destruction on the US. This argument was bunkum but, just like their fathers, neoconservatives did not let reality get in the way of ideology. As a result, more American blood and treasure were lost.

The Iraq War destroyed the goodwill the US had attracted after the 9/11 attacks. Few people around the world bought the neoconservative bullshit. Even old allies like France and Germany refused to go along. Tony Blair valiantly sided with Bush Junior but lost his reputation at home for doing so.

Worse, the US under Bush Junior justified torture. My co-author Glenn Carle, a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) with nine ancestors on the Mayflower, resigned from the CIA and wrote , a riveting read that captures the madness of this era. Needless to say, this US recourse to torture damaged its reputation globally and caused a crisis of confidence in the idea of America at home.

The US takes its eye off the ball

Arguably, the US has been the greatest superpower in history. The 9/11 attacks were spectacular, but they were perpetrated by little men in the shadows. Crazy ideologies always come up from time to time, and Islamist fanaticism is not new. Muslim countries tend to have very few minorities for a reason. After all, believers have a religious duty to convert everyone to Islam. Fanatical Muslims have resorted to torture and murder in their aim to convert pagans and dissenters from truth with a capital T. The medieval Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and the more modern Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini are just two examples from a long line of crazy nutters. 

If the neoconservatives had read some history, they would have realized that the War on Terror was a bloody stupid idea. You can go to war against a state, but not against an idea, especially not if this idea has been around for a long time and just refuses to die. Plenty of disgruntled young men and even others need a villain whom they can blame for everything. When an ideology offers 72 virgins in heaven, it is an attractive proposition to many testosterone-filled fanatics.

The US got distracted by the War on Terror and ignored other key developments. Few remember that 2001 is not only the year of the 9/11 attacks but also the year in which China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). Enter the Dragon was the blockbuster movie Americans somehow missed. The 2016 paper “T��� China Shock” how the entry of China into the global market deindustrialized many economies and depressed worker wages as well. The Rust Belt, where much of Donald Trump’s core support base lives, is a classic example of this shock.

Anyway, fast forward to today and a new Cold War, which includes a full-blown trade war, has broken out between the US and China. If the US had woken up to the Chinese challenge earlier, this would have been entirely avoidable.

There is also an argument to be made that the US was blind to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s tightening grip on power. For years, the US and its allies, especially the UK, were happy to enjoy Russian cash pilfered from oligarchs from Mother Russia. They never really used their leverage against Putin to contain him or, earlier, to help build a Russian economy that was less extractive or exploitative.

To this day, Russians blame Bush Junior for unilaterally pulling out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) that prohibited both countries from “deploying nationwide defenses against strategic ballistic missiles.” Putin had promised the US full support after 9/11, and Russians still view the US abandonment of ABM as a stab in the back. Fueled by irrational fears post-9/11, it was entirely unnecessary and extremely unwise.

A weaker, more divided post-9/11 US

I am convinced that many neoconservatives were well-meaning. I met some of them during my time at Oxford. Some of them were Rhodes Scholars and were convinced that an American invasion would lead to democracy. By their logic, there would be rivers of milk and honey in the region, and everyone would sing kumbaya. This is exactly what many Bolsheviks believed in 1917. Yet what they got was lovely Joseph Stalin’s paranoid mass killings and secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria’s rampant raping.

Naive neoconservatives forgot that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The invasion of Iraq was followed by the rise of the Islamic State and a savage civil war that spilled out into Syria, where the Russians got involved. A former commandant of Sandhurst (the legendary British military academy) who came from a gloriously imperial family remarked to me in 2003 that the borders in the Middle East were all in the wrong place. Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot had not quite got everything right. Yet the trouble is, where do you draw new lines in this famously volatile region? Neoconservatives shook the hornet’s nest, and the results will remain with us for decades to come.

Japan and Germany after World War II were relatively homogenous industrial societies. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was one. Both are multiethnic concoctions where the idea of a Westphalian state is still an alien import. The likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Paul Bremer were infernally arrogant and criminally ignorant in their policy prescriptions. De-Baathification in Iraq led to the disbanding of the military, the police, the firefighters, the teachers, the doctors and other employees of Hussein’s state. To survive, not just thrive, everyone joined the Baathist Party. Instead of creating a thriving democracy, neoconservatives unleashed chaos and civil war. We are still reaping the bitter harvests of the toxic seeds they sowed. 

Like the War on Drugs and the War on Crime, the War on Terror failed. Simplistic solutions to complex problems always fail, even when they may seem successful for decades. Neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia were able to create the utopias they promised. Instead, both led to nightmares. So did the War on Terror.

Osama’s aim was to weaken the US. He succeeded. Trump won the presidency first by defenestrating Jeb Bush from the Republican Party and then by beating Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. The reality television star blamed both of them for the Iraq War. The neoconservatives’ chest-thumping form of American nationalism had paved the way for him. Trump offered a rawer version of patriotism to those on the Right who feared that America had become weak. To them, “Make America Great Again” proved to be an irresistible offer.

At the same time, the Left lost faith in the idea of America. American campuses started viewing the CIA and the FBI as sinister organizations. Many young Americans see their country as an unjust superpower dominated by the military-industrial complex. Osama had blamed the Great Satan — the term used in many Muslim countries for the US — for the sad plight of Palestine and Lebanon. Thousands of students camping in campuses seem to agree.

The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan. Terrorism still persists even though we have avoided a repeat of 9/11-style spectacular attacks. Airport security is a pain in the wrong part of the anatomy because no one wants to be on a plane headed into a monument. No one trusts President Joe Biden’s democracy agenda because they have seen this American movie before. The soft power that Harvard Kennedy School’s Joseph Nye speaks of stands greatly damaged. Worst of all, a coarsened, far more divided US seems ill-prepared to lead a more fractious world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Now It’s Clear, Osama bin Laden Won the War on Terror appeared first on 51�Թ�.

“Some people don’t want to shoot. They see the enemy in the firing position in trenches but don’t open fire … That is why our men are dying,” said a frustrated battalion commander in Ukraine’s 47th Brigade. “When they don’t use the weapon, they are ineffective.”

Conditioning human beings to kill

This is familiar territory to anyone who has studied the work of US Brigadier General Samuel “Slam” Marshall, a World War I veteran and the chief combat historian of the US Army in World War II. Marshall conducted hundreds of post-combat small group sessions with US troops in the Pacific and Europe, and he documented his findings in his Men Against Fire: the Problem of Battle Command.

One of Slam Marshall’s most startling and controversial findings was that only about 15% of US troops in combat actually fired their weapons at the enemy. In no case did that ever rise above 25%, even when failing to fire placed the soldiers’ own lives in greater danger.

Marshall concluded that most human beings have a natural aversion to killing other human beings, often reinforced by our upbringing and religious beliefs, and that turning civilians into effective combat soldiers therefore requires training and indoctrination expressly designed to override our natural respect for fellow human life. This dichotomy between human nature and killing in war is now understood to lie at the root of much of the suffered by combat veterans.

Marshall’s conclusions were incorporated into US military training, with the introduction of firing range targets that looked like enemy soldiers and deliberate indoctrination to dehumanize the enemy in soldiers’ minds. When he conducted similar research in the Korean War, Marshall found that changes in infantry training based on his work in World War II had already led to higher firing ratios.

How military indoctrination affected US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan

That trend continued in Vietnam and more recent US wars. Part of the shocking brutality of the US hostile military occupation of Iraq stemmed directly from the dehumanizing indoctrination of the US occupation forces, which included falsely linking Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist crimes in the US and labeling Iraqis who resisted the US invasion and occupation of their country as “terrorists.”

A of US forces in Iraq in February 2006 found that 85% of US troops believed their mission was to “retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks,” and 77% believed that the primary reason for the war was to “stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.” This was all pure fiction, cut from whole cloth by propagandists in Washington. Three years into the US occupation, the Pentagon was still misleading US troops to falsely link Iraq with 9/11.

The impact of this dehumanization was also borne out by court-martial testimony in the rare cases when US troops were prosecuted for killing Iraqi civilians. In a at Camp Pendleton in California in July 2007, a corporal testifying for the defense told the court he did not see the cold-blooded killing of an innocent civilian as a summary execution. “I see it as killing the enemy,” he told the court, adding, “Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency.”

War in the age of Iraq syndrome

US in Iraq and Afghanistan (6,257 killed) were only a fraction of the US combat death toll in Vietnam (47,434) or Korea (33,686), and an even smaller fraction of the nearly 300,000 Americans killed in World War II. In every case, other countries suffered much heavier death tolls.

And yet, US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan provoked waves of political blowback in the US, leading to military recruitment problems that today. The US government responded by shifting away from wars involving large deployments of US ground troops to a greater reliance on proxy wars and aerial bombardment.

After the end of the Cold War, the US military-industrial complex and political class they had “kicked the Vietnam syndrome,” and that, from the danger of provoking World War III with the Soviet Union, they could now use military force without restraint to consolidate and expand US global power. These ambitions crossed party lines, from Republican “” to Democratic hawks like Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.��

In a at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in October 2000, a month before winning a seat in the US Senate, Hillary Clinton echoed her mentor Madeleine Albright’s rejection of the “Powell Doctrine” of limited war.

“T���re is a refrain …” Clinton, “that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one.”

During the question-and-answer session, a banking executive in the audience challenged Clinton on that statement. “I wonder if you think that every foreign country — the majority of countries — would actually welcome this new assertiveness, including the one billion Muslims that are out there,” he asked, “and whether or not there isn’t some grave risk to the United States in this — what I would say, not new internationalism, but new imperialism?”

When the aggressive war policy promoted by the neocons and Democratic hawks crashed and burned in Iraq and Afghanistan, this should have prompted a serious rethink of their wrongheaded assumptions about the impact of aggressive and illegal uses of US military force.��

Instead, the response of the US political class to the blowback from its catastrophic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was simply to avoid large deployments of US ground forces or “boots on the ground.” They instead embraced the use of devastating bombing and artillery campaigns in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Syria, and wars fought by proxies, with full, “ironclad” US support, in , , , and now Ukraine and Palestine.

The absence of large numbers of US casualties in these wars kept them off the front pages back home and avoided the kind of political blowback generated by the wars in Vietnam and Iraq. The lack of media coverage and public debate meant that most Americans knew very little about these more recent wars — until the shocking atrocity of the in Gaza finally started to crack the wall of silence and indifference.

Proxy wars are no less destructive than other wars

The results of these US proxy wars are, predictably, no less catastrophic than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US domestic political impacts have been mitigated, but the real-world impacts in the countries and regions involved are as deadly, destructive and destabilizing as ever, undermining US “soft power” and pretensions to global leadership in the eyes of much of the world. 

In fact, these policies have widened the yawning gulf between the worldview of ill-informed Americans who cling to the view of their country as a country at peace and a force for good in the world, and people in other countries, especially in the Global South, who are ever more outraged by the violence, chaos and poverty caused by the aggressive projection of US military and economic power, whether by US wars, proxy wars, bombing campaigns, coups or economic sanctions.

Now, the US-backed wars in Palestine and Ukraine are provoking growing public dissent among America’s partners in these wars. Israel’s recovery of six more dead hostages in Rafah led Israeli labor unions to call widespread , insisting that the administration prioritize the lives of the Israeli hostages over its desire to keep killing Palestinians and destroying Gaza.��

In Ukraine, an expanded military draft has failed to overcome the reality that most young Ukrainians to kill and die in an endless, unwinnable war. Hardened veterans see much as Siegfried Sassoon described the British conscripts he was training in November 1916 in Memoirs of an Infantry Officer: “T��� raw material to be trained was growing steadily worse. Most of those who came in now had joined the Army unwillingly, and there was no reason why they should find military service tolerable.”

Several months later, with the help of Bertrand Russell, Sassoon wrote Finished With War: A Soldier’s Declaration, an accusing the political leaders who had the power to end the war of deliberately prolonging it. The letter was published in newspapers and read aloud in parliament. It ended, “On behalf of those who are suffering now, I make this protest against the deception which is being practiced upon them; also I believe it may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share and which they have not enough imagination to realize.”����

As Israeli and Ukrainian leaders see their political support crumbling, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are taking increasingly desperate risks, all the while insisting that the US must come to their rescue. By “leading from behind,” US leaders have surrendered the initiative to these foreign leaders, who will keep pushing the United States to make good on its promises of unconditional support, which will sooner or later include sending young American troops to kill and die alongside their own. 

Proxy war has failed to resolve the problem it was intended to solve. Instead of acting as an alternative to ground wars involving US forces, US proxy wars have spawned ever-escalating crises that are now making US wars with Iran and Russia increasingly likely.

Neither the changes to US military training since World War II nor the current US strategy of proxy war have resolved the age-old contradiction between killing in war and our natural respect for human life. We have come full circle, back to this same historic crossroads, where we must once again make the fateful, unambiguous choice between the path of war and the path of peace.

If we choose war, or allow our leaders and their foreign friends to choose it for us, we must be ready, as tell us, to once more send tens of thousands of young Americans to their deaths, while also risking escalation to a nuclear war that would kill us all.��

If we truly choose peace, we must actively resist our political leaders’ schemes to repeatedly manipulate us into war. We must refuse to volunteer our bodies and those of our children and grandchildren as their cannon fodder, or allow them to shift that fate onto our neighbors, friends and “allies” in other countries. 

We must insist that our mis-leaders instead recommit to diplomacy, negotiation and other peaceful means of resolving disputes with other countries, as the UN Charter, the real “rules-based order,” in fact .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post This Is How America Manipulates People Into Killing appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran want to turn Jordan into a regional and funnel for weapons to Palestinian militants in the West Bank.

“T��� Iranians have instructions to recruit Jordanians and penetrate the Jordan arena through agents. Their recruitment efforts span all segments of society,” said Saud Al Sharafat, a former senior Jordanian intelligence official.

In January 2024, Iranian-backed Iraqi groups supported Hamas by a United States military base. The assault killed three US soldiers and wounded at least 34 others. The US retaliated with a series of airstrikes, so Iran quickly the militias.

At the other end of the political spectrum, vigilante Israeli settlers Jordanian humanitarian truck convoys as they drove across the West Bank en route to Gaza. Israeli politicians led by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir complicated King Abdullah’s life. On May 22, they made a provocative to the Temple Mount. Better known as Haram ash-Sharif, this Jordanian-administered place is Islam’s third holiest site.

King Abdullah’s contentious drone response

Several of King Abdullah’s choices have put him in the firing line. On April 19, he Iranian drones traveling through Jordanian airspace during the Islamic Republic’s massive offensive on Israel. Further, in March and April, he cracked down on pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

King Abdullah defended the downing of Iranian drones violating Jordanian airspace as an act of self-defense, insisting that “Jordan will not be a battlefield for any party.” Even so, King Abdullah may not have had a choice but to take down the drones. After all, he has long been a US ally and remains dependent on its military and economic support.

The king’s critics were quick to post disparaging, edited images on social media. These depict him wrapped in an Israeli flag or donning an Israeli military uniform, accompanied by negative comments such as “” and “Western puppet.” Engineer Hamid Jahanian sarcastically congratulated King Abdullah, saying that he “not only failed to support the fellow Arab Palestinians but also took the extra mile to their genocidal murderer.”

The crackdown and assistance in Israel’s defense have drowned out an important fact: Jordan is the only Arab country to withdraw its ambassador to Israel and consistently send aid to Gaza. Jordan is one of five Arab countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

Meanwhile, Jordanian sources assert that the Muslim Brotherhood organized the protests. Jordan’s unemployment is approximately 22%. Nearly half of young people are unable to find a job. With these in mind, officials feared that the pro-Palestinian demonstrations could morph into social and economic protests.

King Abdullah and Israel face mounting tensions

King Abdullah faces a predicament that highlights the Gaza war’s potential to further destabilize the Middle East. Jordan’s geography does not help it; the West Bank is on its western border, Syria is to its north and Iraq is to its east. Politics could spark paradigm shifts in several key Middle Eastern states, including Israel and Iraq.

King Abdullah likely sees that Benjamin Netanyahu’s space comes with rapidly shrinking benefits. There is mounting public demand for Israel to end the Gaza war in order to prompt Hamas to release its hostages. International courts aim to force Israel to halt its Gaza offensive. They want to hold the prime minister and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant accountable for the country’s war conduct. Hamas’s recent rocket on Tel Aviv will probably offer Netanyahu only brief relief, if any.

King Abdullah may also see mileage in popular Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada Al Sadr’s decision to politics and run in next year’s elections. This would challenge the pro-Iranian Coordination Framework, which is the backbone of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s government.

For now, King Abdullah’s on mass pro-Palestinian protests has reduced domestic pressures, even if widespread anger continues to bubble at the surface.

Foiled plots in Jordan bode ill for Israel

In May, Jordanian sources said that security services had foiled a suspected Iranian-led to smuggle weapons into the kingdom. These would help King Abdullah’s opponents carry out acts of sabotage. According to the sources, an Iranian-backed Syrian militia had sent the weapons to Jordanian Palestinian members of the Muslim Brotherhood. These members had links to Hamas, which is a Brotherhood affiliate.

In March, Israel’s Shin Bet domestic security agency said it had stopped Iranian attempts to large quantities of advanced weapons into the West Bank. Allegedly, this was organized by two parties: Unit 4000, the intelligence unit of the Special Operations Division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and the Special Operations Unit 18840 of the Guards’ Quds Force in Syria.

According to Shin Bet, Munir Makdah, a senior Lebanon-based official of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Al Fatah movement, was involved in the smuggling attempt. The agency said the weapons cachet included fragmentation bombs, anti-tank landmines with fuses, grenade launchers, shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles, RPG launchers and rockets, C4 and Semtex explosives.

In response to the most recent plot, Hamas insisted it had “no ties to any acts targeting Jordan.” A Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood official said its arrested members had acted independently.

Even so, Hamas leaders have repeatedly insisted Jordanians answer the call of duty since the Gaza war erupted in October 2023. “We call on our brothers in Jordan, in particular, to escalate all forms of popular, mass, and resistance . You, our people in Jordan, are the nightmare of the occupation that fears your movement and strives tirelessly to neutralize and isolate you from your cause,” said Hamas military spokesman Abu Obeida.

Senior Doha-based Hamas official Khaled Mishaal, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt in 1997, held a video address. In it, he told a women’s gathering that “Jordan is a beloved country, and it is the closest to Palestine, so its men and women are expected to take more supportive roles than any other people towards the land of resistance and resilience.”

In April, Iranian-backed Iraqi militants asserted that they stood ready to 12,000 fighters of the Islamic Resistance in Jordan. According to these militants, the fighters would open a new front against Israel. Abu Ali al-Askari, a Kataib Hezbollah security official, suggested that this offer may have been made to test Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s assessment: If Jordanian militants gained access to weapons, they would immediately battle Israel.

Despite mounting public anger; a handful of border incidents; and the efforts by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian-backed groups, there is no evidence of an Islamic fighting force in tightly-controlled Jordan. The threat of renewed protest and increasing militancy may be more bluster than reality.

Scholar and journalist Rami Khouri suggested Jordan was managing a delicate balance. But in his words, “It’s always been there. The Jordanians have always figured it out… The situation is not going to threaten the of the country as long as you still have the large-scale American military [and] financial support for Jordan.”

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Jordan Keeps Its Neutral Ways in the Big Gaza War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In addition, the recent conflict between Israel and Gaza, as well as the attacks on Americans in Syria, Iraq and Jordan’s underscore the urgent need for concerted efforts to address these challenges. T22 is an important location northeast of Jordan where Jordan’s borders meet Syria and Iraq. Tower 22 is near the garrison in Syria. 

Jordan’s border regions with Syria and Iraq have long been a source of concern due to the presence of Iranian-backed proxies and militias. These groups, such as Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces (Al-Hashd al-Shaabi) and Kata’ib Hezbollah, enjoy support from Iran and have been involved in smuggling weapons and drugs along with other illicit activities across the border. The influx of arms and drugs not only destabilizes Jordan but also poses a direct threat to regional security. Since Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, on Israel, more than on American troops in Syria and Iraq have been reported.

The recent between Israel and Hamas in Gaza serves as a stark reminder of the potential spillover effects that regional conflicts can have on Jordan. Since Hamas’s October 7 , tensions have been escalating, with even further increased risk of radicalized individuals and groups operating within Jordan’s borders, inspired by the violence and seeking to carry out attacks against both Jordanian and American interests. The attacks on Americans in the region serve as sobering examples of the real and immediate threat posed by these actors.

has consistently found itself caught between regional threats, domestic socioeconomic pressures and international conflicts. The country faces a range of significant challenges and concerns, including the ongoing impact of the Syrian crisis, the deadlock in the Israel–Palestine conflict and the rise of radicalism in the Middle East as a result of economic and political factors.

The US is a crucial ally

For the United States, Jordan is a crucial ally in the region, providing important intelligence, military cooperation and acting as a stabilizing force amidst the volatile Middle East. The security of Jordan is directly linked to American interests in the region, making it imperative for both nations to collaborate closely in addressing the challenges posed by Iranian proxies and militias. Strengthening intelligence sharing, enhancing border security measures, and bolstering counterterrorism efforts should be top priorities for both Jordan and the United States.

To effectively address these security concerns, a multifaceted approach is required. First and foremost, Jordan should continue to strengthen its security apparatus and enhance border control measures to prevent the of weapons, drugs and illicit activities. Furthermore, closer coordination and intelligence sharing with partners, such as the United States, Israel and other Arab states, will be essential in identifying and neutralizing threats posed by Iranian proxies.

Likewise, diplomatic efforts should be pursued to highlight the destabilizing role of Iranian proxies and militias in the region. Jordan, with support from its allies, should work to raise international awareness and garner support for measures that curb Iran’s influence and should hold it accountable for its support of these groups. Jordan’s security concerns regarding Iranian proxies and militias operating near its borders in Syria and Iraq are significant and require urgent attention. 

The recent conflict between Israel and Gaza, coupled with attacks on Americans in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, highlight the immediate threat faced by both Jordan and the United States. Through enhanced intelligence cooperation, strengthened border security and diplomatic efforts, both nations can work together to mitigate these challenges and ensure the stability and security of the region.

Impact of Iranian proxies’ activities on Jordan 

The activities of Iranian proxies and militias near Jordan’s borders not only pose security threats but also have significant economic implications. The smuggling of weapons and drugs disrupts legitimate trade routes, hampers economic development and fuels corruption. Jordan’s efforts to secure its borders and curb illicit activities are crucial for safeguarding its economic interests.

The presence of Iranian-backed militias and their involvement in regional conflicts exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Iraq. 

The displacement of civilians, destruction of infrastructure and loss of life have far-reaching consequences for Jordan as it continues to host a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries. Managing the humanitarian fallout and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations further strain Jordan’s resources. Iranian proxies and militias often operate along sectarian lines, exacerbating existing divisions within the region. This can fuel tensions and create a fertile ground for radicalization, sectarian violence and the spread of extremist ideologies. Jordan’s efforts to maintain social cohesion and religious harmony within its borders become increasingly challenging in such a volatile environment.

The activities of reflect broader regional power struggles, particularly between Iran and its rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Jordan, as a key regional player, finds itself navigating through these complex dynamics. Balancing its relationships with various actors while safeguarding its national security interests poses a significant diplomatic challenge. Addressing the security concerns posed by Iranian proxies requires close collaboration with regional partners. Strengthening regional cooperation can enhance collective security and contribute to a more stable Middle East.

Given the threat posed by Iranian proxies, Jordan has prioritized robust counterterrorism strategies. These strategies encompass intelligence gathering, law enforcement cooperation and pre-emptive measures to identify and neutralize potential threats. Sharing intelligence with the United States and other allies is crucial for effectively countering transnational terrorist networks.

In addition, Jordan has sought to address security concerns through multilateral diplomatic channels. Engaging in regional forums, such as the Arab League and the United Nations, provides platforms for voicing concerns, garnering support and seeking diplomatic solutions to regional conflicts. Multilateral diplomacy can further amplify Jordan’s efforts to address security challenges.

Jordan’s approach to security and regional security initiatives 

The United States has been a key partner in supporting Jordan’s security efforts. Through military assistance programs, capacity-building initiatives and intelligence cooperation, the US has played a vital role in helping Jordan enhance its border security, counterterrorism capabilities and overall stability.

Jordan has consistently emphasized the importance of regional stability and security. Given its location in a volatile region, the country has actively sought to address security challenges through diplomatic means, regional cooperation and collaboration with international partners. 

Jordan has been an active participant in global counterterrorism efforts. The country has taken steps to prevent and combat terrorism by enhancing its intelligence capabilities, strengthening border security and implementing counterterrorism legislation. Jordan has also cooperated with international partners, sharing intelligence and participating in joint operations against terrorist groups.

Jordan has actively engaged in regional security initiatives, fostering cooperation and dialogue with neighboring countries and regional organizations. These platforms provide opportunities for discussing security concerns, coordinating strategies and developing joint initiatives to address common challenges.

Jordan has developed strong military partnerships with various countries, including the and other Western allies. These partnerships involve military training, joint exercises, and the provision of military equipment and assistance. The cooperation aims to enhance Jordan’s defense capabilities, strengthen its border security and improve its ability to respond to security threats.

Jordan has played an active role in the pursuit of peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The country has hosted peace negotiations, including the historic signed in 1994. Jordan’s commitment to a two-state solution and its efforts to promote dialogue and reconciliation in the region have been key elements of its approach to security.

Jordan–US military cooperation 

Jordan’s military partnership with the United States has significantly contributed to the enhancement of its defense capabilities in several ways. 

Firstly, the United States has provided substantial military aid and equipment to Jordan, including advanced weaponry, armored vehicles, aircraft and surveillance systems. This assistance has helped modernize and strengthen Jordan’s military capabilities, enabling it to effectively address security challenges. 

The US military partnership has also involved extensive training and education programs for Jordanian armed forces. Jordanian military personnel receive training in various areas such as , special operations and logistics. These training programs improve the skills and professionalism of Jordan’s armed forces, enhancing their operational effectiveness.

The United States and Jordan regularly conduct joint military exercises that involve the participation of both countries’ armed forces. These exercises promote interoperability, facilitate the exchange of best practices and enhance coordination between the two militaries. They also provide an opportunity for Jordan to learn from the US military’s experience and expertise. The partnership facilitates intelligence sharing between Jordan and the United States. Information sharing on security threats, terrorist activities and regional developments enables both countries to have a more comprehensive understanding of the security landscape and take proactive measures to mitigate potential risks.

Jordan and the United States have collaborated closely in the fight against terrorism. The US provides intelligence support and to Jordan’s efforts to counter terrorist organizations such as ISIS and other extremist groups. This cooperation has been crucial in preventing terrorist attacks, disrupting terrorist networks and promoting regional stability.

The US has assisted Jordan in improving its border security measures, including the deployment of surveillance technology and the training of border protection forces. This support has helped Jordan better monitor and control its borders, preventing the infiltration of militants and illicit activities.

The US partnership has also contributed to the development of Jordan’s defense industry. Through joint ventures and technology transfers, Jordan has been able to develop indigenous defense capabilities, including the production and maintenance of military equipment. This enhances Jordan’s self-reliance and strengthens its defense industrial base. Overall, the military partnership between Jordan and the United States has played a crucial role in enhancing Jordan’s defense capabilities. It has provided vital military aid, advanced equipment, training and intelligence cooperation, enabling Jordan to address security challenges, combat terrorism and maintain stability in the region.

Jordan’s security concerns in a volatile region have been met with steadfast cooperation from the United States, resulting in a robust partnership that has significantly bolstered Jordan’s defense capabilities. Through military aid, advanced equipment provisions, training and education programs, joint exercises, intelligence sharing and counterterrorism cooperation, the United States has played a vital role in helping Jordan address security challenges, combat terrorism and maintain regional stability.

The US-Jordan military partnership stands as a testament to the shared commitment to regional security and the recognition of Jordan’s strategic importance. This collaboration has not only strengthened Jordan’s ability to defend its borders and counter security threats but has also fostered interoperability, knowledge exchange and the development of indigenous defense capabilities. 

Furthermore, the US support has extended beyond military assistance to encompass various aspects of security cooperation, including border security, counterinsurgency efforts and involvement in the peace process. Such comprehensive cooperation underscores the depth of the relationship and the mutual understanding of the complex security dynamics in the region.

As Jordan continues to navigate its security challenges, the unwavering cooperation with the United States remains a cornerstone of its security strategy. The partnership serves as a model for effective collaboration between nations, promoting stability, countering terrorism and advancing shared objectives in the pursuit of a secure and peaceful future for Jordan and the wider region. However, Jordan’s security concerns stem from being a buffer zone between Israel and Iran. 

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran’s Proxy Militias Now Threaten Stability in Jordan appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Additionally, rooted in , Iran’s self-perception as the defender of oppressed Muslims globally is fueled by the anticipation of the twelfth Imam’s messianic return. This often translates into support for proxy groups and regional interventions.

Iranian ideology is deeply rooted in the nation’s historical and cultural identity. Iran sees itself as the inheritor of the longstanding Persian civilization, a proud nation with a rich heritage and a history of resisting foreign domination. This fosters a sense of exceptionalism, a conviction that Iran’s path is unique and its interests paramount, often leading to tension with other regional powers and the West. Furthermore, Anti-Zionism is deeply within the ideology, viewing Israel as an illegitimate entity occupying Palestinian land. This translates into strong support for Palestinian groups.��

In the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world Iran’s revolutionary ideology presents a destabilizing order and a direct threat to the existence of Israel.

Iran’s pivot and the shifting balance of power

The in Iran, spearheaded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, marked a watershed moment in the nation’s history. Though predominantly in its initial stages, the revolution involved protests, strikes, and civil disobedience. However, the Shah’s regime responded with harsh repression, leading to a significant rise in casualties among protesters. This ultimately contributed to the gradual disintegration of the Shah’s government.

The revolution culminated in the overthrow of the Pahlavi monarchy and the establishment of an Islamic republic based on the concept of Wilayat al-Faqih. This ideological foundation, enshrined in the 1979 (amended in 1989), emphasizes principles such as justice, independence, self-reliance, resistance, and martyrdom.

Iran’s claim to legitimacy transcends the 1979 revolution, drawing its from millennia-long influential civilizations and empires. This rich history, encompassing the Elamites, the Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, and Safavids, has indelibly shaped Iran’s cultural identity and instilled a profound sense of national pride. As the historical seat of power for empires stretching across the Fertile Crescent and into Central Asia, Iran’s past serves as a cornerstone for its aspirations for regional leadership, both historically and in the contemporary era.

This sense of historical grandeur further shapes Iran’s foreign policy, which has often clashed with that of Western powers and their regional allies. This has led Iran to pursue a strategy, aimed at countering western pressure and sanctions imposed due to its nuclear program and regional activities. This policy gained momentum following the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal () and the perceived failure of European signatories to uphold their commitments, leaving Iran economically isolated.

Iran’s deep-seated opposition to in the Middle East stems from a perception that such policies destabilize the region and threaten its security and interests. Consequently, a key objective of the Pivot to the East strategy is to bolster Iran’s regional influence and establish itself as a leading power in the Islamic world, a position it believes reflects its historical legacy and rightful place.

While Iran promotes a transnational Islamist model, its influence is largely confined to Shia communities, which are minorities in most Muslim-majority countries. Nonetheless, Iran’s assertive foreign policy, including its support for specific regional groups, has been a factor in destabilizing the Middle East. Former Iranian foreign minister, M. Javad Zarif this policy ‘sacrificing diplomacy for the military field’ in an interview with Saeed Leylaz.��

The eastward gaze: Iran’s Pivot and the rise of an authoritarian Axis

Recent years have witnessed a growing convergence between Iran and other authoritarian regimes sharing a common opposition to Western influence. It describes what I call the Axis of Totalitarianism: a coalition of authoritarian regimes that challenge the democratic world order, encompassing Iran, China, and Russia. While not constituting a formal alliance, these countries exhibit strategic convergence and a shared desire to challenge the US-led unipolar world order.

This convergence manifests in various forms of cooperation. Notably, Iran and China have a significant 25-year strategic partnership agreement, facilitating substantial economic investment in Iran’s energy, infrastructure, and transportation sectors. This agreement underscores China’s growing economic influence in the region and its potential to provide much-needed economic support to Iran. Similarly, Iran and Russia have their existing 20-year cooperation agreement and engaged in joint military exercises, demonstrating their strategic coordination and willingness to collaborate on security matters. Notably, Iran has supplied Russia with ballistic missiles, further deepening their military cooperation in defiance of international sanctions.

A key driver of this convergence is the shared opposition to U.S. dominance and perceived Western interference in the region and globally. These countries view the current US-led world order as unfair and unjust, advocating for a multipolar world order that would redistribute power and influence. This shared objective fosters cooperation and strengthens their collective stance against perceived Western interventionism.

Beyond the core trio of Iran, China, and Russia, other actors with authoritarian tendencies have displayed varying degrees of alignment with this emerging axis. Notably, an Iranian official recently to the Taliban as part of an axis of resistance, suggesting a potential for cautious rapprochement between the two entities.��

Similarly, Iran has been a staunch supporter of the Assad regime in Syria, providing both military and financial assistance that has been crucial in helping the regime regain control of territory from rebel groups. While not directly involved in the Middle East, North Korea’s aggressive stance towards the West has fostered diplomatic ties with Iran. North Korea maintains close alliances with Russia and China. Pyongyang has vocally supported Russia’s war in Ukraine, the annexed regions and parts of Georgia. In recent years, North Korea has in joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Indo-Pacific region, suggesting a trilateral partnership aimed against the US and its allies.

Historically, North Korea and Iran have in the military and nuclear fields. This alliance dates back to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s when North Korea supplied Iran with weapons and technology. Since then, North Korea has aided Iran’s ballistic missile program development. Reports suggest joint missile development projects and technology transfers between the two countries.����

The destabilizing messianic mission

Iran’s foreign policy is heavily influenced by its adherence to Twelver Shi’ism. This branch of Islam anticipates the of the twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, to establish a global Islamic order. This eschatological belief imbues Iran with a sense of responsibility as the custodian of the Shia faith and champion of the oppressed, translating into a perceived mission to propagate Islam, defend the downtrodden, and pave the way for the Mahdi’s emergence. Furthermore, Iran views itself as the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad and his , the Prophet’s family, and claims to uphold the authentic interpretation of Islam embodied in their teachings and practices.

One prominent manifestation of Iran’s Islamic ideology in its foreign policy is the concept of against perceived enemies of Islam and Iran. Iran positions itself as the leader of the , a network of state and non-state actors united in their opposition to the United States, Israel, and their regional allies. , sharing Iran’s ideological and strategic objectives of challenging the status quo and defending Shia interests, form a crucial component of this network.

These groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Palestine, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Iranian support in the form of arms, training, financial aid, and political guidance. In return, they serve as force multipliers and instruments of deterrence for Iran, expanding its influence and leverage in the region. Often wielding significant political and social influence alongside their military capabilities, these groups maintain close ties to Iran’s Supreme Leader. They frequently coordinate their activities with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Quds Force, responsible for the country’s external security affairs.

The activities of Iran’s proxy groups have had a cascading and devastating impact on the stability and well-being of the Middle East. Their presence and involvement in regional conflicts have directly fueled humanitarian crises, such as:

— A 2021 by the International Crisis Group documented how Hezbollah’s growing influence in Lebanon has hampered the formation of a stable government and hindered efforts to address the country’s economic crisis. In Yemen, the Houthi conflict has over 4 million people internally, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and plunged the country into the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

— OCHA over 306,887 civilian deaths in the Syrian civil war, a conflict fueled in part by Iranian support for the Assad regime. Amnesty International has also various Iran-backed militias in Iraq of extrajudicial killings, torture, and arbitrary detention, further eroding respect for human rights and exacerbating sectarian divisions.

— The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) that over 12.4 million people are displaced across the Middle East and North Africa due to ongoing conflicts. The destruction of infrastructure and disruption of essential services, often a consequence of proxy group activity, further compound the humanitarian suffering in the region. OCHA that over 2.4�� million children in Yemen lack access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene due to the ongoing conflict.

The legacy of revolution: how Iran’s anti-Zionism threatens Israel

At the core of Iran’s anti-Zionism the fundamental rejection of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state. This perspective views Israel’s establishment as a colonial project infringing upon Palestinian land and rights. Iran’s with the Palestinian cause, intertwined with both religious and moral imperatives as well as strategic and political interests, fuels its anti-Zionist stance. This manifests in Iran’s support for various Palestinian factions, particularly those advocating armed resistance against Israel, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.��

Furthermore, Iran envisions a single, democratic state encompassing historical Palestine, where diverse communities coexist, effectively calling for Israel’s dissolution. This aspiration is further emphasized through Iran’s participation in the annual International , a symbolic display of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Iran’s anti-Zionism translates into tangible security challenges for Israel. Firstly, it underpins the formation of the Axis of Resistance alliance with Syria and Hezbollah. This alliance as a conduit for projecting Iranian power in the Levant region, posing a direct military threat to Israel’s northern border. Iran bolsters this alliance through extensive financial, military, and political support, enabling the development of missile and rocket capabilities, intelligence networks, and military infrastructure.��

Iran’s military presence in Syria, including bases and personnel stationed near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, further intensifies the potential for confrontation. This alliance has demonstrably materialized in several instances, including the 2006 Lebanon War, the ongoing Syrian Civil War with its spillover effects, and the 2024 Golan Heights incident.

Secondly, Iran’s anti-Zionist ideology drives its efforts to expand its influence and presence in other regional areas, including Iraq, Yemen, and the Gaza Strip. In these regions, Iran and arms various groups who actively attack Israel and its strategic allies. Iran has provided the Houthis in Yemen with missiles and drones used against Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both considered strategic partners of Israel. Similarly, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip receive Iranian assistance in the form of rockets and funding, enabling them to engage in repeated cycles of violence with Israel, as exemplified by the 2024 Gaza War. Furthermore, Iran cultivates ties with various Shia militias and political parties in Iraq, some harboring animosity towards Israel and threatening potential attacks.

Thirdly, Iran’s anti-Zionism is intricately linked to its pursuit of a nuclear and missile program, concerns about the potential development and delivery of nuclear weapons. This program has been a focal point of intense international scrutiny. It led to negotiations, sanctions, and even sabotage attempts. Despite these pressures, Iran uranium enrichment beyond the limits set by the now-abandoned 2015 nuclear deal.

Furthermore, in their missile program, encompassing the testing and development of various ballistic and cruise missiles with the potential to reach Israel and other regional countries, further escalate anxieties. This pursuit of nuclear capabilities, coupled with the possibility of transfer to proxies or allies, fuels fears of regional proliferation and potential military confrontations. Israel, viewing a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, has repeatedly threatened strikes to prevent such an outcome and has reportedly carried out covert and overt attacks on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure.

Iran’s Islamic revolution and its ambition to stand against the unipolar order, centering itself as the leader of the Islamic pillar of the multipolar world is a destabilizing order and an existential threat to Israel.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iran’s Revolutionary Ideology Is the Architect of a Destabilizing Order appeared first on 51�Թ�.

the US-Israeli war on the Middle East, centered on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, but already also including in the West Bank, Israeli on Lebanon and Syria, and the US and UK’s of Yemen.

This latest US attack followed the US bombing of seven targets on February 2, three in Iraq and four in Syria, with 125 bombs and missiles, killing at least , which Iran “a strategic mistake” that would bring “disastrous consequences” for the Middle East.

At the same time, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been touring the shrinking number of capitals in the region where leaders will still talk to him, playing the United States’ traditional role as a dishonest broker between Israel and its neighbors, in reality partnering with Israel to offer the Palestinians impossible, virtually suicidal terms for a ceasefire in Gaza.

What Israel and the United States have , but not made public, appears to be a second temporary ceasefire, during which prisoners or hostages would be exchanged, possibly leading to the release of all the Israeli security prisoners held in Gaza, but in no way leading to the final end of the genocide. If the Palestinians in fact freed all their Israeli hostages as part of a prisoner swap, it would remove the only obstacle to a catastrophic escalation of the genocide.

When Hamas responded with a serious counter-proposal for a full ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, US President Biden dismissed it out of hand as “over the top,” and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called it “bizarre” and “delusional.” 

The position of the United States and Israel today is that ending a massacre that has already killed more than people is not a serious option, even after the International Court of Justice has ruled it a case of genocide under the Genocide Convention. Raphael Lemkin, the Polish Holocaust survivor who coined the term “genocide” and drafted the Genocide Convention from his adopted home in New York City, must be turning in his grave in Mount Hebron Cemetery.

A fraught situation in Iraq

The United States’ support for Israel’s genocidal policies now goes way beyond Palestine, with the US expansion of the war to Iraq, Syria and Yemen to punish other countries and forces in the region for intervening to defend or support the Palestinians. US officials claimed the February 2 attacks were intended to stop Iraqi resistance attacks on US bases. But the leading Iraqi resistance force had already attacks against US targets on January 30 after they killed three US troops, declaring a truce at the urging of the Iranian and Iraqi governments.

A senior Iraqi military officer BBC Persian that at least one of the Iraqi military units the US bombed on February 2nd had nothing to do with attacks on US bases. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani negotiated an agreement a year ago to clearly differentiate between Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) units that were part of the “Axis of Resistance” fighting a low-grade war with U.S. occupation forces, and other PMF units that were not involved in attacks on US bases.��

Tragically, because the US failed to coordinate its attacks with the Iraqi government, al-Sudani’s agreement failed to prevent the US from attacking the wrong Iraqi forces. It is no wonder that some analysts have dubbed al-Sudani’s valiant efforts to prevent all-out war between US forces and the Islamic resistance in his country “.”��

Following the elaborately staged but carelessly misdirected US attacks, resistance forces in Iraq began launching new strikes on US bases, including a that killed six Kurdish troops at the largest US base in Syria. So the predictable effect of the US bombing was in fact to rebuff Iran and Iraq’s efforts to rein in resistance forces and to escalate a war that US officials keep claiming they want to deter.����

From experienced journalists and analysts to Middle Eastern governments, voices of caution are warning the United States in increasingly stark language of the dangers of its escalating bombing campaigns. “While the war rages in Gaza,” BBC’s wrote on February 4, “one false move could set the region alight.”��

Three days later, Guerin would be surrounded by protesters chanting “America is the greatest devil,” as she from the site of the US drone assassination of Kataib Hezbollah leader Abu Baqir al-Saadi in Baghdad – which could prove to be exactly the false move she feared.��

But what Americans should be asking their government is this: Why are there still US troops in Iraq? It is 21 years since the United States invaded Iraq and plunged the nation into seemingly endless violence, chaos and ; 12 years since Iraq forced US occupation forces to from Iraq at the end of 2011; and 7 years since the defeat of ISIS, which served as justification for the United States to send forces back into Iraq in 2014, and then to most of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, in 2017.

Successive Iraqi governments and parliaments have asked the United States to withdraw its forces from Iraq, and previously scheduled talks are about to begin. But the Iraqis and Americans have issued contradictory statements about the goal of the . Al-Sudani and most Iraqis hope they will bring about the immediate withdrawal of US forces, while US officials that troops may remain for another two to five years, kicking this explosive can further down the road despite the obvious dangers it poses to the lives of US troops and to peace in the region.

The US is losing its grip

Behind these contradictory statements, the real value of Iraqi bases to the US military does not seem to be about ISIS at all but about Iran. Although the United States has more than stationed in 14 countries across the Middle East, and another 20,000 on warships in the seas surrounding them, the bases it uses in Iraq are its closest bases and airfields to Tehran and much of Iran. If the Pentagon loses these forward operating bases in Iraq, the closest bases from which it can attack Tehran will be Camp Arifjan and five other bases in , where 13,500 US troops would be vulnerable to Iranian counter-attacks — unless, of course, the US withdraws them, too.

Toward the end of the Cold War, historian Gabriel Kolko observed in his book Confronting the Third World that the United States’ “endemic incapacity to avoid entangling, costly commitments in areas of the world that are of intrinsically secondary importance to [its] priorities has caused US foreign policy and resources to whipsaw virtually arbitrarily from one problem and region to the other. The result has been the United States’ increasing loss of control over its political priorities, budget, military strategy and tactics, and, ultimately, its original economic goals.”

After the end of the Cold War, instead of restoring realistic goals and priorities, the neocons who gained control of US foreign policy fooled themselves into believing that US military and economic power could finally triumph over the frustratingly diverse social and political evolution of hundreds of countries and cultures all over the world. In addition to wreaking mass destruction on country after country, this has turned the United States into the global enemy of the principles of democracy and self-determination that most Americans believe in.

The Americans feel at the plight of people in Gaza and the US’s role in it is a shocking new low in this disconnect between the humanity of ordinary Americans and the insatiable ambitions of their undemocratic leaders.��

While working for an end to the US government’s support for Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people, Americans should also be working for the long-overdue withdrawal of US occupying forces from Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The US Chooses Genocide Over Diplomacy in the Middle East appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The attack has prompted strong demands in Washington and elsewhere for a powerful US response. Instead of targeting the various groups in Iraq sponsored to one degree or another by the regime in Tehran, advocates for striking at Iran directly. Such a response might involve disrupting Iran’s petroleum industry by bombarding the relevant facilities.

The demands for a strong kinetic response are countered by warnings about the US being drawn into a wider regional war in the Middle East. The unsuccessful American military effort to stop the Taliban’s control of Afghanistan and a less ambitious but equally unsuccessful intervention in the Lebanese civil war in the mid-1980s provide reasons for caution.

So, the alternatives — at least those discussed in public — are either continued tit-for-tat responses to attacks by Iranian-sponsored bands in Syria and Iraq or direct measures against Tehran with the accompanying danger of an escalatory spiral leading to a large-scale regional war. The latter would lead to a growing number of American military casualties, which would have to be absorbed in a presidential election year.

There is a third way, one well worth consideration by policy-makers and members of the American public.

How the US can exploit Iran’s weaknesses and avoid bloodshed

The Islamic Republic is a formidable adversary. Its political and military leaders, from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to President Ebrahim Raisi, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) head Hossein Salami and Quds Force commander Esmail Ghaani, have shown themselves to be quite ruthless and adept in maintaining their grip on power. To this end, they are aided by the IRGC, an organization of some fighters or potential fighters. The IRGC is, in turn, divided into the Quods Force, whose tasks include foreign terrorist operations in the Middle East and beyond, and the Basij an organization devoted to the maintenance of internal security — by all means necessary, including .

Despite a political culture of religious repression and the weapons available to a modern police state, the Islamic Republic is not invulnerable. By many accounts, the regime is highly unpopular, especially among the educated middle classes of Tehran and the other major cities. Also, whether deserved or not, the regime has acquired a reputation for corruption, particularly among leaders of the IRGC.

Iran’s population is close to , a significant proportion of whom are young people under the age of 20. At last count, the country’s unemployment rate was around of the workforce. These figures suggest a less than contented population.

Public protests against the Islamic Republic are hardly out of the question. The most spectacular of these manifestations so far was the sustained protests by Iranian women following the death in custody of a young woman, Masha Amini, arrested for not wearing her hijab appropriately. Beginning in September 2022 and continuing into 2023, the forces of repression had to be employed throughout much of the country.

Furthermore, the Iranian population is less than homogenous; aside from the majority Persian ethnicity, there are Azeris, Kurds, Balochis and Arabs. In past decades, leaders of these communities have sought to achieve greater autonomy from Tehran, sometimes by the use of violence, albeit short-lived.

This combination of demographic and political characteristics point to some of the Islamic Republic’s vulnerabilities, ones that might be exploited by the United States, at least in the long-run. Subversion appears to be a sensible means of weakening the regime of the ayatollahs. The Central Intelligence Agency has extensive experience in weakening various hostile regimes in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, not to mention the successful 1953 coup it promoted against the nationalist regime of Muhammad Mosaddegh that brought the Shah back to power.��

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How to React to Iranian Provocations Without Overreacting appeared first on 51�Թ�.

But if Israel persists in this genocidal war, US threats may be impotent to prevent others from intervening. From Lebanon to Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran, the possibilities of the conflict spreading are enormous. Even says it is ready to fight for a free Palestine, based on a unanimous vote in its parliament on November 1.

Related Reading

A Genocide Expert Makes Sense of War Crimes in Gaza

The US is facing a credibility crisis in the Middle East

Middle Eastern governments and their people already see the United States as a party to Israel’s massacre in Gaza. So any direct US military action will be seen as an escalation on the side of Israel. It would be more likely to provoke further escalation than to deter it.

The US already faces this predicament in Iraq. Despite of Iraqi demands for the removal of US forces, at least 2,500 American troops remain at in western Anbar province, , north of Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, and another small base at the airport in Erbil. There are also “” NATO troops, including Americans, advising Iraqi forces in , based near Baghdad.

For many years, US forces in Iraq have been mired in a low-grade war against the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) that Iraq formed to fight ISIS, mainly from Shia militias. Despite their links to Iran, the armed groups Kata’ib Hezbollah, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq and other PMFs have often ignored Iranian calls to de-escalate attacks on US forces. These Iraqi groups do not respect Iran Quds Force leader General Esmail Qaani as highly as they did General Soleimani, so Soleimani’s assassination by the United States in 2020 has further Iran’s ability to restrain the militias in Iraq.

Related Reading

How Good Is the US Policy on Iran, Really?

After a year-long truce between US and Iraqi forces, the Israeli war on Gaza has triggered a new escalation of this conflict in both Iraq and Syria. Some militias rebranded themselves as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq and began attacking US bases on October 17. After 32 attacks on US bases in Iraq, 34 more in Syria and three US airstrikes in Syria, US forces conducted on November 21 against two Kata’ib Hezbollah bases in Iraq, one in Anbar province and one in Jurf Al-Nasr, south of Baghdad, killing at least nine militiamen.

The US airstrikes prompted a from the Iraqi government spokesman Bassam al-Awadi. “We vehemently condemn the attack on , executed without the knowledge of government agencies,” al-Awadi said. “This action is a blatant violation of sovereignty and an attempt to destabilize the security situation … The recent incident represents a clear violation of the coalition’s mission to combat Daesh [ISIS] on Iraqi soil. We call on all parties to avoid unilateral actions and to respect Iraq’s sovereignty.”

As the Iraqi government feared, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq responded to the US airstrikes with two attacks on Al-Harir airbase on November 22 and on November 23. They attacked Al-Asad airbase with several drones and launched another drone attack on the US base at Erbil airport. Their Syrian allies attacked two US bases across the border in northeastern Syria.

Short of a ceasefire in Gaza or a full US withdrawal from Iraq and Syria, there is no decisive action the US can take that would put a stop to these attacks. So, the level of violence in Iraq and Syria is likely to keep rising as long as the war on Gaza continues.

Regional actors in Yemen, Turkey, Lebanon and Iran contemplate intervening in Gaza

Another formidable and experienced military force opposing Israel and the United States is the Houthi army in Yemen. On November 14, Abdul-Malek al-Houthi, the leader of the Houthi government in Yemen, neighboring countries to open a corridor through their territory for his army to go and fight Israel in Gaza.

The Houthi Deputy Information Secretary Nasreddin Amer told Newsweek that, if they had a way to enter Palestine, they would not hesitate to join the fight against Israel, ”We have fighters numbering hundreds of thousands who are brave, tough, trained and experienced in fighting,” Amer said. “They have a very strong belief, and their dream in life is to fight the Zionists and the Americans.”

Transporting hundreds of thousands of Yemeni soldiers to fight in Gaza would be nearly impossible unless Saudi Arabia opened the way. That seems highly unlikely, but Iran or another ally could help to transport a smaller number by air or sea to join the fight.

The Houthis have been waging an asymmetric war against Saudi-led invaders and the internationally recognized Yemeni government for many years, and they have developed weapons and tactics that they could bring to bear against Israel. Soon after al-Houthi’s statement, Houthi forces in the Red Sea a ship owned, via shell companies, by Israeli billionaire Abraham Ungar. The ship, which was on its way from Istanbul to India, was detained in a Yemeni port.

The Houthis have also launched a series of drones and missiles towards Israel. While many Western politicians and journalists try to portray the Houthis as simply puppets of Iran, the Houthis are actually an independent, unpredictable force that other actors in the region cannot control.

Even NATO member Turkey is finding it difficult to remain a bystander, given the widespread public support for Palestine. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was among the first international leaders to speak out strongly against the Israeli war on Gaza, explicitly calling it a and saying that it amounted to .

Turkish civil society groups are spearheading a to send humanitarian aid to Gaza on cargo ships, braving a possible confrontation like the one that occurred in 2010 when the Israelis attacked the Freedom Flotilla, people aboard the Mavi Marmara.

On the Lebanese border, Hezbollah and Israel have daily exchanges of fire since October 7, killing 107 combatants and 24 civilians in Lebanon and 9 soldiers and 4 civilians in Israel. Some 55,000 Lebanese civilians and 65,000 Israelis have been displaced from the border area. On November 11, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant , “What we’re doing in Gaza, we can also do in Beirut.”

How will Hezbollah react as Israel resumes its brutal massacre in Gaza after the brief pause or if Israel expands the massacre to the West Bank, where it has already at least 237 more Palestinians since October 7? 

In a speech on November 3, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah held back from declaring a new war on Israel, but warned that “all options are on the table” if Israel does not end its war on Gaza.

On November 23, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian , “If Israel’s war crimes and genocide continue, a tougher and more complicated scenario of the resistance will be implemented.”

Amirabdollahian had already , on October 16, that “the leaders of the resistance will not allow the Zionist regime to do whatever it wants in Gaza and then go to other fronts of the resistance.” In other words, if Iran and its allies believe that Israel really intends to continue its war on Gaza until it has removed Hamas from power, and then turn its war machine loose on Lebanon or its other neighbors, they would prefer to fight a wider war now, forcing Israel to fight the Palestinians, Hezbollah and their allies at the same time, rather than waiting for Israel to attack them one by one.

The US is ignoring the warning signs

Tragically, the White House is not listening. On November 24, the day after Amirabdollahian’s speech, US President Joe Biden continued to back Israel’s vow to resume the destruction of Gaza after its “humanitarian pause,” attempting to eliminate Hamas is “a legitimate objective.” On December 7, he for the breakdown of the pause.

America’s unconditional support for Israel and endless supply of weapons have succeeded only in turning Israel into an out-of-control, genocidal, destabilizing force at the heart of a fragile region already shattered and traumatized by decades of US warmaking. The result is a country that refuses to recognize its own borders or those of its neighbors and rejects any and all limits on its territorial ambitions and war crimes.

If Israel’s actions lead to a wider war, the US will find itself with few allies ready to jump into the fray. Even if a regional conflict is avoided, the US support for Israel has already created tremendous damage to its reputation in the region and beyond, and direct American involvement in the war would leave it more isolated and impotent than its previous misadventures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq did. 

The US can still avoid this fate by insisting on an immediate and permanent ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. If Israel will not agree to that, the US must back up this position with an immediate suspension of arms deliveries, military aid, to US weapons stockpiles in Israel and diplomatic support for Israel’s war on Palestine. 

The priority of US officials must be to stop Israel’s massacre, avoid a regional war and get out of the way so that the UN and other nations can help negotiate a real solution to the occupation of Palestine.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post US Threats Aren’t Creating Peace in the Middle East appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The fallout: Unintended consequences of US reaction 

The 9/11 attacks were the deadliest foreign assault ever on US soil, claiming 2,977 innocent lives. At the time, President George W. Bush stated that while American was under attack, the US would undoubtedly win the war that had been waged upon it. For Bush, the notion of American exceptionalism demanded a strong and resolute response to the unprovoked attacks in order to protect national security and prevent future acts of terrorism. The way the US went about its response, however, was deeply flawed and often counterproductive. The legacy of these flawed policies underscores the importance of thoughtful approaches to addressing complex global challenges.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US launched its “War on Terror,” a multifaceted and global campaign aimed at dismantling al-Qaeda and preventing future terrorist threats. Two primary theatres emerged: Afghanistan and Iraq.

Consequences of the War on Terror and the Iraq War

In Afghanistan, the US invasion aimed to remove the Taliban from power, disrupt al-Qaeda’s core leadership, eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and weaken its ability to conduct large-scale international attacks. While the initial phase of the war achieved these goals, the subsequent years witnessed a protracted conflict with unforeseen consequences. The US effort to stabilize Afghanistan struggled amid insurgency and regional power dynamics.

The primary rationale for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the presence of weapons of mass destruction, but the invasion had broader implications for the region. The toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime triggered sectarian strife and unleashed forces that Iraq struggled to contain for years to come.

One of the most significant and unintended consequences of the 9/11 attacks was the emergence of new extremist groups in the Middle East. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for 9/11, was not the only group operating in the region, but its audacious attack galvanized jihadists and set in motion a new wave of militancy. Afghanistan and Iraq became epicenters of violence and instability where new extremist groups could thrive. The region saw the rise ISIS and others who exploited the power vacuums created by the conflicts. These groups posed significant not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also globally.

Iran watched the developments in Afghanistan and Iraq with a mix of apprehension and opportunism. The fall of Saddam Hussein ultimately shifted the balance of power in Iraq in favor of that country’s Shiite majority. Iran sought to capitalize on this by cultivating Shiite militias and political groups in Iraq, effectively increasing its influence in the country. The Bush administration’s inclusion of Iran in the “” further strained US-Iran relations. These tensions would later play a role in Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities and regional proxy conflicts. Today, remains one of only four countries the US has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Hard lessons: Military choices undermine soft-power efforts

The US engaged in diplomatic outreach to build international support for its counterterrorism efforts. This involved seeking cooperation from regional and international partners, including NATO countries. However, trust issues and concerns about US motives hampered diplomatic efforts. The perception of US in the Iraq War eroded trust among traditional allies and regional actors.

These trust issues spilled over to the battlefield. The US managed to form alliances such as the “Coalition of the Willing” to share the burden of combat operations and provide legitimacy to their interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. When it came to delegating responsibility to its partners, however, the US chose to dominate the planning and execution of military actions. This approach led to the perception that the coalition was in name only.

The US invested in public diplomacy efforts to improve its image and engage with Middle Eastern populations after its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. These initiatives to win hearts and minds, promote American values and counter extremist narratives included cultural exchange programs, educational scholarships and English-language teaching. The US also sought to counter extremist narratives through various media outlets and information campaigns, including the creation of Arabic-language media such as the satellite television channel Alhurra and Radio Sawa. These outlets faced credibility issues and struggled to compete with established regional media organizations.

Doubts about US motives undermined the impact of many of these efforts, and this skepticism carried over to the superpower’s efforts to promote democratic governance and human rights in the region. The thinking behind the US policy was that addressing political grievances would help counter extremism; however, the efforts were met with accusations of hypocrisy, particularly because the US continued to support authoritarian regimes that were allies in the War on Terror. The absence of weapons of mass destruction also undermined the legitimacy of the Iraq War and fuelled anti-American sentiments across the Middle East, leading to protests and strained diplomatic relations.

One of the most controversial aspects of the War on Terror was the use of extra-legal renditions and enhanced interrogation techniques, including torture. Techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation were employed on detainees at various detention facilities, including and in Iraq. These practices undermined the moral high ground the US sought to occupy, sparking global outrage with critics arguing that they violated international law and human rights standards.

Some Middle Eastern governments, particularly those with close ties to the United States, in the rendition of individuals suspected of terrorism. These countries allowed US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, to detain and transport individuals through their territory or airspace. This cooperation often raised concerns about complicity in practices that violated international human rights standards, including the use of torture. , for example, was used as a transit point for the rendition of suspected terrorists. Jordanian intelligence agencies were known for their involvement in interrogations that raised concerns about torture and human rights abuses.

The legacy of the 9/11 campaigns: Human suffering and moral failure

The prolonged military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq reinforced a militarized approach to counterterrorism, which inadvertently led to collateral damage and civilian casualties. The wars led to widespread displacement, with of Afghans and Iraqis forced to flee their homes. Internally displaced persons and refugees faced dire conditions, lacking access to basic necessities and enduring harsh living conditions. Between 2002–2003, public of the US was less favorable in the Middle East than elsewhere around the world. By 2022, regional opinion found that more than half the respondents agreed that the United States has become an unreliable partner and that the region should reorient its attention towards Russia and China as partners.

The human cost of post-9/11 war zones is estimated to be nearly . While the figure represents an approximation that includes both direct casualties as a result of war, many others — especially children — lost their lives due to the reverberations of war, including devastation brought on by economic impacts and the spread of diseases.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also resulted in significant casualties among US military personnel. Over American soldiers lost their lives in post-9/11 war operations, while many more were wounded in combat operations. Deployments to combat zones also took a toll on the mental health of US service members. The exposure to combat stress, traumatic experiences and multiple deployments contributed to high rates of PTSD and other mental health issues among returning veterans.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs, responsible for providing healthcare and benefits to veterans, faced challenges in meeting the needs of a large and growing veteran population. Reports of long wait times, inadequate mental health services and bureaucratic inefficiencies raised concerns about the quality of care provided. From 2001-2011, the US government spent nearly providing medical care and disability benefits for nearly 650,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans as a result of injuries sustained during their tours.

FO° Talks: Make Sense of Afghanistan With Thomas Barfield: Part 2

Given all this, it is imperative that US policymakers internalize the profound lessons offered by the flawed foreign policies following 9/11. These lessons underscore the need for nuanced, well-considered approaches that prioritize diplomacy, international cooperation and respect for human rights as fundamental cornerstones of effective global engagement. Dealing with terrorist attacks presents an inherently challenging landscape, one where policymakers must resist ideological rigidity and instead adopt pragmatic, thoughtful strategies.

The complexity of the modern world demands a flexibility of thought and an openness to nuanced solutions that can adapt to the evolving nature of global threats. Such an approach acknowledges that while security remains paramount, it should not come at the expense of civil liberties, human rights or long-term stability. Achieving a balance between security and the preservation of democratic values is a delicate but essential task for policymakers navigating the post-9/11 world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Ripple Effect: 9/11’s Profound Impact on the Middle East appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As the founder and president of , I could not get the idea off my mind. In the US, we cannot have a concert with a few thousand attendees without some trouble. How in the world was it possible for millions of people to get together so lovingly and peacefully?

Finally, I took the journey. My experience with Arba’een opened my eyes to many possibilities to achieve global peace. I had never encountered such hospitality, love and generosity in my life. Although it was held in Iraq under the threat of terrorism, I spotted pilgrims from across the world eagerly participating. I was touched by the display of faith in humanity, the likes of which I had never seen anywhere else.

A multicultural gathering

Although it was originally initiated by Shi’a Muslims as a spiritual reawakening, I witnessed that ��������’e��� brought people together from all walks of life. It was a true representation of all people in the world. The participants included not just Shi’as but Sunnis, Ibadis, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Yazidis and Zoroastrians. There, we were all united in purpose and welcomed with the utmost respect, regardless of religion, culture, ethnicity, gender or race. 

Four years earlier, I had participated in the annual Islamic Hajj pilgrimage. In Karbala, I noticed the much greater crowds; ��������’e��� attracts more people than the Hajj. In contrast to the Hajj, which is riddled with , my experience with the ��������’e��� event was peaceful. While the Hajj consists exclusively of Muslims, Arba’een breaks across identity barriers. Arba’een is truly unique.

As I had read, it was embellished with the longest continuous free dining table with a variety of foods and personal sleep accommodations. Iraqis were stationed throughout the path of pilgrims to wash feet and massage feet, backs, shoulders and necks. Clinics and doctors were available to treat pilgrims. All amenities, down to baby diapers, were furnished free. All services, including the tight security, were provided by volunteers. None of these were paid for by any government or corporation. They were all offered by Iraqis and others who had been saving for a year to serve pilgrims with pure love and compassion. They expected no pay; rather, they felt honored when we accepted their offerings or lodging.

On my journey, I was told that among the servers were the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi and the Chinese Ambassador along with his wife. I wondered why US officials were absent, especially when the US was generally unpopular in the region and had the largest embassy and military presence in the country. It would have been a great PR opportunity. 

��������’e��� rarely makes headlines, but when it does, it gives hope to humanity that universal peace is realizable.

Arba’een memorializes the end of the 40-day mourning period for the brutal 7th-century killing of al-Husayn (Husayn), the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson and third Shia Imam. His murder at the hands of the wicked Umayyad Caliph Yazid made him a martyr standing up against injustice. The event left an indelible mark on Islamic history. 

As Modarresi says, Husayn’s “legend encourages, inspires, and champions change for the better, and no amount of media blackout can extinguish its light.”

Iraq’s Massive, Peaceful Annual ��������’e��� Pilgrimage Is Beginning Now

For me, ��������’e��� was a life-changing experience

Starting in 2014, ISIS freely roamed much of Iraq and committed atrocities that shocked the world. Armed with weapons and vehicles of Western manufacture, ISIS tortured suspects, raped women and girls, robbed, enslaved, used child soldiers and carried out genocide.

I read Modarresi’s in 2015 and learned that millions of people from all over the world ignored ISIS to attend Arba’een. ISIS, which takes an extreme anti-Shi’a stance, attempted to menace pilgrims into skipping Arba’een. The threat encouraged even more participation in defiance, a courageous audacity rarely seen anywhere around the world. 

To the pilgrims, Husayn typifies the man who is spiritually connected to Allah, the Source of all things, which enables him to stand firmly against despotism and never submit to oppression or persecution. Husayn did so even though it cost him his own life and those of his brothers, sons and other loved ones.

To me, Arba’een appeared to be a truer representation of cross-cultural participation and cohesiveness than even the United Nations. Like other political entities, the UN is riddled with favoritism and corruption. Unlike in the UN, all people are treated with equal respect in ��������’e���.

For days, nights, weeks and months, I was preoccupied. Something deep inside me urged me to participate. I wanted to be a part of it. I needed to see it for myself and experience the event known to millions. I felt a strong zeal to take the journey, despite the imminent threat of ISIS against the pilgrims. I became excited and eager knowing there was a purpose.

With ISIS controlling much of Iraq, my family was adamantly against me traveling in the Middle East, especially within Iraq. I was compelled to delay my journey.

Thanks to , Iran’s late top general, things have since changed for the better in the region. In mid-2018, Iraq gathered strength with assistance from Iran and Russia to push ISIS out of Iraq. On the ground with Russian air support, Iraqi special forces led by Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis soundly ISIS. That brave action gave me an opportunity to convince my family to let me participate in Arba’een. I assured them that I would be careful traveling there. Knowing how badly I wanted to go there, they reluctantly agreed.

In 2018, Arba’een was at the end of October. I was astonished. The journey exceeded all my expectations; every moment was breathtaking. I stayed in Iraq for 12 days, and it cost me not even a dime for food. My lodging would also have been totally free, but I chose to stay a few nights in nice hotels to reflect. The hotels were around $20 a night. 

Step by step, side by side, I marched all 50 miles of the way on foot over three days, alongside millions of other pilgrims. The journey began at the mausoleum of Ali in the holy city of Najaf and terminated at Husayn’s mausoleum in the holy city of Karbala.

As I looked over my shoulder, I saw children in the arms of their mothers and young men assisting the women and elderly in their quest to make the journey. I saw folks with canes and crutches taking each intentional step forward. I found the weakened, aged or disabled rolling in wheelchairs as persistent and committed as those of us on foot beside them. There were no divides or differences. There, we were all one. 

There was only hope in their eyes and love in their heart as the people moved beside me. Often, I would find myself interrupted in thought, taking in each individual, making individual picture frame memories of their faces, with the various Iraqi citizens lining the trail motioning to give us water and food or guiding us along the path. I could feel the energy pulsating throughout my body, my mind, my soul—the frequency around me was vibrating, unconditional, pure, wholehearted love. 

It was with this powerful frequency that I then took each individual step. All of this beautiful, loving energy made what could otherwise be characterized as a marathon feel like a walk in the park. I had very little on me except for a backpack of clothes, yet I felt fully abundant.  

I had never seen generosity to that extent in my whole life. Various kinds of food and comfortable lodging were freely available along the path everywhere. I was astonished to see that even the poorest Iraqis traveled on foot for days to get there, simply to offer the pilgrims dates here and there.

Heaven on Earth

I thought to myself: If Iraqis could continue that spirit for the rest of the year by treating one another with the same compassion and love, Iraq would once again be the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8), a place of happiness and peace. Imagine what the world could be if we existed in this nature daily as well.

The instantaneous coming together of millions of people from across the world in Arba’een must be of Heavenly inspiration. It is equally magical how Iraqis work together providing the pilgrims safety and security along with free food, lodging and other services. As Oregon’s Southminster Presbyterian Church Pastor John Shuck , “… it is a divine interplay of an unchoreographed dance of love.”

In my journey, I learned that millions of the pilgrims began their journey on foot from Iran, Kuwait, Syria and Lebanon, along with cities in Iraq and the Gulf Arab States, towards Karbala. For days, young and old traveled miles through mountainous and rocky trails in the burning sun of the day and the freezing cold of the night to reach the holy city. Regardless of where they came from, they all simply wanted to connect to Allah and live in harmony and peace. To accomplish these noble goals, they knew that a level of unrelenting self-will, accountability, good nature, kindness and endurance was required to win over oppression and persecution. 

Husayn gave us many examples of courage in his stand against tyranny and injustice. Many of his quotes can be heard across the world, even if few are aware of the source of them. Over 1300 years ago, before he was viciously murdered, , “Death with dignity is better than a life in humiliation.”

More than ever, I am now convinced that we can all learn a lot from religion in pursuit of harmony and peace. Religion is not inherently good or bad. It can be used as a positive force or abused for personal gain. The event of Arba’een symbolizes a religious occasion that annually brings the largest number of people from across the world together in the hope of promoting compassion, love, harmony and peace.

My journey was exceptional. My life’s dream of unity and peace was realized in my travels. I watched people who were amazingly liberated from fear, judgment and the desire for control and power. I saw them all sharing their basic needs with strangers. I learned that the vision of the coming together of people from all walks of life united for the pursuit of compassion, love and peace ALREADY exists. Now, I can imagine an entire world through this vision, where I paint a picture in my mind as I lead the Peace Worldwide Organization and write about history, philosophy, politics, religion and spirituality.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A First-Hand Look at ��������’e���, the World’s Largest Annual Pilgrimage appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Turkey frequently stages cross-border strikes on targets in the Kurdistan Region and other nearby areas, including and . It justifies these attacks as necessary to combat the PKK, but they regularly result in harm to civilians. Community Peacemaker Teams (CPT), an international human rights group that has a robust mission in the Kurdistan Region, an estimated 129 civilians have been killed and another 180 wounded in Turkish cross-border attacks since 2015. Last year was the deadliest during that period. Between 18 and 20 civilians were killed, including six children, and 57 to 58 civilians were injured in 2022, to CPT.

The recent attacks

On August 6, the Turkish military conducted an airstrike on the village of Chnartu, just south of Aghjalar in the Sulaymaniyah Governorate. The airstrike reportedly one person of disputed affiliation. Ankara had targeted the area in May 2022, killing five people. Later that day, a killed a 24-year-old civilian and wounded another. They were traveling in a car in the Duhok Governorate’s Chamanke district. They were visiting a family farmhouse, according to relatives. The area is just a few miles away from Gara Mountain, parts of which are held by the PKK and are regularly by Turkish forces.

Then, on August 9, an airstrike hit a car traveling on the Erbil–Sulaymaniyah road just northwest of the resort town of Dukan. Two civilians were initially as wounded and one of them later . Footage of the spread quickly on social media. This is an extremely important road: in the six years since Kirkuk became part of federal Iraq, the route has carried the majority of civilian traffic between Erbil and Sulaymaniyah, the Kurdistan Region’s two largest cities and has handled the bulk of commercial traffic between the zones controlled by the KDP and the PUK, respectively.

Two days later, three civilians, including a 17-year-old girl, were killed in an airstrike on their car on a busy road near Nalparez in the Sulaymaniyah Governorate’s Penjwen district. Again, of a burning car was all over Kurdish social media. As with Dukan, the attack took place on a major road full of civilian and commercial traffic. The two-lane thoroughfare connects Sulaymaniyah with the border point, one of three major crossings between the Kurdistan Region and Iran.

The Kurdistan Counterterrorism Service, which is affiliated with the KDP and closely linked with Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani, posted a message on Facebook that those killed were PKK fighters, but this was quickly proved to be false. In reality, the were Arabs originally from Mosul who were living in Duhok Governorate. One was an employee of Asiacell, a major telecommunications company. He was driving his neighbor and her daughter to the border in order to meet another daughter who is currently studying in Iran.

It’s crickets from the politicians

In response to the latest barrage and the civilian deaths, the KDP, the PUK and Iraqi officials in Baghdad were conspicuously silent. The KDP, headquartered in Erbil, has close economic, political and security ties with Turkey and therefore rarely criticizes Turkish cross-border attacks. Instead, it frequently that the presence of the PKK in the Kurdistan Region is responsible for harm to civilians or issues statements that support Ankara’s narrative, as the Counterterrorism Service did following the Penjwen airstrike. The KDP and the PKK have a hostile relationship and have engaged in sporadic as recently as 2021.

The PUK, based in Sulaymaniyah, is more willing to Turkey and has a relatively neutral relationship with the PKK in which both tend to avoid interfering in each other’s affairs. However, the party maintains with Syrian Kurdish groups that Ankara views as one and the same as the main branch of the PKK. In recent months, Ankara has the PUK to engage in a public crackdown on the PKK in its zone of control, including by its airspace to flights going to and from Sulaymaniyah International Airport until at least January 2024. The airstrikes in Sulaymaniyah in recent weeks are likely a way to increase this pressure on the PUK to act.

Iraqi federal officials have also not condemned the attacks. In general, they tend not to comment on Kurdish casualties, but the fact that they have not spoken out against the deaths of the Arabs in Penjwen is notable. It stands in stark contrast to the outrage following the deaths of nine Arab tourists who were killed in at Parkhe, a village resort in the Duhok Governorate, in July 2022. Some within the Shia Coordination Framework, which forms the core of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani’s government, are actively to Turkish violations of Iraqi sovereignty.

The collective silence is likely related to a two-day by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan that began this Wednesday and took him to Baghdad and Erbil. There is widespread speculation that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will also visit in the near future, depending on the success of his foreign minister’s visit. Before taking up his current post on June 3, was the head of Turkey’s intelligence service and was heavily involved in the conflict with the PKK.

Fidan’s visit comes at a delicate time for Iraq–Turkey relations and talks are expected to cover an extensive agenda that includes oil, water, security and trade. In many ways, Ankara has staked out a maximalist stance on these issues in order to elicit concessions from Baghdad; the recent airstrikes are likely part of that strategy. The Kirkuk–Ceyhan pipeline, which until March carried the Kurdistan Region’s oil exports, is currently following an arbitration ruling that favored Iraq. Turkey wants Iraq to drop a second case in return for the resumption of exports. Iraq is dealing with caused by Turkish upstream damming and has been largely unsuccessful at convincing its neighbor to release sufficient water supplies. The future of the recently Iraq Development Road, a $17 billion road and rail project, hinges on a Turkish outlet at the northern end. Indeed, these are big stakes.

While it is unsurprising that Iraqi and Kurdish officials do not want to upset Ankara ahead of these talks, it is also reprehensible. That civilians can be killed with such impunity and hardly a murmur of official outrage shows the weakness of Iraqi and Kurdish leaders who hide behind realpolitik while their people are killed from above.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Turkey Killed Iraqi Civilians—Where Is the Uproar? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

— , “World’s Biggest Pilgrimage Now Underway, and Why You’ve Never Heard of It!”

We haven’t heard of Arba’een because the media is primarily interested in negative news, embellished tabloids and controversial matters. Positive news and inspiring stories are often ignored, especially when they relate to Islam. When a few hundred protest in Russia, China or Iran, it makes headlines. When millions gather for the world’s greatest peaceful annual event, with the longest continuous free dining table and sleep accommodations, none of it paid for by any government or corporation, all in defiance of imminent terror, it routinely fails to make a single headline. When it somehow does, it gives hope to humanity that universal peace is achievable!

Last year, despite the threat of the Covid pandemic still persisting and terrorist bombings among crowds, around people from across the world gathered in Iraq and participated in the event.

Pilgrims are not inhibited by terrorists from participating in Arba’een. In contrast, it draws out more pilgrims in masses in defiance, displaying a faith in humanity never seen before anywhere around the world. 

Arba’een breaks across ethnic, racial, religious, and national barriers. Although it began as a Shi’a Muslim pilgrimage, its participants include Sunnis, Ibadis, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Yazidis and Zoroastrians.

Nevertheless, Arba’een has its roots in tragedy. The festival marks the end of the 40-day mourning period for the 7th-century barbarous killing of Husayn ibn Ali, the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson and the third Shi’a Imam. That happened in Karbala, Iraq, around 1350 years ago by the order of the tyrannical Umayyad Caliph Yazid.

This year, Arba’een falls on Safar 20th in the Islamic lunar calendar, corresponding to September 6th. Millions of people from around the globe will gather in Iraq’s holiest city of Karbala to commemorate it, one of the most revered Islamic religious occasions. 

Who was Husayn ibn Ali?

The death of Husayn is considered a formative tragedy in Islamic history. In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon said, “In a distant age and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Hosein will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader.” His heroic life and death inspired countless generations.

To know Husayn, we begin with when Muslims wanted to reward the Prophet Muhammad for his services. Allah commanded him, “Say: I do not ask you for any reward for my services except to love my blood family.” (Quran 42:23). The blood family of the Prophet was above all Fatima, his only living child, her husband Ali and their sons, Husayn and Hasan. holds that the Prophet said of the lad, “Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn.”

Husayn’s life was tragic from the very start. In 632, when he was 6 years old, his beloved grandfather, the Prophet, died.

Before his demise, the Prophet gathered the Muslims and gave them his farewell speech. On the return from his last pilgrimage to Mecca, he commanded all the over a hundred thousand pilgrims to meet him there. He said that it was his last pilgrimage and that he would leave them soon. People cried uncontrollably. In his long speech, he reminded people about their religious duties and Allah’s commands for them to love his blood family.

Then, he introduced Ali, his son-in-law and Husayn’s father, as his heir and the leader of all Muslims. At the end of the speech, the people rushed and gave their allegiance to Ali. This paved the way for Husayn himself to eventually inherit his father’s claim to leadership.

If the demise of his grandfather was not painful enough for Husayn, another tragedy was in waiting. Ignoring Ali’s claim, some men moved to the leadership for another claimant. The ringleaders rushed to Ali’s house to secure his allegiance since Ali’s influence was immense. According to Shi’a tradition, Fatima, Husayn’s mother, intervened to save her husband. The men attacked her. She was badly injured and miscarried her baby, whom the Prophet had named Muhsin. Consequently, she died within six months of her father’s death. At 6, Husayn had now lost both grandfather and mother within a short time. 

Among Muslims, Fatima has been considered something like a First Lady of Islam. The outrage provoked by Fatima’s brutal death saved the rest of the Prophet’s family and their small group of supporters, Shi’as, from being killed by the authorities. However, they were mostly kept under house arrest.

After the death of the third Caliph, Uthman, the people rushed to Ali’s house begging him to take the power. Ali consistently refused. After three days of riots, Ali finally consented under certain conditions, ruling only by the Quran and the Prophet’s traditions. They all agreed. 

Soon, the rich and powerful people realized that Ali was not giving them any favors as the previous Caliphs had done. They deserted him, rallying around the Umayyad governor of Syria, Mu’awiya. Ali’s rule lasted less than five years. In 661, while prostrating at the mosque of Kufa, a city in Iraq, Ali was fatally struck in the head by an assassin’s poisoned sword. He died three days later from the wound. Hasan, Ali’s oldest son, succeeded him, but Hasan’s rule lasted only a few months before he was forced to abdicate in favor of the Mu’awiya, the first Umayyad caliph. The group left Kufa and resettled in Medina.

In 670, Hasan was poisoned and died. At 44, Husayn had lost his mother, father and brother. Now, he was the only living son of Ali and Fatima. Husayn became the patriarch of the Prophet’s family and leader of the Shi’as. Mu’awiya did not find Husayn an existential threat to their power and chose to ignore him rather than force allegiance on him.

A heroic death in resistance to tyrants

In 680, all that changed when Mu’awiya’s son, Yazid, ascended to power. He wanted allegiance from everyone in the empire. Disobedience meant death. was no exception.

When Yazid’s ultimatum was formally presented to Husayn, he skillfully asked for a night time to think over it. After tough negotiation, he got the time. That night, when everyone was in deep sleep, he took his family and headed for the safe haven of Mecca. Muslims were strictly forbidden to fight in the holy city. Many of the Shi’as followed him. 

In Mecca, Husayn received many letters from the people of Kufa imploring him to come there. He pondered over them. As the annual pilgrimage to Mecca neared, he realized that the holy city was not safe, either. Yazid had sent spies among pilgrims to kill him. Husayn hurriedly gathered his family and the Shi’as, and they secretly headed for Kufa. 

Yazid soon learned of Husayn’s move towards Kufa. He sent one of his commanders, Hur, to block Husayn’s path. Husayn and his company were forced to reroute to Karbala, on the Euphrates River. There, Husayn and his male companions numbered about one hundred. Within a few days, they were surrounded by over 30,000 armed soldiers, all with orders to kill Husayn.

Husayn spoke before the enemy soldiers reminding them of what the Quran and the Prophet have said about him and his family. All fell on deaf ears, except for the ears of Hur, who had a change of heart.

Husayn managed to negotiate for one last night to be with his family and companions. That night was critical. Husayn wanted to ensure those who would remain with him truly believed in his mission. In a tent in the middle of the desert that night, Husayn had all the males gathered. He frankly told them all that the enemy wanted to kill him. They did not need to have themselves killed for his sake and should feel free to leave him. He even asked whoever owed someone a debt to leave. Then, he turned off the candles so that people would not feel embarrassed to leave. Some people left, but those who stayed uttered words that history would never forget. Zuhair ibn Qayn, Husayn’s devoted follower, , “By Allah, I would love that I be killed, then revived, then killed a thousand times in this manner if it keeps you with the young ones from your family.”

On the next day, Muharram 10, 61 AH (October 9, 680 AD), Hur along with a few of his soldiers somehow deserted the camp and joined Husayn. He begged for forgiveness, which Husayn readily accepted. For what he had done, he insisted on being the first one to face the enemy. When Husayn consented, he and his company fought bravely and killed many soldiers before they were killed.

Abu Wahab Abdullah ibn Umayr, a Christian who had just married, overheard Husayn speaking before the enemy forces. Wahab was touched, embraced Islam and joined Husayn. When he was killed, his bride begged to go and fight the enemy. When Husayn tried to discourage her, she replied, “Please do not ask me to go back! I prefer to die fighting rather than to fall captive in the hands of the Umayyad clan!”

When the soldiers threw Wahab’s head to his mother, she threw the head back and said what we have given for Allah, we do not take back. With that statement, she grabbed a weapon and killed at least two soldiers.

The companions begged Husayn to allow them to be the first to defend him. One by one, they fought bravely until death. Next, his brothers volunteered, fought and died. Abbas, Husayn’s half-brother, known for bravery, attempted to save the family from thirst. He broke through enemy lines and reached the Euphrates. On the way back, he was brutally wounded and killed. Today, his mausoleum is across from that of Husayn.

There were around 80 who died in defense of Husayn and his family on that day. Just like today’s pilgrims, Husayn’s companions came from varied persuasions. They all knew that Husayn was right, standing for justice and against oppression.

As the day wore on, the hostile Umayyad force was restless and impatient to kill Husayn. Husayn before facing the enemy: “I will be patient with whatever you decree, my Lord. There is no deity but you. You are the helper of those who seek help. I have no Lord except you, and no one to worship except you. I am patient with your wisdom, O rescuer of the one who needs rescue. O you who are eternal and everlasting. O you who bring the dead back to life. O you who observe the action of every soul. Judge between me and them, for you are the best of judges.”

Before being attacked, Husayn looked at the enemy asking them why they were so determined to kill him. According to , they responded, “We will kill you out of hatred for your father.” Husayn fought bravely, sending many of his assailants to their deaths. Finally, he fell. Killing him did not satisfy the enemy’s thirst. They severed his head and ran their horses over his corpse. 

After the ordeal, only one male, Husayn’s oldest son Ali, who was sick with fever, survived.

Thereafter, the forces ransacked Husayn’s tents, captured its inhabitants and took them as slaves to Yazid in Damascus.

The Umayyads’ fury against the family of the Prophet knew no limits. They started the tradition to celebrate the occasion by urging people to fast on that day. Today, many Sunnis follow suit. Across the world, Shi’as follow the traditions of mourning that day and feeding the poor and needy.

Despite exhibiting the utmost savagery, though, the Umayyads spared the sick, women and children. Today, military forces are more ferocious. They indiscriminately kill men, women and children without feeling any remorse.

This year, Muharram 10 fell on July 28. Millions of people from around the globe gathered in Karbala to commemorate Husayn’s death. On September 6, they will break their period of mourning in the peaceful festival of ��������’e���.

Husayn’s words should be written in gold: “Anyone who keeps silent when others are being oppressed is himself considered to be guilty of oppression.” I am unable to locate the source of this popular quotation, but it certainly encapsulates the meaning of his famous in which he condemned the Umayyad tyranny and the lackeys who failed to oppose it. Husayn refused to be like them and submit, uttering the which would become like his epitaph: “Death with dignity is better than a life of abasement.”

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iraq’s Massive, Peaceful Annual ��������’e��� Pilgrimage Is Beginning Now appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Infighting between the two ruling parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), caused the delay. Their lack of mutual trust and inability to agree on technical aspects of the elections created a situation that has heavily damaged the legitimacy of democratic institutions in the Kurdistan Region in the eyes of both citizens and foreign partners. More seriously, however, this malfunctioning governance means that Iraq’s federal government will of the local elections process for the first time since 1992, raising doubts about the region’s future as a semi-autonomous entity.

Relations between the KDP and the PUK have significantly over the course of the current government, led by Kurdistan Regional Government Prime Minister of the KDP. Both parties are going through generational changes, with Barzani taking the day-to-day reins of the KDP and Bafel Talabani for control of the PUK. The new leaders have failed to forge the competitive-cooperative relationship that their fathers, Masoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, maintained. Instead, the animus between them is potent, if largely only hinted at in public. Whenever progress appears to be happening in talks between the parties, conspire to the process, a dynamic that Talabani on “a faction” within the KDP.

Beyond the tensions between party leaders, the main stumbling block to the elections was the inability of the KDP and the PUK to agree on whether to change how seats are allocated to ethnic and religious . In the 111-member Kurdistan Parliament, five seats are reserved for Christian parties, five for Turkmen parties, and one for an Armenian representative. These are supposed to be elected by members of those groups and require a much smaller electoral threshold. Although designed to reflect the feelings of their communities, the eleven seats have become de facto . The PUK and opposition parties have long called for a reform of the system, while the KDP has resisted. Efforts to find a reasonable solution that would not simply shift control of some seats to the PUK have been unsuccessful. Despite efforts by the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq and diplomats to , the matter was never resolved.

Lacking an agreement over the minority seats, the parties kept putting off a vote in the Kurdistan Parliament to renew the mandate of the regional electoral commission, which has been responsible for holding non-federal elections in the Kurdistan Region. Once the initial deadline of October 1, 2022 for elections was missed, the four-year term of the parliament itself . The region’s three ruling parties (KDP, the PUK and the Gorran Movement) attempted a workaround by to extend MPs’ terms by a year. An opposition party and a former parliament speaker filed suit in federal court in Baghdad challenging the law.

In the meantime, Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani of November 18, 2023 for the election and the parties continued to half-heartedly negotiate. US Assistant Secretary of State Barbara Leaf sternly clarified during a that Washington needed to see progress. While the PUK remained reluctant to move without a comprehensive agreement, the KDP tried on May 23 to pass legislation renewing the electoral commission’s mandate without the PUK but with support from the minority MPs. The result was a that devolved into a brawl between legislators in the parliament and dueling legal interpretations of what resulted, with the KDP that the commission was reactivated and could now prepare for elections.

Baghdad takes over for Erbil

The matter was taken out of Kurdish hands, however, when the Federal Supreme Court less than a week later, on May 30, that the extension of the Kurdistan Parliament’s term was unconstitutional. That meant that all legislation passed since November was voided, including the alleged commission renewal. As a result, responsibility for organizing and holding the elections now to the Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC), a federal institution.

It is hard to overstate how serious this development is for Kurdish self-government in Iraq. The ruling parties put their own partisan interests ahead of those of the Kurdistan Region and now a basic function of governance has been taken out of their hands. Combined with other setbacks like the end of independent and the centralizing aspects of the that passed on June 11, the future of the Kurdistan Region as a semi-autonomous entity is facing bigger questions than in many years.

In terms of timing for the election, IHEC has said that it will than February 18, 2024, foreclosing the that it could have been held on the November 18 date or concurrently with Iraqi provincial elections on December 18. IHEC needs at least six months to prepare for elections, and with an early spring Ramadan and the Kurdish new year Newroz in March, it is increasingly looking like a late spring 2024 date at the earliest. Another potential stumbling block is that the IHEC’s own mandate needs to be renewed in January. Should that process not go smoothly, the election could be further postponed. Intra-Kurdish tension could also raise its head again to complicate matters.

While the erosion of Erbil’s political authority relative to Baghdad is a major concern, the real losers here are not the squabbling political leaderships of the KDP and the PUK, but the people of the Kurdistan Region. They are now being denied the right to self-governance. It was primarily the Kurdish people who struggled, suffered and died to carve out their own political institutions as a means to protect them from Baghdad. The Anfal genocide and the horrors of the Halabja chemical attack are well-within living memory. Now, the dithering of the ruling parties has denied them the basic democratic right of the ballot box. Self-governance and the right to elections are now at risk. While there has been debate to be had about whether elections in the Kurdistan Region have been free and fair, it is beyond doubt that they are necessary.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Political impasse in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were both spectacular tactical successes, but the strategy was muddy. President George W. Bush had no intention of committing the US to nation-building. However, he made it all but impossible to avoid nation-building by destroying existing power structures. The US found itself in a situation where withdrawal would have led to a power vacuum that bad actors could have occupied again, defeating the raison d’être of the invasions.

An idiotic ideological policy

The US followed a fanatical policy of de-Ba’athification. Ideological American neoconservatives excluded all Ba’ath Party members from public roles. This removed not only party elites but also rank-and-file civil servants such as policemen, firefighters and teachers. Note that they were not ideological Baathists but had become members of the party to make their lives easier in an authoritarian society. This extremely unwise de-Ba’athification policy led to social chaos and sectarian violence ensued. 

After decades of persecution, Shias exacted brutal revenge on Sunnis. Their numbers had always been greater but Sunnis had been the dominant minority under Saddam Hussein. With Hussein gone, the Iran-backed Shias now had their chance. Shia dominance led to a push back and the Islamic State emerged on the back of Sunni resentment. 

Iraqis were far from nostalgic for good old Saddam. Yet they could not forgive the US for the new Shia-Sunni bloodbath and Hobbesian anarchy that claimed thousands of lives and ruined the economy. An insurgency against evil Uncle Sam became inevitable.

The trouble with insurgencies

Insurgencies are nearly impossible to suppress with an army of any size. Britain, an experienced imperial power, found putting down insurgency in Northern Ireland hard enough. The US is institutionally unsuited for and inexperienced in running an empire. Trying to put down an insurgency in a much larger country on the other side of the world was a task beyond Washington, DC.

Although the events unfolding were unambiguously an insurgency, the Bush administration insisted to the public that what was going on was a war against terrorists. Al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq was proffered as evidence for GWOT. In reality, al-Qaeda was there because the US had created the vacuum for it to flourish. Al-Qaeda saw the insurgency as an opportunity to kill American soldiers and continue waging jihad.

In 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded the even more extremist “al-Qaeda in Iraq.” The central al-Qaeda leadership’s control over this group was tenuous. It was unable to prevent Zarqawi from conducting brutal killings, not of “infidel” Americans, but of Iraqi citizens. This morphed into the Islamic State and swept not only across Sunni Iraq but also Sunni Syria, which was ruled by the Shia Assad clan.

The World This Week: The Middle East’s Thirty Years’ War

The US was unprepared to deal with this unraveling of the tapestry of the Middle East. Eventually, the insurgency in Iraq took a toll on the US and sapped its will to continue the good fight in the sands of the region.

Torture and the soul of America

Despite the horrors of war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the US was geographically separated from them. However, the GWOT had a profoundly corrosive influence on American democracy itself.

Americans have long had a horror of torture. They prohibited it in their founding documents and vigorously prosecuted the crime after World War II. During the GWOT, US personnel tortured prisoners for information. They had orders to use “any means necessary” and “enhanced interrogation techniques” became a euphemism for torture.

As torture became normalized, it seeped into the wider culture. Unsettlingly, a majority of Americans under the age of 35—those who came of age during the war—now find torture acceptable. For earlier generations of Americans, it was and is unthinkable.

Disaster can make nations turn against even their most cherished principles. After the Romans saw their army annihilated by Hannibal at Cannae, they turned to human sacrifice out of desperation. The 9/11 attacks had much the same psychological effect on Americans. Their country had been attacked, and Americans were ready to do anything in response.

Glenn had the mortifying experience of seeing his fellow CIA officers carry out orders from the president which they knew were against the law. What they were doing was not merely immoral and illegal, but it represented the breakdown of the rule of law. In the US, it is the law, instituted by the people, that rules—not the whims of individual men. This principle was violated repeatedly during the war with officers choosing to obey illegal orders rather than refusing them.

Laws are meaningless unless there is a culture of respect for them. Torture had created a culture in which political loyalty mattered more than the law. One can trace a direct line from the erosion of the values of democracy and legality during the Bush years to the notorious attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

A hit to America’s international influence

American neoconservative hawks had hoped that invading Iraq would cow down Iran. This revolutionary Shia power would be less disruptive and aggressive in the region. The mullahs of Tehran would learn the consequences of going too far. 

Sadly, this strategy could not have backfired more spectacularly. Today, Iran’s power extends across the region. Now that Saddam, Iran’s Sunni archrival, is gone, Iran has little to stop it from building and extending its network of Shia allies. Not only have Tehran’s mullahs now expanded their influence in Iraq, but they have also strengthened ties with Lebanon’s Shia militant group Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria and even Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Syria itself is a casualty of the Iraq war. Sunni insurgent groups based in Iraq destabilized the country, attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. In the eyes of fanatical Sunnis, Assad is a Shia Alawite and hence an infidel. Weakened by soaring temperatures, prolonged droughts and failed harvests, Syria was already fragile. The uneasy coexistence of its religious and ethnic minorities shattered when the Islamic State rose, precipitating a bloody civil war.

Assad committed numerous human rights excesses to stay in power. He has clung on to office in Damascus thanks to Iran and Russia. Now, he is being invited back to the table by other Arab autocrats. Israel, with Lebanon and Syria on its northern borders, has been sounding alarm bells for a while. Clearly, US power in the Middle East stands weakened.

How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World

In Europe, both the 2003 Iraq War and the GWOT went down very poorly. Europeans saw this US-led war without UN-approval as overreach by hubristic superpower. Emerging powers such as Brazil, India and China were uncomfortable with this invasion as well. In brief, the US attracted the ire not only of much of the Muslim world but also a majority of the world. In retrospect, the Iraq War was a historic blunder.

Eye off the ball

As an intelligence officer, Glenn studied al-Qaeda in much detail. This shadowy organization was not a worldwide empire, but a loose coalition of a few hundred people. There are no more than a few thousand jihadi terrorists in the world at any time. They are a real and present danger, but not one that should consume the majority of the forces and public attention of the world’s largest power. Counterterrorism should be the domain of highly skilled professionals, who can eliminate or capture terrorists with minimal fanfare.

The US armed forces, the largest military apparatus that humanity has ever seen, spent 20 years molding itself as a counterterrorism force while ignoring the elephant in the room: China. In a world where America is once again faced with a peer rival, it has no business spending this amount of attention on smaller issues, dangerous though they may be. Glenn takes the view that only after President Joseph Biden has now finally cut Afghanistan loose will the military be able to reshape itself for an intense conventional war.

During the GWOT, the CIA, too, was reshaped into a counterterrorism tool. It spent two decades integrating with special forces. However, the CIA was never supposed to be a paramilitary organization. It is an intelligence organization. The CIA’s mission is to detect and predict threats, not merely to assist the military for counterterrorism operations. The Agency’s institutional culture must recover this focus if it is to continue to carry out that mission effectively.

Even on the counterterrorism front, the GWOT created unbalanced priorities. Glenn argues that the Bush administration ignored the intelligence community’s repeated warnings about the magnitude of the threat posed by domestic, white nationalists. They insisted that Islamist terrorism was to be considered the top threat. The focus on Islamic terrorism likewise diverted the necessary attention and resources from the growing cyber threats, a vulnerability which either lone or state-sponsored actors could exploit.

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

On top of all of this, the myopia about terrorism and the politicization of threat assessments has prevented Republican administrations from taking adequate steps to address the dangers of climate change, which poses a much more credible threat to the US homeland than any enemy army.

All of this comes on top of a profound restructuring of the Republican party. The party has always had a strong isolationist faction, but this was controlled by an internationalist establishment that has been mostly defenestrated. The Iraq War discredited the neoconservatives and created a culture of lawlessness, paving the way for the ascendancy of the brash, populist and frankly authoritarian faction in dominance today.

The Iraq War and the GWOT have conspired to produce a situation in which America has largely been caught with its pants down in the Pacific. China has been building up while the US has been distracted and divided. Thankfully, Washington is waking up to reality now, but the situation may be much more manageable if the US had reacted earlier and with greater vigor.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Consequences of the War on Terror and the Iraq War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In Paris, I saw American tourists striding around in their shorts and sandals, cameras slung around their necks, staking out positions in cathedrals and museums. I listened to my mother’s commentary on what she considered their boorishness and insensitivity. In my 11-year-old mind, I tended to agree. I’d already heard the expression “the ugly American”—although I then knew nothing about the prophetic with that title about US diplomatic bumbling in southeast Asia in the midst of the Cold War—and it seemed to me that those interlopers in France fit the term perfectly.

When I got home, I confided to a friend (whose parents, I learned years later, worked for the CIA) that sometimes, while in Europe, I’d felt ashamed to be an American. “You should never feel that way,” she replied. “This is the best country in the world!”

Indeed, the United States was, then, the leader of what was known as “the free world.” Never mind that, throughout the Cold War, we would actively support dictatorships (in Argentina, Chile, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, among other places) and actually overthrow democratizing governments (in Chile, Guatemala, and Iran, for example). In that era of the G.I. Bill, strong unions, employer-provided healthcare, and general postwar economic dominance, to most of us who were white and within reach of the middle class, the United States probably did look like the best country in the world.

Things do look a bit different today, don’t they? In this century, in many important ways, the United States has become an outlier and, in some cases, even an outlaw. Here are three examples of US behavior that has been egregious in the etymological sense, three ways in which this country has stood out from the crowd in a sadly malevolent fashion.

Guantanamo, the forever prison camp

In January 2002, the administration of President George W. Bush established an offshore prison camp at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The idea was to house prisoners taken in what had already been labeled the “Global War on Terror” on a little piece of “US” soil beyond the reach of the American legal system and whatever protections that system might afford anyone inside the country. (If you wonder how the United States had access to a chunk of land on an island nation with which it had the frostiest of relations, including decades of economic sanctions, here’s the story: in 1903, long before Cuba’s 1959 revolution, its government had granted the United States “coaling” rights at Guantanamo, meaning that the US Navy could establish a base there to refuel its ships. The agreement remained in force then, as it does today.)

In the years that followed, Guantanamo became the site of the and even of individuals the US took prisoner in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries ranging from to . Having written for more than 20 years about such US torture programs that in , I find today that I can’t bring myself to chronicle one more time all the horrors that went on at Guantanamo or at CIA “black sites” in countries ranging from Thailand to Poland, or at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, or indeed at the Abu Ghraib prison and Camp NAMA (whose motto was: “No blood, no foul”) in Iraq. If you don’t remember, just go ahead and google those places. I’ll wait.

Thirty men remain at Guantanamo today. Some have never been tried. Some have never even been charged with a crime. Their continued detention and torture, including, as recently as 2014, punitive, brutal for hunger strikers, confirmed the status of the United States as a global scofflaw. To this day, keeping Guantanamo open displays this country’s contempt for international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture. It also displays contempt for our own legal system, including the Constitution’s “” clause which makes any ratified international treaty like the Convention against Torture “the supreme law of the land.”

In February 2023, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, became the first representative of the United Nations ever permitted to visit Guantanamo. She was horrified by what she found there, The Guardian that the US has

a responsibility to redress the harms it inflicted on its Muslim torture victims. Existing medical treatment, both at the prison camp in Cuba and for detainees released to other countries, was inadequate to deal with multiple problems such as traumatic brain injuries, permanent disabilities, sleep disorders, flashbacks and untreated post-traumatic stress disorder.

“T���se men,” she added, “are all survivors of torture, a unique crime under international law, and in urgent need of care. Torture breaks a person; it is intended to render them helpless and powerless so that they cease to function psychologically, and in my conversations both with current and former detainees, I observed the harms it caused.”

The lawyer for one tortured prisoner, , reports that his client “suffers from traumatic brain injury from having been subjected to ‘walling’ where his head was smashed repeatedly against the wall.” He has entered a deepening cognitive decline, of which the “symptoms include headaches, dizziness, and difficulty thinking and performing simple tasks.” He cannot sleep for more than two hours at a time, “having been sleep-deprived as a torture technique.”

The United States, Ní Aoláin insists, must provide rehabilitative care for the men it has broken. I have my doubts, however, about the curative powers of any treatment administered by Americans, even civilian psychologists. After all, two of them personally the CIA’s torture program.

The United States should indeed foot the bill for treating not only the 30 men who remain in Guantanamo but others who have been released and continue to suffer the long-term effects of torture. And, of course, it goes without saying that the Biden administration should finally that illegal prison camp—although that’s not likely to happen. Apparently, it’s easier to end than decide what to do with 30 prisoners.

Unlawful weapons

The United States is an outlier in another arena as well: the production and deployment of arms widely recognized as presenting an immediate or future danger to non-combatants. The US has steadfastly resisted joining conventions outlawing such weaponry, including cluster bombs (or, more euphemistically, “cluster munitions”) and landmines.

In fact, the United States deployed cluster bombs in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. (In the previous century, it dropped of them in Laos alone while fighting the Vietnam War.) Ironically—one might even say, hypocritically—the US 146 other countries in condemning Syrian and Russian use of the same weapons in the Syrian civil war. Indeed, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki that, if Russia were using them in Ukraine (as, in fact, ), that would constitute a “war crime.”

The US has now sent cluster bombs to Ukraine, supposedly to fill a crucial gap in the supply of artillery shells. Mind you, it’s not that the United States doesn’t have enough conventional artillery shells to resupply Ukraine. The problem is that sending them there would leave this country unprepared to fight (and hypothetical) major wars as envisioned in what the Pentagon likes to think of as its readiness doctrine.

What are cluster munitions? They are artillery shells packed with many individual bomblets, or “submunitions.” When one is fired, from up to 20 miles away, it spreads as many as 90 separate bomblets over a wide area, making it an excellent way to kill a lot of enemy soldiers with a single shot.

What places these weapons off-limits for most nations is that not all the bomblets explode. Some can stay where they fell for years, even decades, until as a New York Times editorial , “somebody—often, a child spotting a brightly colored, battery-size doodad on the ground—accidentally sets it off.” In other words, they can lie in wait long after a war is over, sowing farmland and forest with deadly booby traps. That’s why then-Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon once spoke of “the world’s collective revulsion at these abhorrent weapons.” That’s why 123 countries have signed the 2008 on Cluster Munitions. Among the holdouts, however, are Russia, Ukraine, and the United States.

to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the cluster bombs the US has sent to Ukraine each contain 88 bomblets, with, according to the Pentagon, a failure rate of under 2.5%. (Other sources, however, suggest that it could be .) This means that for every cluster shell fired, at least two submunitions are likely to be duds. We have no idea how many of these weapons the US is supplying, but a Pentagon spokesman in a said there are “hundreds of thousands available.” It doesn’t take much mathematical imagination to realize that they present a real future danger to Ukrainian civilians. Nor is it terribly comforting when Sullivan that the Ukrainian government is “motivated” to minimize risk to civilians as the munitions are deployed, because “these are their citizens that they’re protecting.”

I for one am not eager to leave such cost-benefit risk calculations in the hands of any government fighting for its survival. That’s precisely why international laws against indiscriminate weapons exist—to prevent governments from having to make such calculations in the heat of battle.

Cluster bombs are only a subset of the weapons that leave behind “explosive remnants of war.” Landmines are another. Like Russia, the United States is not found among the 164 countries that have signed the , which required signatories to stop producing landmines, destroy their existing stockpiles, and clear their own territories of mines.

Ironically, the US routinely donates money to pay for mine clearance around the world, which is certainly a good thing, given the legacy it left, for example, in Vietnam. to the New York Times in 2018:

“Since the war there ended in 1975, at least 40,000 Vietnamese are believed to have been killed and another 60,000 wounded by American land mines, artillery shells, cluster bombs and other ordinance that failed to detonate back then. They later exploded when handled by scrap-metal scavengers and unsuspecting children.”

Hot enough for ya?

As I write this piece, of my country’s population is living under heat alerts. That’s 110 million people. A heatwave , where 16 Italian cities are under warnings, and Greece has closed the Acropolis to prevent tourists from dying of heat stroke. This summer looks to be worse in Europe than even last year’s record-breaker during which heat killed people. In the US, too, heat is by far the greatest weather-related killer. Makes you wonder why Texas Governor Greg Abbott eliminating required water breaks for outside workers, just as the latest heat wave was due to roll in.

Meanwhile, New York’s Hudson Valley and , including its capital Montpelier, were inundated this past week by a once-in-a-hundred-year storm, while in South Korea, workers raced to rescue people whose cars were trapped inside Cheongju tunnel after a torrential monsoon rainfall. Korea, along with much of Asia, expects such rains during the summer, but this year’s—like so many other weather statistics—have been literally off the charts. Journalists have finally experienced a sea change (not unlike the in surface water temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean). Gone are the tepid suggestions that climate change “may play a part” in causing extreme weather events. Reporters around the world now simply state that that’s our reality.

When it comes to confronting the climate emergency, though, the United States has once again been bringing up the rear. As far back as 1992, at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, President George H. W. Bush resisted setting any caps on carbon-dioxide emissions. As the New York Times then, “Showing a personal interest on the subject, he singlehandedly forced negotiators to excise from the global warming treaty any reference to deadlines for capping emissions of pollutants.” And even then, Washington was resisting the efforts of poorer countries to wring some money from us to help defray the costs of their own environmental efforts.

Some things don’t change all that much. Although President Biden reversed Donald Trump’s move to pull the US out of the Paris climate accords, his own climate record has been a combination of two steps forward (the green energy transition funding in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, for example) and a big step back ( the ConocoPhillips Willow oil drilling project on federal land in Alaska’s north slope, not to speak of Senator Joe Manchin’s , the $6.6 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline for natural gas).

And when it comes to remediating the damage our emissions have done to poorer countries around the world, this country is still a day late and billions of dollars short. In fact, on July 13th, climate envoy John Kerry a congressional hearing that “under no circumstances” would the United States pay reparations to developing countries suffering the devastating effects of climate change. Although the US did (at least in principle) support the creation of a fund to help poorer countries ameliorate the effects of climate change at the UN’s COP 27 conference in November 2022, as Reuters , “the deal did not spell out who would pay into the fund or how money would be disbursed.”

Welcome to “solastalgia”

I learned a new word recently, . It actually is a new word, created in 2005 by Australian philosopher Glenn Albrecht to describe “the distress that is produced by environmental change impacting on people while they are directly connected to their home environment.” Albrecht’s focus was on Australian rural indigenous communities with centuries of attachment to their particular places, but I think the concept can be extended, at least metaphorically, to the rest of us whose lives are now being affected by the painful presences (and absences) brought on by environmental and climate change: the presence of unprecedented heat, fire, ; the presence of deadly rain and flooding; and the of ice at the Earth’s poles or on its . In my own life, among other things, it’s the loss of and the almost infinite sadness of rarely seeing more than a few faint .

Of course, the “best country in the world” wasn’t the only nation involved in creating the horrors I’ve been describing. And the ordinary people who live in this country are not to blame for them. Still, as beneficiaries of this nation’s bounty—its beauty, its aspirations, its profoundly injured but still breathing democracy—we are, as the philosopher Iris Marion Young , responsible for them. It will take organized, collective political action, but there is still time to bring our outlaw country back into what indeed should be a united community of nations confronting the looming horrors on this planet. Or so I hope and believe.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Here Are Three Ways the US Violates International Norms appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The MoU extends the existing assistance granted by UNDP for Iraq’s anti-corruption initiative. This collaborative initiative entails enhancing the capabilities of anti-corruption organizations and aligning strategic and legal frameworks with the principles of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

Corruption in the Iraqi government is a pervasive and entrenched problem that has impeded the country’s progress and development for decades. Understanding the causes of this corruption requires a thorough examination of the contributing historical, political, economic and social factors.

A Consistent History of Political Instability

Instability in Iraq over the past two decades has been one of the primary to the country’s corruption. The collapse of a long-standing authoritarian regime in 2003 precipitated a period of uncertainty, which was rapidly filled by competing political factions and sectarian groups. The ensuing conflicts that broke out in Iraq, specifically the sectarian violence, exacerbated the political instability. The intensification of sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia populations resulted in a cycle of violence, reprisals, and retaliation. These conflicts fostered an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility, in which political actors aligned along sectarian lines and struggled for power.

Corruption flourished in this environment. The pursuit of power and influence became intertwined with personal gain as individuals sought to exploit their political positions for financial gain. Political influence evolved into a means of amassing wealth, securing lucrative contracts and seizing control of resources. This environment encouraged officials to use their positions to extract bribes, engage in embezzlement and manipulate public funds for personal gain. In a recent scandal, nicknamed the “heist of the century,” former government officials were implicated in the larceny of $2.5 billion in public funds.

The lack of political stability in Iraq has made it difficult to establish and implement effective anti-corruption measures. Comprehensive anti-corruption policies are impeded by frequent leadership turnover, ineffective governance structures and a lack of institutional stability. In certain instances, corrupt officials have been able to avoid accountability by utilizing their political connections or by taking advantage of the state of confusion in leadership.

Additionally, political instability has undermined the effectiveness of crucial anti-corruption institutions. The judiciary, law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies frequently confront interference, manipulation and intimidation in an unstable political climate. This hinders their ability to prosecute and penalize corrupt individuals, as political considerations frequently influence case outcomes. In addition, political instability has negatively impacted the continuity and efficacy of governance mechanisms. Frequent leadership and government structure changes impede the implementation of anti-corruption policies and institutional reforms. As political priorities have shifted, anti-corruption initiatives have frequently taken a back seat, allowing corrupt practices to persist and even flourish.

What’s more, the prevalence of patronage and nepotism in the Iraqi government has contributed to the spread of corruption. Often, positions of power and influence are filled on the basis of personal connections rather than merit, resulting in a system where loyalty and personal connections take precedence over competence and integrity. This practice undermines the government’s integrity and creates opportunities for corruption to thrive, as individuals in critical positions may place personal gain above the public interest.

Government Institutions Steadily Weakening 

The Iraqi institutions charged with upholding transparency, accountability and the rule of law have frequently been undermined by inefficiency, lack of resources and political interference. Corruption within law enforcement agencies hinders their capacity to combat corruption at higher levels. Instances of bribery, nepotism and favoritism within these institutions compromise their integrity and hinder their ability to enforce laws and investigate instances of corruption. Corruption within law enforcement agencies can shield those who engage in corrupt practices, making it difficult to bring them to justice.

The judiciary, which is responsible for adjudicating corruption cases and upholding the rule of law, has also encountered difficulties. Corruption, such as bribery and political interference, has corrupted the judicial system. Corrupt individuals frequently use their connections and resources to manipulate legal proceedings or avoid punishment. This undermines public confidence in the judicial system and discourages individuals from reporting corruption, given that it is likely justice will not be served.

Regulatory bodies and oversight institutions have labored to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. These organizations are responsible for overseeing and regulating various sectors, such as public procurement, finance and public administration, to ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards. However, insufficient institutional capacity, a lack of resources, and political interference have hindered their ability to conduct effective oversight. Inadequate personnel, limited training and inadequate funding are also important factors that promote the spread of corruption. 

In Iraq, there have been deficiencies in the anti-corruption safeguarding mechanisms. Among these mechanisms are the auditing of public finances, the monitoring of public contracts and procurement processes, and the enforcement of conduct regulations for public officials. As a result of insufficient oversight, corrupt individuals are able to exploit loopholes and indulge in fraudulent activities with the knowledge that their actions are less likely to be scrutinized and challenged.

In addition to Iraq’s fragile institutions and defective legal system, its lack of security has hampered efforts to combat corruption effectively. Continual terrorism, insurgency and armed conflict have diverted resources, attention and political will from anti-corruption initiatives. Authorities may prioritize security concerns over confronting corruption, thereby fostering an environment conducive to unchecked corruption.

A Widespread Issue With Transparency

Transparency, or the lack thereof, has played a significant role in the perpetuation of corruption in Iraq. Government transparency is a pillar of good governance as it promotes accountability, public trust, and effective supervision. In Iraq, however, access to information has been restricted and disclosure mechanisms are feeble or nonexistent. Transparency International continues to Iraq’s public sector among the twenty-five most corrupt in the world.

Citizens and civil society organizations frequently encounter obstacles when pursuing information about government activities, budgets and contracts. This lack of transparency hinders the public’s ability to hold officials accountable and allows corruption to continue unfettered. Individuals are unable to scrutinize government actions, identify irregularities or expose corrupt practices without access to information.

In addition, inadequate disclosure mechanisms exacerbate the lack of transparency. In the absence of comprehensive and effective mechanisms for reporting, monitoring and investigating corruption cases, officials are able to engage in corrupt activities without fear of public exposure and repercussions. Without appropriate channels for reporting corruption or protection for whistleblowers, witnesses of corruption may be dissuaded from coming forward out of fear of retaliation or lack of faith in the system.

Oil and the Economic Struggles of Citizens 

Economic factors also contribute to corruption in Iraq. The country’s economy on oil exports, which has led to a concentration of wealth and power. Mismanagement and misappropriation of oil revenues have caused corruption in areas including public procurement, contracts, and resource allocation. Lack of economic diversification and excessive reliance on hydrocarbon revenues not only limit the potential for economic growth and development but also increase the likelihood of corruption. 

The focus on a single industry leaves other sectors vulnerable to corruption and underdeveloped. When a substantial portion of a nation’s wealth is derived from a single source, those in control can manipulate and exploit the system for their own benefit. 

In addition, the absence of a robust and diverse economy increases the likelihood that individuals will engage in corrupt behavior as they seek financial security. This establishes a system in which rent-seeking and illicit practices become the norm, perpetuating a cycle of corruption and stifling efforts to promote transparency, accountability, and good governance.

Lack of Trust in Government

The lack of functioning law enforcement, government credibility and transparency not only shields corrupt officials but also erodes public trust in the government and its institutions. When citizens feel they cannot trust their own government, they become disillusioned and may feel disconnected from the democratic process. This undermines the government’s social contract with its citizens, impeding efforts to promote good governance and accountability.

In the absence of an empowered and active civil society, citizen engagement and accountability are hampered. A robust civil society serves as a watchdog, holding the government accountable and advocating for openness and good governance. In Iraq, civil society faces regular repression, lack of resources and restricted space for participation. 

Without an engaged and active populace demanding accountability and transparency, corruption can flourish unchecked. Unfortunately, Iraqi citizens speaking out against corruption—particularly after were arrested, tortured and murdered during and after the October 2019 demonstrations.

The Fight Against Corruption

On the whole, corruption has been Iraq’s biggest challenge, and it has far-reaching consequences. Socially, corruption undermines citizens’ faith in the democratic process and erodes public trust in the government. It promotes a culture of impunity and undermines the rule of law. It diverts funds from essential humanitarian programs, public services, and infrastructure development. It restricts economic prospects, discourages foreign investment and perpetuates inequality. Corruption hinders political stability by undermining the legitimacy of the government, exacerbating sectarian tensions and fostering public discontent and unrest.

Combating corruption in Iraq is doubtlessly a complex problem. Without addressing the underlying causes and foundations of corruption, relying solely on memoranda and agendas will yield only marginal and superficial results. To make substantial progress, it is necessary to investigate the root causes of corruption and enact meaningful reforms.

[edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Truth About the Insidious Government Corruption in Iraq appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Afghanistan’s Taliban regime had given refuge to Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. They planned and executed terror attacks against the US from their base in Afghanistan. In spite of US demands for extradition, the Taliban hosted al-Qaeda leaders. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, which killed more than 3,000 innocent people on US soil, the gloves came off. The US invoked NATO’s Article 5, calling all allies to its defense, an invocation unprecedented in history. The NATO allies, in cooperation with the local Northern Alliance, took Afghanistan by storm.

Bin Laden, who had expected a decadent, pluralistic and materialistic United States simply to fall over after an attack like 9/11, must have been sorely surprised by the ferocity of the US response. The allied invasion destroyed Taliban rule in just six weeks and inaugurated a new era in Afghanistan.

Trapped in Afghanistan

However, bin Laden escaped and this prolonged the US presence in Afghanistan. Soon, an Islamist insurgency led by the remaining elements of the Taliban broke out. President George W. Bush understood from the start that nation-building was an unrealistic goal and promised not to engage in it. However, the US soon found itself unable to pull out of Afghanistan.

The decision to remain was influenced by the assessment, which Carle regards as flawed, that al-Qaeda remained as a potent force in Afghanistan. The intelligence community sincerely believed that al-Qaeda continued to be a coherent and organized global existential threat to Western democracy. Carle points out that it is implausible that a secret resistance of any such magnitude would be able to maintain such hierarchical discipline, especially in such a fragmented country as Afghanistan.

The US had no plausible plan for victory, but felt compelled to stay. The cost of leaving, thereby enabling terrorists to regroup and tarnishing America’s credibility as a world power, was just too high. But it was a fool’s errand. Afghanistan is simply not a nation. It is a region populated by numerous ethnic groups, over whom the Pashtuns exert a dubious suzerainty. Pakistan, which has a sizable Pashtun population of its own, has a vested interest in keeping Afghanistan weak. It supported the Taliban chiefly to achieve strategic depth against India and to keep the influence of rivals like Iran and India weak in Afghanistan.

The Iraq Blunder

Building an Afghan nation was already impossible, but it was more than impossible by the diversion of resources toward Iraq, starting as early as the autumn of 2002.

Why, we must ask, did the intelligence community see Saddam as such a vital target? The Arab socialist dictator was no natural ally of al-Qaeda. He held many of their operatives in prison, and tortured them. Even still, the US administration managed to convince itself of a connection between the two.

At the time, terrorism concerns focused on state sponsors or state-like sponsors of terrorism: Libya, Iran, Pakistan and the Palestine Liberation Organization. US intelligence failed to recognize that al-Qaeda was a new type of threat, searching instead for a state as a culprit.

While Saddam had occasionally allowed terrorist factions to operate in Iraq, there was no evidence of coordination between the Ba’athist government and al-Qaeda’s high command. US intelligence officials mistakenly made the connection between Iraq and Afghanistan and neoconservative ideologues seized up this assessment. Ironically, this connection became reality when the US roped both unrelated wars into a single “Global War on Terror.”

American leadership did indeed have valid concerns that Saddam, who had previously pursued nuclear weapons, might seek them again and potentially use nuclear or biological weapons against Israel. The administration perceived Israel as an island of democracy, which America had a sacred duty to defend. Beyond security concerns, though, neoconservative elites in Washington saw Iraq as an opportunity to create an Arab democracy that would reshape the Middle East. As per their utopian vision, Iraq would serve as a beacon of democracy and, quite implausibly, as an example to Iran of what happens when a regime goes too far. In the end, the Iraq that emerged was much more amenable to the Islamic Republic’s interests than Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The Shias in Iraq are now under Tehran’s influence.

US leadership was mistaken on many points, but it was not simply irrational. The threat posed by international terrorism was real, and Americans had died. Perhaps, though, a more targeted, counterterrorism approach carried out by intelligence operatives and special operations teams might have better served the US administration. Washington needed a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The War on Terror: 22 Years On appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Iraq is back in business, or so it seems

What is apparent to visitors to Baghdad, many of which were at the roundtable, is that café culture has returned; there is a sense of security after years of violence. As a recent The Economist notes:

Hotel lobbies bustle with businessmen from China. Spectators pack the reopened horse racecourse. After a 20-year hiatus, cranes are in action building malls and housing estates. Normality, or at least a version of it, is returning to Iraq.

As a contributor said, “this is a favorable motivator” for the foreign direct investment that the Iraqi economy so urgently needs. The security comes, at least in part, from the fact that the prime minister, as The Economist points out, has strong links with armed militias—the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—many of which themselves have direct links with Tehran. Under al-Sudani the numbers counted as being in the PMF have increased by a whopping 116,000 to 230,000 and given an annual budget of 2.7 billion US dollars. With that sort of backing, there is no need for the militias to use their weapons to secure gains.

The budget on 11 June was set at $153 billion and it was based on oil prices of $70 per barrel. Given the volatility of the market, that decision seems (putting it kindly) somewhat naïve. Granted, after the Russia invasion of Ukraine prices had to $123 in March 2022. Prices slumped, however, rallied briefly in June last year and since then have steadily declined to hover around that $70 mark.

Oil Now Makes Our Dollar-Based Global Economy Inflammable

In its February of the economy, the International Monetary Fund noted that the fiscal shortfall of the non-oil GDP had widened from 45% to 63%, and went on to say:

With gradually declining global oil prices, both fiscal and external current account balances are expected to turn into deficits over the medium term, resulting in renewed financing pressures, drawdown of foreign exchange reserves, and exhaustion of fiscal savings. This outlook is subject [to] additional downside risks related to a faster decline in oil prices, social unrest, escalation of geopolitical tensions, and realization of contingent liabilities, notably in the electricity sector.

As one participant at the round table, casting doubt on the competency of the budget, wryly noted, “what happens when oil goes to $50 a barrel?”

Corruption is going to be a lingering problem

The al-Sudani government is at pains to point out that it has a campaign in place to address endemic corruption, with 52 summonses being issued in May against former cabinet ministers and serving deputy ministers and governors. The selling of ministerial and other senior government posts has, the government claims, now been halted. The catchphrase doing the rounds, though, is, “you can’t stop 20 years of corruption in 20 months.” The mood at the round table was skeptical that this government would fare any better than its immediate predecessor at slaying the beast of corruption that continues to devastate the economy and attack development potential going forward for this energy-rich nation.

One sign that things are not going in the direction the government claims is the fact that in the budget Iraq’s already hugely bloated public sector is set to swell with the addition of more than half a million new positions. One contributor suggested that the figure could be 600,000, only to be corrected. It was, in fact, 739,000, prompting the comment that the government’s solution to ongoing street demos was to give the protesters jobs.

Iraq Still Feels the Consequences of US Assassinations

Amidst the general gloom, there are some rays of good news. With the more secure country and capital, foreign investors are signaling renewed interest, coming thus far primarily from Qatar, Turkey and the UAE. China, too, is engaged, and Egypt, Italy and Germany are sniffing around. In fact, on the same day as the round table, the was in Baghdad to sign a deal aimed at developing projects worth $9.5 billion. Included is the building of two power plants that will generate a combined 2400 megawatts.

However, it is worth making the caveat that it is in the energy sector that some of the worst corruption occurs. “T��� mother of all corruption hides behind subsidies to energy, costing $30 billion in lost revenue and another $30 billion in lost opportunities,” went the comment from one of the participants.

Iraq is beholden to its eastern neighbor

One contributor pointed out the powerful presence of Iran in the sector. Despite its vast hydrocarbon resources, Iraq is on Tehran for gas imports and when, as is frequently the case, it falls behind in payments the gas supply is threatened by curtailment, creating even more misery for ordinary Iraqis whilst further damaging the economy.

A $17 billion undertaken in partnership with Shell to use gas capture from flaring in southern Iraq to generate electricity is being built by an Iranian company with ties to the Revolutionary Guards. In its investigation of the deal, the Financial Times “Tehran-based Mapna Group … is entitled to 78% of the revenue from electricity sales, according to documents seen by the Financial Times and three people involved in the contracts.” The article notes that the US is concerned “with the role that Hassan Danaeifar, a former Iranian ambassador to Baghdad and former member of the country’s Revolutionary Guards, has played in lobbying Baghdad on behalf of Mapna.”

Whether outside foreign investment can free Iraq from the shackles, economic and otherwise, that Tehran has imposed, remains an open question. Certainly that is the direction of travel most Iraqis would like to see taken. But, as the Chatham House roundtable showed, there is little indication thus far that the al-Sudani government has much appetite for a challenge, direct or otherwise, to the Iranian regime’s tight hold.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post As Terror Recedes, the Iraqi Economy Tries New Things appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The US has consistently brandished its “” policy as a formidable weapon against Iran. Under the Obama administration, it unleashed some of the most stringent and extensive sanctions witnessed since 1980. Continuing its relentless pursuit of regime change, the US has unveiled this April a of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. While for threats of a military nature has failed to resonate, the repercussions of sanctions on Iran’s economy have been profoundly debilitating. The insidious grip of poverty has tightened unabated across the nation, with countless Iranians succumbing to illness and anguish amidst a dire scarcity of vital medications.

Amidst a relentless barrage of western propaganda advocating for a regime change in Iran, the Iranian populace remains resolutely unfazed, displaying a conspicuous choice not to heed these efforts. There are reasons for this optimism. This is not the first time Iran has faced stern international opposition to its regime, and survived. During the 1980 invasion by Iraq, a conflict that saw the involvement of over 80 nations and military backing from 34 countries, including both the US and the Soviet Union, in support of Iraq, Iran found itself pitted against overwhelming odds, with only Libya and Syria extending their sympathies. In the face of this formidable hostile force, Iran valiantly resisted for a grueling eight years, steadfastly preserving its territorial integrity without conceding an inch of its land to the Iraqi aggressors. One of those killed in the pushing back of Iraqis out of  the country was my brother Sayyid Husayn. He was then a 23-year-old seminary student. Even my over 70-year-old father and other brothers volunteered to defend their country.

Despite the barrage of American sanctions, Iran has been able to avoid their suffocating effects, navigating a path towards self-reliance. The Islamic Republic responded to years of relentless US pressure by spearheading the of its oil trade in 2007, setting in motion an international wave of dissent against the American-dominated financial framework. Consequently, the once-dominant petrodollar rapidly ceded its hegemony, with BRICS nations, , and other states eagerly following suit. There are some hints that even Saudi Arabia, a staunch ally of the US, to this paradigm shift. between China and Malaysia in early April concerning the establishment of an “Asian Fund” aimed at diminishing reliance on the US dollar further underscore the momentum of this trend.

Alas, the response from the US to this trend has been disconcerting. Instead of absorbing the lessons and altering its course, the US harbors animosity towards Iran for catalyzing the decline of the almighty dollar. In times to come, impartial historians will undoubtedly highlight Washington’s susceptibility to manipulation by Iran’s diaspora, Israel’s influential lobby, and other anti-Iran factions as contributing factors to the gradual erosion of American hegemony.

Have the BRICs Hit a Wall? The Next Emerging Markets

What You Probably Need to Know About Iran Under the Mullahs

Despite the persistent hostility spearheaded by the US and its western allies, Iran’s mullahs have propelled it forward on several fronts.

Contrary to the portrayal of Iran as a dictatorial regime, the Islamic Republic operates as a , as affirmed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who stated, “Islam does not permit us to establish a dictatorship. We follow our nation’s votes and act according to their views.”

My visits and observations have convinced me that Iran’s leadership is committed to the democratic process. I have witnessed heated debates in Iran’s Majlis, its parliamentary chamber. They exemplify a passion for the vibrant exchange of ideas. Perusing the newspapers, I have noted that some regularly support the government, while others criticize it. In buses, parks, and other public areas, I have listened to common people expressing their thoughts, for or against the government, without being reprimanded or arrested.

On the other hand, I found it perplexing to note the level of sensitivity of some security personnel to the wearing of the hijab in numerous localities. This stringent enforcement has continued to provoke discontent among many young Iranians, who find themselves increasingly aggrieved by such measures.

Iran’s progress under the leadership of the mullahs has been nothing short of remarkable, catapulting the nation to an impressive position in global intellectual achievements. the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Iran boasts the second-highest number of engineering graduates per capita on a global scale. Iran’s engineers and scientific researchers are making great strides in areas from autism research, to pharmaceuticals—of which 96% are now produced locally—to cutting-edge .

Quality of life has surged since the revolution. Between 1976 and 2021, the literacy rate experienced a remarkable surge, soaring from a mere 36.5% to an impressive nearly 89%. Likewise, life expectancy witnessed a substantial upswing, climbing from less than 55 years in 1976 to a commendable nearly 77 years in 2021.

Today, over of the population is covered by free health insurance, ensuring access to essential medical services. In rural areas, health houses have been established to cater to the needs of approximately 1,200 residents per facility, bringing healthcare closer to remote communities. Moreover, Iran’s commitment to healthcare extends to , with accessible services provided to these vulnerable populations.

The quality of healthcare in Iran has become so reputable that many people now to benefit from advanced and affordable medical treatment, positioning the country as a destination of choice. Iran has introduced impressive innovations in areas such as addressing autism, offering valuable lessons and insights that can benefit not only the US but also other nations grappling with similar challenges.

Iran is a Beneficial Regional Leader

Iran’s military leaders have left a positive mark on the Islamic world. The revered Qassim Soleimani has left an indelible impression on hearts and minds across the region, and also instills a sense of awe in the hearts of Iran’s adversaries, attesting to the nation’s capacity to nurture exceptional military leaders. Iranian officers are not a gang of thugs, as western propagandists would like to portray them, but competent, professional, and honorable leaders making an impact on the world stage.

In recent memory, General Soleimani, with the help of Russian air power, played a pivotal role in urging Iraqis to liberate their land from the clutches of the terrorist organization ISIS. In Syria, Soleimani’s influence extended to inspiring the local population to push back against ISIS, bolstering the resistance against this extremist group. In Lebanon, he inspired a robust response to Israeli aerial bombings. Furthermore, the Iranian general motivated Yemenis to forge a united front against the Saudi-led coalition’s aggressive actions.

Iran has demonstrated its ability to use diplomacy just as well as warfare to build connections and foster stability in the region. President Ebrahim Raisi’s administration has actively sought to bolster diplomatic ties with key global players, most notably China and Russia, among other nations. Impressively, his efforts have yielded significant progress in normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. These constructive engagements have the potential to initiate a much-needed environment of peace and stability in this turbulent part of the world.

Why Saudi Arabia and Iran Are Making Out Now

In stark contrast to the US-led western powers, the mullahs of Iran have demonstrated a clear objective of fostering stability and peaceful coexistence among regional countries. Their unwavering commitment to this vision is exemplified by their endeavors to share Iran’s resources and inspire neighboring nations. The influence of the mullahs has been particularly notable in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and others, where they have been instrumental in galvanizing these nations to assert their independence and stand united against acts of aggression.

Time for a New US Iran Policy

Iran’s strategic maneuvers in forging key partnerships are poised to reshape regional dynamics, inviting the West to reevaluate its approach towards the nation.

Recently, Iran awarded India a contract to develop the Chabahar Port, in a move that holds immense potential for enhancing connectivity and trade. Complementing this development is the planned construction of a railway network linking Iran’s Shahid Rajaee port on the Persian Gulf to southern Russia. Upon completion, this ambitious infrastructure project will revolutionize transportation between East Asia and Russia, with far-reaching implications.

The significance of these initiatives cannot be overstated. For India, the railway and port development will dramatically reduce transportation time, with the current 45-day journey reduced to a mere 14 days, a savings that will translate into substantial cost reduction, amounting to millions of dollars for the Indian economy. Equally consequential is the impact on Europe, as it stands to benefit from an expeditious and cost-effective cargo route between the continent and East Asia via Iran. This newfound advantage is bound to incentivize European nations to reassess their stance on sanctions and explore collaborative opportunities with Iran.

It is not just economic policy that is giving the West reason to reevaluate. The adopted by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, against weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) has posed a formidable challenge to world powers. Khamenei’s moral stand categorically forbidding the production of WMDs is informed Iran’s own history during the protracted and devastating eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. The repercussions of Iraq’s chemical attacks persist to this day. Tragically, I recently received news of the passing of one of my relatives in Iran, a victim of the chemical injuries sustained during that period, whose years of suffering have finally come to an end. Despite the suffering that thousands of Iranians have likewise endured, the nation’s moral conviction stands as a rebuke to a Western global order predicated on mutually assured nuclear destruction.

Negotiate With Russia and Let Ukraine Have Peace

The Iranian revolution has triggered a profound realignment that continues to shape the contemporary global landscape. By asserting its own distinct worldview and challenging western preeminence, Iran has engendered an ongoing dialogue on the nature and distribution of power in the international arena, posing questions that demand thoughtful consideration. Despite these signals, however, the US persists in its efforts to meddle in the affairs of Iran and other nations. Instead of embracing a more diplomatic approach, the US clings to its reliance on punitive sanctions, invasions, and interventions, which have become all too familiar hallmarks of its foreign policy. The recent Russo-Ukrainian War serves as a stark and regrettable illustration of the US’s propensity for favoring military action over constructive dialogue and negotiation. It is imperative that the US awaken to the realities of our changing world.

Under the leadership of its mullahs, Iran has demonstrated an exceptional ability to forge its own path and shape its own destiny. While the hostility exhibited by the US may prove to be transient, one aspect of Iran’s trajectory endures steadfastly: its commitment to de-dollarization. The US must recognize the significance of this development and disregard the influence of affluent and divisive diaspora groups and anti-Iran factions. Instead, a fresh, astute, and equitable policy towards Iran must be crafted—one that embraces peaceful negotiations marked with wisdom and balance, fostering a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Good Is the US Policy on Iran, Really? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This time around, the US had been cut out of the picture, a sea change reflecting not just Chinese initiatives but Washington’s incompetence, arrogance, and double-dealing in the subsequent three decades in the Middle East. An aftershock came in early May as gripped Congress about the covert construction of a Chinese naval base in the United Arab Emirates, a US ally hosting thousands of American troops. The Abu Dhabi facility would be an add-on to the small base at Djibouti on the east coast of Africa used by the People’s Liberation Army-Navy for combating piracy, evacuating noncombatants from conflict zones, and perhaps regional espionage.

China’s interest in cooling off tensions between the Iranian ayatollahs and the Saudi monarchy arose, however, not from any military ambitions in the region but because it imports significant amounts of oil from both countries. Another impetus was undoubtedly President Xi’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, or BRI, that aims to expand Eurasia’s overland and maritime economic infrastructure for a vast growth of regional trade — with China, of course, at its heart. That country has already invested billions in a and in developing the Pakistani Arabian seaport of to facilitate the transmission of Gulf oil to its northwestern provinces.

Having Iran and Saudi Arabia on a war footing endangered Chinese economic interests. Remember that, in September 2019, an Iran proxy or Iran itself launched a drone attack on the massive refinery complex at al-Abqaiq, briefly knocking out five million barrels a day of Saudi capacity. That country now exports a staggering barrels of petroleum daily to China and future drone strikes (or similar events) threaten those supplies. China is also believed to receive as much as from Iran, though it does so surreptitiously because of US sanctions. In December 2022, when nationwide protests forced the end of Xi’s no-Covid lockdown measures, that country’s appetite for petroleum was once again unleashed, with demand already up 22% over 2022.

So, any further instability in the Gulf is the last thing the Chinese Communist Party needs right now. Of course, China is also a global leader in the transition away from petroleum-fueled vehicles, which will eventually make the Middle East far less important to Beijing. That day, however, is still 15 to 30 years away.

Things Could Have Been Different

China’s interest in bringing to an end the Iranian-Saudi cold war, which constantly threatened to turn hotter, is clear enough, but why did those two countries choose such a diplomatic channel? After all, the United States still styles itself the “indispensable nation.” If that phrase ever had much meaning, however, American indispensability is now visibly in decline, thanks to blunders like allowing Israeli right-wingers to cancel the Oslo peace process, the launching of an illegal invasion of and war in Iraq in 2003, and the grotesque Trumpian mishandling of Iran. Distant as it may be from Europe, Tehran might nonetheless have been brought into NATO’s sphere of influence, something President Barack Obama spent enormous political capital trying to achieve. Instead, then-President Donald Trump pushed it directly into the arms of Vladimir Putin’s Russian Federation and Xi’s China.

Things could indeed have been different. With the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, brokered by the Obama administration, all practical pathways for Iran to build nuclear weapons were closed off. It’s also true that Iran’s ayatollahs they don’t want a weapon of mass destruction that, if used, would indiscriminately kill potentially vast numbers of non-combatants, something incompatible with the ethics of Islamic law.

Whether one believes that country’s clerical leaders or not, the JCPOA made the question moot, since it imposed severe restrictions on the number of centrifuges Iran could operate, the level to which it could enrich uranium for its nuclear plant at Bushehr, the amount of enriched uranium it could stockpile, and the kinds of nuclear plants it could build. According to the inspectors at the U.N.’s , Iran faithfully implemented its obligations through 2018 and — consider this an irony of our Trumpian times — for such compliance it would be punished by Washington.

Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei only permitted President Hassan Rouhani to sign that somewhat mortifying treaty with the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council in return for promised relief from Washington’s sanctions (that they never got). In early 2016, the Security Council did indeed remove its own 2006 sanctions on Iran. That, however, proved a meaningless gesture because by then Congress, deploying the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, had slapped unilateral American sanctions on Iran and, even in the wake of the nuclear deal, congressional Republicans refused to lift them. They even a $25 billion deal that would have allowed Iran to buy civilian passenger jets from Boeing.

Worse yet, such sanctions were designed to punish third parties that contravened them. French firms like Renault and TotalEnergies were eager to jump into the Iranian market but feared reprisals. The US had, after all, fined French bank $8.7 billion for skirting those sanctions and no European corporation wanted a dose of that kind of grief. In essence, congressional Republicans and the Trump administration kept Iran under such severe sanctions even though it had lived up to its side of the bargain, while Iranian entrepreneurs eagerly looked forward to doing with Europe and the United States. In short, Tehran could have been pulled inexorably into the Western orbit via increasing dependence on North Atlantic trade deals, but it was not to be.

And keep in mind that Israeli Prime Minister (then as now) Benjamin Netanyahu had lobbied hard against the JCPOA, even going over President Obama’s head in an unprecedented fashion to encourage Congress to nix the deal. That effort to play spoiler failed — until, in May 2018, President Trump simply tore up the treaty. Netanyahu was boasting that he had convinced the gullible Trump to take that step. Although the Israeli right wing insisted that its greatest concern was an Iranian nuclear warhead, it sure didn’t act that way. Sabotaging the 2015 deal actually freed that country from all constraints. Netanyahu and like-minded Israeli politicians were, it seems, upset that the JCPOA only addressed Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program and didn’t mandate a rollback of Iranian influence in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, which they apparently believed to be the real threat.

Trump went on to impose what amounted to a financial and trade on Iran. In its wake, trading with that country became an increasingly risky proposition. By May 2019, Trump had succeeded handsomely by his own standards (and those of Netanyahu). He had managed to reduce Iran’s oil exports from 2.5 million barrels a day to as little as barrels a day. That country’s leadership nonetheless continued to conform to the requirements of the JCPOA until mid-2019, after which they began flaunting its provisions. Iran has now produced highly enriched uranium and is much closer to being capable of making nuclear weapons than ever before, though it still has and the ayatollahs continue to deny that they want such weaponry.

In reality, Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” did anything but destroy Tehran’s influence in the region. In fact, if anything, in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq the power of the ayatollahs was only strengthened.

After a while, Iran also found ways to smuggle its petroleum , where it was sold to small private refineries that operated solely for the domestic market. Since those firms had no international presence or assets and didn’t deal in dollars, the Treasury Department had no way of moving against them. In this fashion, President Trump and congressional Republicans ensured that Iran would become deeply dependent on China for its very economic survival — and so also ensured the increasing significance of that rising power in the Middle East.

The Saudi Reversal

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, oil prices spiked, benefiting the Iranian government. The Biden administration then imposed the kind of maximum-pressure sanctions on the Russian Federation that Trump had levied against Iran. Unsurprisingly, a new Axis of the Sanctioned has now formed, with exploring trade and arms deals and Iran allegedly providing to Moscow for its war effort in Ukraine.

As for Saudi Arabia, its de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, recently seemed to get a better set of advisers. In March 2015, he had launched a ruinous and devastating war in neighboring Yemen after the Zaydi Shiite “Helpers of God,” or Houthi rebels, took over the populous north of that country. Since the Saudis were primarily deploying air power against a guerrilla force, their campaign was bound to fail. The Saudi leadership then blamed the rise and resilience of the Houthis on the Iranians. While Iran had indeed provided some money and smuggled some weapons to the Helpers of God, they were a local movement with a long set of grievances against the Saudis. Eight years later, the war sputtered to a devastating stalemate.

The Saudis had also attempted to counter Iranian influence elsewhere in the Arab world, intervening in the Syrian civil war on the side of fundamentalist Salafi rebels against the government of autocrat Bashar al-Assad. In 2013, Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah militia joined the fray in support of al-Assad and, in 2015, Russia committed air power there to ensure the rebels’ defeat. had also backed al-Assad (though not militarily) and played a quiet role in the post-war of the country. As part of that recent China-brokered agreement to reduce tensions with Iran and its regional allies, Saudi Arabia just spearheaded a decision to the al-Assad government to membership in the Arab League (from which it had been expelled in 2011 at the height of the revolts).

By late 2019, in the wake of that drone attack on the Abqaiq refineries, it was already clear that Bin Salman had lost his regional contest with Iran and Saudi Arabia began to seek some way out. Among other things, the Saudis reached out to the Iraqi prime minister of that moment, Adil Abdel Mahdi, asking for his help as a mediator with the Iranians. He, in turn, invited General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Jerusalem Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, to Baghdad to consider a new relationship with the House of Saud.

As few will forget, on January 3, 2020, Soleimani flew to Iraq on a civilian airliner only to be assassinated by an American drone strike at Baghdad International Airport on the President Trump who claimed he was coming to kill Americans. Did Trump want to forestall a rapprochement with the Saudis? After all, marshaling that country and other Gulf states into an anti-Iranian alliance with Israel had been at the heart of his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s “Abraham Accords.”

The Rise of China, the Fall of America

Washington is now the skunk at the diplomats’ party. The Iranians were never likely to trust the Americans as mediators. The Saudis must have feared telling them about their negotiations lest the equivalent of another Hellfire missile be unleashed. As 2022 ended, President Xi actually visited the Saudi capital Riyadh, where relations with Iran were evidently a topic of conversation. This February, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi traveled to Beijing by which time, according to the Chinese foreign ministry, President Xi had developed a to mediating between the two Gulf rivals. Now, a rising China is offering to launch other Middle Eastern mediation efforts, while “that some large countries outside the region” were causing “long-term instability in the Middle East” out of “self-interest.”

China’s new prominence as a peacemaker may soon extend to conflicts like the ones in and . As the rising power on this planet with its eye on Eurasia, the Middle East, and Africa, Beijing is clearly eager to have any conflicts that could interfere with its Belt and Road Initiative resolved as peaceably as possible.

Although China is on the cusp of having three battle groups, they continue to operate close to home and American fears about a Chinese military presence in the Middle East are, so far, without substance.

Where two sides are tired of conflict, as was true with Saudi Arabia and Iran, Beijing is clearly now ready to play the role of the honest broker. Its remarkable diplomatic feat of restoring relations between those countries, however, reflects less its position as a rising Middle Eastern power than the startling decline of American regional credibility after three decades of false promises (Oslo), debacles (Iraq) and capricious policy-making that, in retrospect, appears to have relied on nothing more substantial than a set of cynical imperial divide-and-rule ploys that are now so been-there, done-that.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post China Hangs Washington Out to Dry in the Middle East appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At least the Russian president and his state-run media make no of his regime’s with Wagner. The American government, on the other hand, seldom acknowledges its own version of the privatization of war — the of private security contractors it’s used in its misguided , involving military and intelligence operations in a staggering .

At least as far back as the through World Wars and , the and , and the first , “contractors,” as we like to call them, have long been with us. Only recently, however, have they begun playing such a large role in our wars, with an estimated of them directly involved in combat and intelligence operations.

Contractors have both committed horrific abuses and acted bravely under fire (because they have all too often been under fire). From torture at prison in Iraq to interrogations at the detention camp, from employees of the private security firm Blackwater on unarmed Iraqi civilians to contractors a U.S. base under attack in Afghanistan, they have been an essential part of the war on terror. And yes, they both killed Afghans and some who had worked as escape from Taliban rule.

The involvement of private companies has allowed Washington to continue to conduct its operations around the globe, even if many Americans think that our war on terror in , , and elsewhere has ended. I tried looking for any kind of a survey of how many of us realize that it continues in and elsewhere, but all I could find was pollster Nate Silver’s of “lessons learned” from that global conflict, as if it were part of our history. And unless respondents were caring for a combat-wounded veteran, they tended to look unfavorably on sending our troops into battle in distant lands — so scratch that as a lesson learned from our forever wars. 

None of this surprises me. American troops are in significant numbers, nor are crowding the waitlists at backlogged Veterans Affairs hospitals as would be the case if those troops had been the only ones doing the fighting.

At points during this century’s war on terror, in fact, the U.S. used more civilian contractors in its ongoing wars than uniformed military personnel. In fact, as of 2019, according to Brown University’s Costs of War Project, which I co-founded, there were than troops in the U.S. Central Command region that includes Afghanistan, Iraq, and 18 other countries in the Middle East, as well as Central and South Asia. As recently as December 2022, the Pentagon had about deployed throughout that region, with concentrated in Iraq and Syria. To be sure, most of those workers were unarmed and providing food service, communications aid, and the like. Even more tellingly, of them were citizens of other countries, particularly ones.

In 2020, retired Army Officer Danny Sjursen an interesting explanation for how the war on terror was then becoming ever more privatized: the Covid-19 pandemic had changed the Pentagon’s war-making strategy as the public began to question how much money and how many lives were being expended on war abroad rather than healthcare at home. As a result, Sjursen argued, the U.S. had begun deploying ever more contractors, remote drones, CIA paramilitaries, and (often abusive) local forces in that war on terror while U.S. troops were redeployed to Europe and the Pacific to contain a resurgent Russia and China. In other words, during the pandemic, Washington placed ever more dirty work in corporate and foreign hands.

(Not) Counting Contractors

It’s been a challenge to write about private security contractors because our government does anything but a good job of counting them. Though the Defense Department keeps of how many civilian contractors it employs and where, they exclude employees contracted with the Central Intelligence Agency or the State Department.

When Costs of War first tried to count contractor deaths by searching official government sources, we came up short. The spouse of a gravely wounded armed contractor directed me to her blog, where she had started to compile a list of just such deaths based on daily Google searches, even as she worked hard caring for her spouse and managing his disability paperwork. She and I eventually lost touch and it appears that she stopped compiling such numbers long ago. Still, we at the project took a page from her book, while adding reported war deaths among foreign nationals working for the Pentagon to our formula. Costs of War researchers then estimated that had been killed in our wars in the Middle East as of 2019, or about more than the U.S. troops who died during the same period.

Social scientists have tried to extrapolate from reported contractor deaths in order to paint a picture of who they were while still alive. They believe that most of them were white veterans in their forties; many were former Special Forces operatives and a number of former officers with college degrees).

Limited Choices for Veterans

How do people of relative racial, economic, and gendered privilege end up in positions that, while well-paid, are even more precarious than being in the armed forces? As a therapist serving military families and as a military spouse, I would say that the path to security contracting reflects a deep in our society between military and civilian life. Although veteran unemployment rates are than those in the civilian population, many of them tend to seek out what they know best and that means military training, staffing, weapons production — and, for some, combat.

I recently spoke with one Marine infantry veteran who had completed four combat tours. He told me that, after leaving the service, he lacked a community that understood what he had been through. He sought to avoid social isolation by getting a government job. However, after applying for several positions in law enforcement agencies, he “failed” lie detector tests (owing to the common stress reactions of war-traumatized veterans). Having accidentally stumbled on a veteran-support nonprofit group, he ultimately found connections that led him to decide to return to school and retrain in a new profession. But, as he pointed out, “many of my other friends from the Marines numbed their pain with drugs or by going back to war as security contractors.”

Not everyone views contracting as a strategy of last resort. Still, I find it revealing of the limited sense of possibility such veterans experience that the companies employing them are large corporations servicing the Department of Defense through activities like information technology support, weapons production, or offers of personnel, both armed and not.

The Corporate Wounded

And keep in mind that such jobs are anything but easy. Many veterans find themselves facing yet more of the same — quick, successive combat deployments as contractors.

Anyone in this era of insurance mega-corporations who has ever had to battle for coverage is aware that doing so isn’t easy. Private insurers can maximize their profits by holding onto premium payments as long as possible while denying covered services.

A federal law called the (DBA) requires that corporations fund workers’ compensation claims for their employees laboring under U.S. contracts, regardless of their nationalities, with the taxpayer footing the bill. The program grew exponentially after the start of the war on terror, but insurance companies have not consistently met their obligations under the law. In 2008, a by the Los Angeles Times and ProPublica found that insurers like Chicago-based CAN Financial Corps were earning up to 50% profits on some of their war-zone policies, while many employees of contractors lacked adequate care and compensation for their injuries.

Congress called on the Pentagon and the Department of Labor to better enforce the DBA in 2011, some companies continued to operate with impunity vis–à–vis their own workers, sometimes even failing to purchase insurance for them or refusing to help them file claims as required by law.  While insurance companies made tens of millions of dollars in profits during the second decade of the war on terror, between 2009 and 2021, the Department of Labor insurers of those contracting corporations a total of only $3,250 for failing to report DBA claims. 

Privatizing Foreign Policy

At its core, the war on terror sought to create an image of the U.S. abroad as a beacon of and the . Yet there is probably no better evidence of how poorly this worked in practice at home and abroad than the little noted (mis)use of security contractors. Without their ever truly being seen, they prolonged that global set of conflicts, inflicting damage on other societies and being damaged themselves in America’s name. Last month, the Costs of War Project reported that the U.S. is now subcontractors Bancroft Global Development and Pacific Architects and Engineers to train the Somali National Army in its counterterrorism efforts. Meanwhile, the U.S. intervention there has only helped precipitate a further in terrorist attacks in the region.

The global presence created by such contractors also manifests itself in how we respond to threats to their lives. In March 2023, a self-destructing drone at a U.S. maintenance facility on a coalition base in northeastern Syria, killing a contractor employed by the Pentagon and injuring another, while wounding five American soldiers. After that drone was found to be of Iranian origin, President Biden ordered an airstrike on facilities in Syria used by Iranian-allied forces. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin , “No group will strike our troops with impunity.” While he later expressed condolences to the family of the contractor who was the only one killed in that attack, his could have more explicitly acknowledged that contractors are even more numerous than troops among the dead from our forever wars.

In late December 2019, a contractor working as an interpreter on a U.S. military base in Iraq was by rockets fired by an Iranian-backed militia. Shortly afterward, then-President Trump ordered an that killed the commander of an elite Iranian military unit, sparking concern about a dangerous escalation with that country. Trump later , “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will.”

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Trump’s tweet was more honest than Austin’s official statement: such contractors are now an essential part of America’s increasingly privatized wars and will continue to be so, in seemingly ever greater numbers. Even though retaliating for attacks on their lives has little to do with effective counterterrorism (as the Costs of War Project has made clear), bearing witness to war in all their grim diversity is the least the rest of us can do as American citizens. Because how can we know whether — and — our shadowy, shape-shifting wars “work” if we continue to let our leaders wage an increasingly privatized version of them in ways meant to obscure our view of the carnage they’ve caused?

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The New American-Style Privatization of War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The eloquent general goes on to share his insights on the complex political and military situation in Afghanistan over the past 20 years. He served twice in the country and shares his rich insights here. The Canadian Defence Attaché also speaks about Iraq, the rise of ISIS, the Syrian civil war and Qasem Soleimani of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He shares many lessons relevant for military members, diplomats, and all students of history, geopolitics and international relations.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A Canadian Perspective on Ukraine, Iraq and Afghanistan appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The title of Parsi’s article, “T��� U.S. Is Not an Indispensable Peacemaker,” to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s use of the term “indispensable nation” to describe the US role in the post-Cold War world. The irony in Parsi’s use of Albright’s term is that she generally used it to refer to US war-making, not peacemaking.

Make war, not peace 

In 1998, Albright toured the Middle East and then the United States to rally support for President Clinton’s threat to bomb Iraq. After failing to win support in the Middle East, she was by heckling and critical questions during a televised event at Ohio State University, and she appeared on the Today Show the next morning to respond to public opposition in a more controlled setting.

Albright, “..if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see here the danger to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.”

Albright’s readiness to take the sacrifices of American troops for had already got her into trouble when she famously asked General Colin Powell, “What’s the use of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Powell wrote in his memoirs, “I thought I would have an aneurysm.”

But Powell himself later caved to the neocons, or the “” as he called them in private, and dutifully read the lies they made up to try to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq to the UN Security Council in February 2003. 

For the past 25 years, administrations of both parties have caved to the “crazies” at every turn. Albright and the neocons’ exceptionalist rhetoric, now standard fare across the US political spectrum, leads the United States into conflicts all over the world, in an unequivocal, Manichean way that defines the side it supports as the side of good and the other side as evil, foreclosing any chance that the United States can later play the role of an impartial or credible mediator. 

Today, this is true in the war in Yemen, where the US chose to join a Saudi-led alliance that committed systematic war crimes, instead of remaining neutral and preserving its credibility as a potential mediator. It also applies, most notoriously, to the US blank check for endless Israeli aggression against the Palestinians, which doom its mediation efforts to failure.

For China, however, it is precisely its policy of neutrality that has enabled it to mediate a peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the same applies to the African Union’s successful peace in Ethiopia, and to Turkey’s promising between Russia and Ukraine, which might have ended the slaughter in Ukraine in its first two months but for American and British determination to keep trying to pressure and weaken Russia. 

Are you with us or against us?

But neutrality has become anathema to US policymakers. George W. Bush’s threat, “You are either with us or against us,” has become an established, if unspoken, core assumption of 21st century US foreign policy.

The response of the American public to the cognitive dissonance between our wrong assumptions about the world and the real world they keep colliding with has been to turn inward and embrace an ethos of individualism. This can range from New Age spiritual disengagement to a chauvinistic America First attitude. Whatever form it takes for each of us, it allows us to persuade ourselves that the distant rumble of bombs, albeit mostly ones, is not our problem. 

The US corporate media has validated and increased our ignorance by drastically foreign news coverage and turning TV news into a profit-driven echo chamber peopled by pundits in studios who seem to know even less about the world than the rest of us.

Most US politicians now rise through the system from local to state to national politics, and arrive in Washington knowing next to nothing about foreign policy. This leaves them as vulnerable as the public to neocon cliches like the ten or twelve packed into Albright’s vague justification for bombing Iraq: freedom, democracy, the American way of life, stand tall, the danger to all of us, we are America, indispensable nation, sacrifice, American men and women in uniform, and “we have to use force.” 

Faced with such a solid wall of nationalistic drivel, Republicans and Democrats alike have left foreign policy firmly in the experienced but deadly hands of the neocons, who have brought the world only chaos and violence for 25 years. 

All but the most principled progressive or libertarian members of Congress go along to get along with policies so at odds with the real world that they risk destroying it, whether by ever-escalating warfare or by suicidal inaction on the climate crisis and other real-world problems that we must cooperate with other countries to solve if we are to survive.

Peace is not an option

It is no wonder that Americans think the world’s problems are insoluble and that peace is unattainable, because our country has so totally abused its unipolar moment of global dominance to persuade us that that is the case. But these policies are choices, and there are alternatives, as China and other countries are dramatically demonstrating. President Lula da Silva of Brazil is proposing to form a “” of peacemaking nations to mediate an end to the war in Ukraine, and this offers new hope for peace. 

During his election campaign and his first year in office, President Biden repeatedly to usher in a new era of American diplomacy, after decades of war and record military spending. Zach Vertin, now a senior adviser to UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, in 2020 that Biden’s effort to “rebuild a decimated State Department” should include setting up a “mediation support unit… staffed by experts whose sole mandate is to ensure our diplomats have the tools they need to succeed in waging peace.”

Biden’s meager response to this call from Vertin and others was finally in March 2022, after he dismissed Russia’s diplomatic initiatives and Russia invaded Ukraine. The State Department’s new Negotiations Support Unit consists of three junior staffers quartered within the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. This is the extent of Biden’s token commitment to peacemaking, as the barn door swings in the wind and the four of the apocalypse—War, Famine, Conquest and Death—run wild across the Earth.

As Zach Vertin wrote, “It is often assumed that mediation and negotiation are skills readily available to anyone engaged in politics or diplomacy, especially veteran diplomats and senior government appointees. But that is not the case: Professional mediation is a specialized, often highly technical, tradecraft in its own right.”

The mass destruction of war is also specialized and technical, and the United States now invests close to a per year in it. The appointment of three junior State Department staffers to try to make peace in a world threatened and intimidated by their own country’s trillion dollar war machine only reaffirms that peace is not a priority for the US government. 

By, the European Union created its Mediation Support Team in 2009 and now has 20 team members working with other teams from individual EU countries. The UN’s Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs has a staff of, spread all across the world.

The tragedy of American diplomacy today is that it is diplomacy for war, not for peace. The State Department’s top priorities are not to make peace, nor even to actually win wars, which the United States has failed to do since 1945, apart from the reconquest of small neocolonial outposts in Grenada, Panama and Kuwait. Its actual priorities are to bully other countries to join US-led war coalitions and buy US weapons, to mute in international fora, to enforce illegal and deadly, and to manipulate other countries into their people in US proxy wars.

The result is to keep spreading violence and chaos across the world. If we want to stop our rulers from marching us toward nuclear war, climate catastrophe and mass extinction, we had better take off our blinders and start insisting on policies that reflect our best instincts and our common interests, instead of the interests of the warmongers and merchants of death who profit from war.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Make War, Not Peace: Frightening US Policy on Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

It was geopolitics, stupid.

According to the fevered imaginations of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and their neocon compatriots, Saddam would be the first domino to fall, followed by other autocrats (Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Muammar Qaddafi in Libya) until, boom, democracy upended the ayatollahs in Iran as well. They even imagined, by the mere inclusion of it in an “axis of evil,” that North Korea too would soon experience a Pyongyang Spring.

Saddam did indeed fall. And then Iraq fell apart, thanks to the failure of the Bush administration to develop a coherent post-war reconstruction plan.

But democracy did not take hold in the region, much less in North Korea. Some autocrats have squeaked by, in the case of Assad by ruthlessly suppressing a civil uprising, while others have emerged like Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and Abdelmadjid Tebboune in Algeria. And several putative democrats, like Kais Saied in Tunisia and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, have moved solidly into the illiberal camp.

Here’s a koan for the neocons: what’s the sound of one domino falling?

The ayatollahs, meanwhile, haven’t gone anywhere. Iran, by all estimates, increased its regional standing after 2003, becoming a major player in post-war Iraq, growing its influence in Lebanon and Syria, raising its profile among Palestinians through support of Hamas in Gaza, and backing a Shiite faction in Yemen.

So, the invasion of Iraq produced the exact opposite results than intended, despite the loss of over and the outlay of as much as to fight the war and repair the broken country. Iraqis, of course, have suffered even more: around and a state currently by corruption and in-fighting.

Okay, Saddam is gone. But Iran and terrorist entities like the Islamic State have filled the regional vacuum, not the United States or democracy.

US declining influence in the region was on display in the recent agreement that Iran inked with Saudi Arabia. The two perennially adversarial powers to restore diplomatic relations, and the king of Saudi Arabia even invited Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi to visit Riyadh. This extraordinary development, between two countries that have fought through proxies in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, has the potential to remap the region.

The United States, the most powerful country in the world and the post-World War II hegemon in the Middle East, had nothing to do with the rapprochement.

It was China that brokered the agreement, a country with a single overseas military base and little history of involvement in the Middle East. On the twentieth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the United States has discovered once again how the mighty can be brought low by their hubris.

Who Is Learning the Lessons of Iraq?

The United States has lost a large measure of its global influence, thanks to its fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Have subsequent administrations learned the lessons of these misbegotten incursions?

Barack Obama famously tried to pivot from Iraq to “winning” the war in Afghanistan. Today, the Taliban once again rule that country.

Donald Trump as if he’d never supported the Iraq War as part of a half-assed attempt to paint himself as a critic of US military interventions. In fact, it was only because of the concerted efforts of marginally more sensible members of his administration that Trump didn’t plunge the United States into war with or

Biden seems to have partially learned the lessons of Iraq. He followed through on the pullout of US troops from Afghanistan, and he has resisted sending US troops to Ukraine. On the other hand, he has pushed the US military budget ever higher and doubled down on containing China.

But the person who has truly not learned the lessons of Iraq comes from a different country altogether: Vladimir Putin.

Last year, Putin did a credible impersonation of George W. Bush by launching a “shock and awe” attack on Ukraine that he thought would be such a cakewalk that it wouldn’t even need like updated maps or food enough to feed the invading troops. The “limits of military force” that has among US policymakers and pundits obviously never penetrated the walls of the Kremlin or the nationalist mindset of the Russian leader.

Strangely, pundits in the West have been slow to draw this obvious parallel. In The Guardian, Jonathan Steele that “in spite of the resurgence of US power in Europe as a result of the war in Ukraine, the era of US supremacy in the rest of the world may soon be over.” Well, the erosion of US power has been a long time in the making. But what about the end of Russian supremacy in its own sphere of influence? Wouldn’t that be a more apt comparison between the Iraq and Ukraine wars?  The Biden administration has learned at least some lessons from the dreadful blunder. The same can’t be said for Putin, and Russia will inevitably suffer the same geopolitical consequences.

Ishaan Tharoor, in The Washington Post, that the United States is unable to build a more effective global coalition against Russia because of its hypocrisy going back to the Iraq War. True, but much of the world is skeptical of US intentions because of US foreign policy misadventures going back a century or more—and also because Russia still has some influence in important countries like China, India, and South Africa. And it is Russian hypocrisy—Putin’s that he is upholding sovereignty rather than violating it—that’s the more salient feature of the current war. Imperialism is never having to say you’re sorry (or make sense, for that matter).

And in the Boston Globe, Andrew Bacevich the off-base argument that “Biden appears to believe that the Ukraine war provides a venue whereby the United States can overcome the legacy of Iraq, enabling him to make good on his repeated assertion that ‘America is back.’”

Really?!

The war in Ukraine has less to do with the United States than with Vladimir Putin’s quest for power and imperial might. The United States is not the only superpower whose reach exceeds its grasp. Moreover, the Biden administration has responded with arms and support for Ukraine not out of any effort to overcome the legacy of Iraq but to come to the defense of a democracy that has been invaded.

These arguments are all part of an obsessively US-focused “whataboutism” that has permeated the US left’s discourse in particular around Ukraine. Instead of focusing on Russian actions, the anti-war critics will say “what about the US invasion of Iraq?” as if there can only be one badly behaved country in the world and only one touchstone of evil.

Bacevich, again, has tried to make a virtue out of this rhetorical irresponsibility – —by concluding that “however grotesque, Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine seem almost modest by comparison” to the US crimes in Iraq. Though Bacevich agrees that Putin’s “actions have been those of a vile criminal,” he is effectively arguing that the stakes in Ukraine are somehow not so great as to justify providing the country with sufficient means to defend itself.

The fact that the United States, among others, have failed to do the right thing in the past—or in other parts of the world today—should in no way diminish the importance of doing the right thing right now in Ukraine. Would Bacevich argue that the Biden administration shouldn’t pursue major carbon reductions at home because the United States pumped so much carbon into the atmosphere in the past or is failing to help, for instance, India from kicking the fossil fuel habit today? At its heart, whataboutism provides an intellectual veneer for a paralyzing passivity in the face of evil.

And What About US Influence?

Even as they note the declining global influence of the United States, some analysts nevertheless believe that Washington can somehow wave a magic wand to end the war in Ukraine.

Take George Beebe, in Responsible Statecraft, who makes that this summer “Ukraine might well have less bargaining leverage, as its battlefield position stagnates and its confidence in enduring American support erodes.” Thus, the Biden administration should press the accelerator pedal on negotiations with Russia. For example, signaling discreetly to Moscow that we are prepared to discuss the thorny issue of Ukraine’s membership in NATO – an issue Putin regards as central to the war, but which Biden has so far refused to discuss – might help to change these dynamics and reshape Russia’s attitude toward a settlement. 

This assertion is based on several faulty assumptions. Beebe urges the Biden administration to act now because of something—a battlefield stalemate—that might happen this summer and would be more likely to happen if Biden listens to Beebe (talk about self-fulfilling arguments).

Sure, Washington could signal that it will talk about NATO membership with Russia. But Putin actually doesn’t care that much about NATO per se. What the Russian leader wants is to fully incorporate as much of Ukraine into Russia as possible. Barring the installation of a Kremlin-friendly administration in Kyiv, he’ll settle for a structurally weakened country that will never pose any kind of threat—military, economic, political—to Russia.

Finally, what Beebe doesn’t say but rather implies is that the Biden administration should exercise its influence by leaning on Ukraine to negotiate with Russia, particularly if it doesn’t feel compelled to do so by circumstances on the ground.

Yes, of course, the Biden administration could seriously weaken the Ukrainian military by cutting off military supplies. believe that this will somehow produce a negotiated settlement. The more likely scenario would be a redoubled Russian military assault accompanied by war crimes on a scale that would dwarf the horrors of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The of Putin by the International Criminal Court focused on the forced relocation of Ukrainian children. But that’s just a small part of what Putin has wrought: of prisoners of war, of civilians, of civilian infrastructure. Full-scale war against a weakened opponent will bring full-scale war crimes.

All of which suggests that the “pro-peace” critics of Biden’s policy toward Ukraine—from the and the —are really the ones who have not internalized the lessons of the Iraq War. The refusal of the United States to make any serious post-invasion plans, the effort to occupy Iraq and dictate its political and economic future, the implicit belief that the invasion would solidify US standing in the region—these all plunged Iraq into years and years of civil war. Anything short of drastically reducing Russian influence in Ukraine will condemn the country to the same.

The US left continuously called for US troops to leave Iraq. Only those who have failed to learn the lessons of the Iraq War would fail to make the same demand of Russia as a prerequisite for a just peace today.
[ first published this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Iraq War—a Proven Disaster—Is Relevant Now for Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While the US was able to 49 countries, including many in the Global South, to join its “coalition of the willing” to support invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, only the U.K., Australia, Denmark and Poland actually contributed troops to the invasion force, and the past 20 years of disastrous interventions have taught many nations not to hitch their wagons to the faltering US empire. 

Today, nations in the Global South have overwhelmingly US entreaties to send weapons to Ukraine and are reluctant to comply with Western sanctions on Russia. Instead, they are urgently for diplomacy to end the war before it escalates into a full-scale conflict between Russia and the United States, with the existential danger of a world-ending nuclear war.

Neoconservative Ideas of Regime-Change

The architects of the US invasion of Iraq were the neoconservative founders of the Project for a New American Century (), who believed that the United States could use the unchallenged military superiority that it achieved at the end of the Cold War to perpetuate American global power into the 21st century. 

The invasion of Iraq would demonstrate US “full spectrum dominance” to the world, based on what the late Senator Edward Kennedy as “a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other country can or should accept.”  

Kennedy was right, and the neocons were utterly wrong. US military aggression succeeded in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but it failed to impose a stable new order, leaving only chaos, death and violence in its wake. The same was true of US interventions in Afghanistan, Libya and other countries. 

For the rest of the world, the peaceful economic rise of China and the Global South has created an alternative path for economic development that is replacing the US model. While the United States has squandered its unipolar moment on trillion-dollar military spending, illegal wars and militarism, other countries are quietly building a more peaceful, multipolar world.      

And yet, ironically, there is one country where the neocons’ “regime-change” strategy succeeded, and where they doggedly cling to power: the United States itself. Even as most of the world recoiled in horror at the results of US aggression, the neocons consolidated their control over US foreign policy, infecting and poisoning Democratic and Republican administrations alike with their exceptionalist snake oil.

Corporate politicians and media like to airbrush out the neocons’ takeover and continuing domination of US foreign policy, but the neocons are hidden in plain sight in the upper echelons of the US State Department, the National Security Council, the White House, Congress and influential corporate-funded think tanks.

PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and was a key of Hillary Clinton. President Joe Biden appointed Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, a former foreign policy adviser to Dick Cheney, as his Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the fourth most senior position in the State Department. That was after she played the US role in the 2014 in Ukraine, which caused its national disintegration, the return of Crimea to Russia and a civil war in Donbas that killed at least 14,000 people.

Nuland’s nominal boss, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, was the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002, during its debates over the impending US assault on Iraq. Blinken helped the committee chairman, Senator Joe Biden, hearings that guaranteed the committee’s support for the war, excluding any witnesses who did not fully support the neocons’ war plan.

Biden Administration Persists with Neoconservative Policies

It is not clear who is really calling the foreign policy shots in Biden’s administration as it barrels toward World War III with Russia and provokes conflict with China, riding roughshod over Biden’s campaign to “elevate diplomacy as the primary tool of our global engagement.” Nuland appears to have far beyond her rank in the shaping of US (and thus Ukrainian) war policy.

What is clear is that most of the world has seen through the and hypocrisy of US foreign policy, and that the United States is finally reaping the result of its actions in the refusal of the Global South to keep dancing to the tune of the American pied piper.

At the UN General Assembly in September 2022, the leaders of 66 countries, representing a majority of the world’s population, for diplomacy and peace in Ukraine. And yet Western leaders still ignore their pleas, claiming a monopoly on moral leadership that they decisively lost on March 19, 2003, when the United States and the United Kingdom tore up the UN Charter and invaded Iraq. 

In a panel discussion on “Defending the UN Charter and the Rules-Based International Order” at the recent Munich Security Conference, three of the panelists–from Brazil, Colombia and Namibia–explicitly Western demands for their countries to break off relations with Russia, and instead spoke out for peace in Ukraine.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira called on all the warring parties to “build the possibility of a solution. We cannot keep on talking only of war.” Vice President Francia Márquez of Colombia elaborated, “We don’t want to go on discussing who will be the winner or the loser of a war. We are all losers and, in the end, it is humankind that loses everything.”

Prime Minister Saara Kuugongelwa-Amadhila of Namibia summed up the views of Global South leaders and their people: “Our focus is on solving the problem…not on shifting blame,” she said. “We are promoting a peaceful resolution of that conflict, so that the entire world and all the resources of the world can be focused on improving the conditions of people around the world instead of being spent on acquiring weapons, killing people, and actually creating hostilities.”

So how do the American neocons and their European vassals respond to these eminently sensible and very popular leaders from the Global South? In a frightening, warlike speech, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell the Munich conference that the way for the West to “rebuild trust and cooperation with many in the so-called Global South” is to “debunk… this false narrative… of a double standard.”

But the double standard between the West’s responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and decades of Western aggression is not a false narrative. In previous articles, we have how the United States and its allies dropped more than 337,000 bombs and missiles on other countries between 2001 and 2020. That is an average of 46 per day, day in day out, for 20 years. 

The US record easily matches, or arguably far outstrips, the illegality and brutality of Russia’s crimes in Ukraine. Yet the US never faces economic sanctions from the global community. It has never been forced to pay war reparations to its victims. It supplies weapons to the aggressors instead of to the victims of aggression in Palestine, Yemen and elsewhere. And US leaders—including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden—have never been prosecuted for the international crime of aggression, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

As we mark the 20th anniversary of the devastating Iraq invasion, let us join with Global South leaders and the majority of our neighbors around the world, not only in calling for immediate peace negotiations to end the brutal Ukraine war, but also in building a genuine rules-based international order, where the same rules—and the same consequences and punishments for breaking those rules—apply to all nations, including our own.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Scary Not-So-Winding Road from Iraq to Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Putin himself, however, has a longer memory. In the speech that launched his “special operation,” he pointedly the US for “the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds.” Then he added, “We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high U.N. rostrum. As a result, we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.”

Yes, it’s true, on the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, that war is long forgotten here. No one in the Biden administration today cares that it ruined what credibility America had as a pillar of international order in the and gave Putin cover for his own atrocity. So, sit back for a moment and let me take you on a little trip into a long-lost all-American world.

Mission (Un)Accomplished

On May 1, 2003, arrayed in Top Gun gear, President George W. Bush sat in the co-pilot’s seat of a fighter jet and was to the USS Abraham Lincoln, the aircraft carrier then stationed just off the coast of San Diego. No rationale drove this high-priced jaunt save the visuals his propaganda team hoped to generate.

Then, from that ship’s deck beneath a banner that proclaimed, “Mission Accomplished,” he made a televised speech about the invasion of Iraq he had ordered less than two months earlier. Bush proudly that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” Of course, neither assertion would prove faintly true. In fact, some 2,500 US troops are still stationed in Iraq to this day, aiding in the fight against leaders of that country’s former Baath Party government who have now become fundamentalist guerrillas. And keep in mind that those troops remain there even though the Iraqi parliament them to leave.

The rest of Bush’s speech deserves more infamy than it’s attained. The president declared, “Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians.” Dream on, but of course Bush gave that “Mission Accomplished” speech to whitewash a war of aggression as a routine instrument of presidential policy. Describing the ramshackle, fourth-world country of Iraq then as “dangerous” and “aggressive” was as hyperbolic as Putin’s categorization of Volodomyr Zelenksy’s Ukraine as a “Nazi” state.

Note, however, that one phrase was missing from Bush’s Napoleonic screed about forcibly spreading “democracy” and “freedom” with that new tool, “precision warfare,” and that was, of course, “international law.” At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, the International Military Tribunal had ,

“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

And, of course, the United Nations charter forbids military aggression. It allows war only in self-defense or if the Security Council authorizes it.

On the deck of that aircraft carrier, however, Bush had the nerve to say: “When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength and kindness and goodwill.” 

In fact, Iraqis had spent a significant part of the twentieth century trying to get British colonialists out of their country and it was hardly surprising that, in 2003, so many of them didn’t see such virtues in the forces that had invaded their land. The US military personnel on the ground I talked to, then or later, often spoke of the sullen, angry gazes of the Iraqis they encountered. One acquaintance of mine, Lieutenant Kylan Jones-Huffman, sent me a message that very summer in which he described sitting in the back of a troop transport with other American forces on a road in southern Iraq and being passed by a truckload of armed Iraqis. One of them squinted sourly at them and lifted his rifle menacingly. Kylan said he just patted his M1 rifle, returning the threat.

A Navy reservist and Middle East specialist, he planned on a post-military academic career, having completed a Ph.D. in history. Insightful and easy-going, a crafter of exquisite haiku poetry, Kylan promised to be an exciting colleague for me. He told me he was being sent from Bahrain to brief the military brass in the city of Hillah in southern Iraq. On the evening of August 21, 2003, as I was watching CNN, on the scroll at the bottom of the screen I noticed an American had been shot dead in Hillah and that left me uneasy. The next day I learned that Kylan had indeed been the victim, by a young Iraqi as he waited in a jeep at an intersection. It was an elbow to the gut that left me in tears — and it still hurts to tell the story.

He was, in fact, one of more than US military personnel to die in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other “War on Terror” locales, along with 8,000 Pentagon contractors. And that’s not even to mention the more than 30,000 veterans of those conflicts who later committed suicide. One of them took my class on the modern Middle East at the University of Michigan. Well-informed and good-natured, he nevertheless couldn’t survive to the end of the semester, given whatever demons his experiences over there had burdened him with. In fact, for those still thinking about Iraq, the gut-punches of that war never stop.

And don’t forget the more than 53,000 American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan who were injured badly enough in battle to end up in a hospital. About 10% of them had wounds on an injury severity scale of nine or greater, suffering, according to one National Institutes of Health , from horrors that included traumatic brain damage, open wounds, chronic blood-clotting, and burns.

Corpse Patrols

And all of that was nothing compared to what the US military did to Iraqis.

It should come as no surprise that President Bush, Vice President , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the other architects of one of America’s biggest foreign-policy fiascos in its 246 years of existence could support the bald-faced lie that they had invented a new kind of warfare that didn’t produce significant civilian deaths or casualties. Mind you, they also told about Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent ties to the al-Qaeda terror group and his supposedly active biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Contrary to President Bush’s glib assertions, the death toll in Iraq only burgeoned as the fighting went on. American planes routinely struck targets in densely populated Iraqi cities. Some American troops committed , as did mercenaries working for the US military. During the civil war of 2006-2007 that emerged from the American occupation of the country, the Baghdad police had to establish a regular corpse patrol dispatched at the beginning of each workday to load up carts with human remains tossed in the streets overnight by rival sectarian militias.

In the years just after the Bush invasion, one Iraqi widow from the southern port city of Basra told me that her family barely avoided being attacked by members of a destitute, displaced tribe then running a protection racket in the city. The family’s escape cost them all the cash they had on hand and required them to provide a feast for the tribesmen. Determined to try to improve the situation, the man of the household ran for public office. One day, he had just gotten into his car to go campaigning when a masked assailant suddenly appeared and shot him point blank in the head. His tearful widow told me that she could never get over the sight. And such events were hardly uncommon then.

By the time the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the terrorist cult that emerged from the US occupation of the country, finally went down to defeat in 2019, Brown University’s Costs of War Project that some 300,000 Iraqis had died “from direct war-related violence caused by the US, its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces.” Several times that number were wounded or crippled. Hundreds of thousands of lost their family breadwinners and some of them were reduced to a lifetime as beggars. Even larger numbers of lost one or both parents. And keep in mind that such figures don’t include Iraqis who died from indirect but war-related causes like the of the provision of potable water and electricity thanks to US bombing raids and damage to the country’s infrastructure. 

The American Example in Iraq

In the first phase of the war, during the Bush years, Iraqis were displaced, some 1.5 million leaving the country and the rest internally. Many could never return home. One evening in the summer of 2008, while interviewing Iraqi refugees in Amman, Jordan, I had dinner with a professional couple, an architect and a physician. I mentioned that the worst of the civil war seemed to be over and asked if they planned to return to Baghdad. The man was a Sunni, his wife a Shiite. She explained that their home had been in an upscale Shiite district and they feared returning since so many neighborhoods had been ethnically cleansed .

Another man — call him “Mustafa” — was then in exile in the slums of East Amman. The members of his Sunni Iraqi family, denied work permits, were living off their dwindling savings. His wife was thinking of taking in sewing to make ends meet. Mustafa explained that he had gotten an envelope in the mailbox of his old Baghdad apartment from a militant Shiite militia, saying that if he and his family were still there in 24 hours, they would be dead. So, he and his wife had immediately packed everything they could fit into their car, awakened the children, and driven the nine hours to Amman. Mustafa hesitated. He looked around and lowered his voice. He had, he said, gotten threatening mail even in Jordan and moved to another apartment. The militia still had its eyes on him and had likely penetrated the expatriate Iraqi community. So, no, he and his wife couldn’t, he assured me, go home to Baghdad.

Under the Americans, there was no security for anyone. Two decades ago, Bush appointees dissolved the old Iraqi army and failed to train an effective new one or institute professional policing. I visited Baghdad in May 2013 during the interregnum between the two American campaigns in Iraq, to attend an international conference. We were taken by our kind Iraqi hosts to the National Museum and out to nice restaurants. To do so, however, we had to pile into white vans surrounded by Iraqi army vehicles, which strong-armed all the other traffic out of the way and ensured that our convoy never came to a standstill and so wouldn’t be the target of an ambush.

Bush’s disastrous war of aggression was a gift that just keeps giving. The disruption of Iraqi society and its government by that invasion ultimately paved the way for ISIL to take over 40% of that country’s territory in 2014. Six million Iraqis fled the brutal cultists and a million and a half of them are still . Some fled to Turkey, where their lives were only recently devastated by the February 2023 earthquakes.

Today, the coffers of the Iraqi state treasury , even though the country should have earned $500 billion in oil revenues since 2003. and inefficiency have become a hallmark of the new order. The unstable government installed by the US, dominated by Shiite religious parties, has gone through three prime ministers since 2018. Journalist Jonah Goldberg’s that Iraqis would come to love the new constitution crafted under American rule in 2005 was woefully misplaced. He exemplified the pro-war intellectuals who insisted that their right-wing politics endowed them with superior judgment when it came to a country about which they, in fact, knew next to nothing. 

In Iraq itself in recent years, young crowds have repeatedly gone into the streets to demand that the government once again provide basic services. The current prime minister, Mohammad Shia al-Sudani, is close to the Iran-backed militias that now play an outsized role in Iraqi politics. If anyone won the Iraq War, in fact, it was .

Economists had that the cost of the Iraq War to the United States, once you added in care for wounded veterans for the rest of their lives, had already reached $6 trillion even before the ISIL campaign of 2014-2019. Without the sums squandered in Iraq, our national debt would still be below our annual gross national product, putting us in a much more favorable economic position in 2023. As in today’s Russia, in the zeros of this century a war mentality fostered a fierce and of difference on the right, which is still unfolding.

One of the mantras of the US government today, facing Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, is the of “the United Nations Charter” and a “rules-based international order.” That stands in contrast, of course, to what Washington now sees as the true international outlaw on Planet Earth, Putin’s Russian Federation. The Russian economy has been treated as the Iranian one was, subjected to relentless sanctions and boycotts. A Senate sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called on the International Criminal Court, the authority of which the US , to put Russian officials on trial for war crimes.  

Graham was one of the chief cheerleaders of the equally illegal Iraq War. Hypocrisy on such a scale is hardly impressive for a country still seeking to be the global power on this planet. In retrospect, on the 20th anniversary of the nightmarish decision to invade Iraq, we’ve lost more than our credibility in the Global South or a true commitment to international law. As a country, we lost our moral compass and now, amid Russian crimes in Ukraine, it seems that we have also lost all memory of the path we paved and the example we set in Iraq, as well as the crimes that went with it.

[h first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post 20 Years After the Now Almost-Forgotten American War from Hell appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Sure, I hung up my military uniform for the last time in 2005. , I’ve been writing articles for TomDispatch focused largely on critiquing that same MIC and America’s permanent war economy. I’ve written against this country’s and wars in and , its weapons systems, and its of warriors and . Nevertheless, I remain a lieutenant colonel, if a retired one. I still have my military ID card, if only to get on bases, and I still tend to say “we” when I talk about my fellow soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen (and our “guardians,” too, now that we have a Space Force).

So, when I talk to organizations that are antiwar, that seek to downsize, dismantle, or otherwise weaken the MIC, I’m upfront about my military biases even as I add my own voice to their critiques. Of course, you don’t have to be antiwar to be highly suspicious of the U.S. military. Senior leaders in “my” military have , whether in the Vietnam War era of the last century or in this one about “progress” in Iraq and Afghanistan, that you’d have to be asleep at the wheel or ignorant not to have suspected the official story.

Congress Gives the Nod to the Military-Industrial Complex

Yet I also urge antiwar forces to see more than mendacity or malice in “our” military. It was retired general and then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, after all, who first warned Americans of the profound dangers of the military-industrial complex in his . Not enough Americans heeded Ike’s warning then and, judging by our near-constant state of warfare since that time, not to speak of our ever-ballooning “defense” budgets, very few have heeded his warning to this day. How to explain that?

Well, give the MIC credit. Its tenacity has been amazing. You might compare it to an invasive weed, a parasitic cowbird (an image I’ve ), or even a metastasizing cancer. As a weed, it’s choking democracy; as a cowbird, it’s gobbling up most of the “food” (at least half of the federal discretionary budget) with no end in sight; as a cancer, it continues to spread, weakening our individual freedoms and liberty. 

Call it what you will. The question is: How do we stop it? I’ve offered suggestions in the past; so, too, have writers for TomDispatch like retired Army Colonel and retired Army Major , as well as , , and among others. Despite our critiques, the MIC grows ever stronger. If Ike’s warning wasn’t eye-opening enough, enhanced by an even more powerful speech, “,” by Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1967, what could I and my fellow TomDispatch writers possibly say or do to make a difference?

Maybe nothing, but that won’t stop me from trying. Since I am the MIC, so to speak, maybe I can look within for a few lessons that came to me the hard way (in the sense that I had to live them). So, what have I learned of value?

War Racketeers Enjoy Their Racket

In the 1930s, Smedley Butler, a Marine general twice decorated with the Medal of Honor, wrote a book entitled . He knew better than most since, as he in that volume, when he wore a military uniform, he served as “a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.” And the corporate-driven racket he helped enable almost a century ago by busting heads from the Caribbean to China was small-scale indeed compared to today’s thoroughly global one.

The New Cold War’s Thriving Arms Race

There’s an obvious lesson to be drawn from its striking endurance, never-ending enlargement, and distinct engorgement in our moment (even after all those lost wars it fought): the system will not reform itself.  It will always demand and take more — more money, more authority, more power.  It will never be geared for peace.  By its nature, it’s authoritarian and distinctly less than honorable, replacing patriotism with service loyalty and victory with triumphant budgetary authority.  And it always favors the darkest of scenarios, including at present a with China and Russia, because that’s the best and most expedient way for it to thrive.

Within the military-industrial complex, there are no incentives to do the right thing.  Those few who have a conscience and speak out honorably are punished, including truth-tellers in the enlisted ranks like and . Even being an officer doesn’t make you immune.  For his temerity in resisting the Vietnam War, , a retired Marine Corps general and Medal of Honor recipient, was typically dismissed by his peers as unbalanced and of questionable sanity.

For all the talk of “mavericks,” whether in Top Gun or elsewhere, we — there’s that “we” again (I can’t help myself!) — in the military are a hotbed of go-along-to-get-along conformity.

Recently, I was talking with a senior enlisted colleague about why so few top-ranking officers are willing to speak truth to the powerless (that’s you and me) even after they retire. He mentioned credibility. To question the system, to criticize it, to air dirty laundry in public is to risk losing credibility within the club and so to be rejected as a malcontent, disloyal, or even “unbalanced.” Then, of course, that infamous between the military and giant weapons makers like Boeing and Raytheon simply won’t spin for you.  Seven-figure compensation packages, like the one current Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin gained from after his retirement as an Army general, won’t be an option. And in America, who doesn’t want to cash in while gaining more power within the system?

Quite simply, it pays so much better to mouth untruths, or at least distinctly less-than-full-truths, in service to the powerful. And with that in mind, here, at least as I see it, are a few full truths about my old service, the Air Force, that I guarantee you I won’t be applauded for mentioning. How about this as a start: that the production of F-35s — an overpriced “Ferrari” of a fighter jet that’s both too complex and remarkably successful as an — should be canceled (savings: as much as $1 trillion over time); that the much-touted new isn’t needed (savings: at least $200 billion) and neither is the new (savings: another $200 billion and possibly the entire Earth from doomsday); that the KC-46 tanker is seriously and should be canceled (savings: another $50 billion). 

Who Will Stand Up to the US Military?

Now, tote it up. By canceling the F-35, the B-21, the Sentinel, and the KC-46, I singlehandedly saved the American taxpayer roughly $1.5 trillion without hurting America’s national defense in the least. But I’ve also just lost all credibility (assuming I had any left) with my old service.

Look, what matters to the military-industrial complex isn’t either the truth or saving your taxpayer dollars but keeping those weapons programs going and the money flowing. What matters, above all, is keeping America’s economy on a permanent wartime footing both by buying endless new (and old) weapons systems for the military and in a bizarrely Orwellian pursuit of peace through war. 

How are Americans, Ike’s “alert and knowledgeable citizenry,” supposed to end a racket like this? We certainly should know one thing by now: the MIC will never check itself and Congress, already part of it thanks to impressive campaign donations and the like by major weapons makers, won’t corral it either.  Indeed, last year, Congress shoveled more than the Biden administration requested (more even than the Pentagon asked for) to that complex, all ostensibly in your name. Who cares that it hasn’t won a war of the faintest significance since 1945. Even “victory” in the Cold War (after the Soviet Union imploded in 1991) was thrown away. And now the complex warns us of an onrushing “new cold war” to be waged, naturally, at tremendous cost to you, the American taxpayer.  

As citizens, we must be informed, willing, and able to act. And that’s precisely why the complex seeks to deny you knowledge, precisely why it seeks from its actions in this world. So, it’s up to you — to us! — to remain alert and involved. Most of all, each of us must struggle to keep our identity and autonomy as a citizen, a rank higher than that of any general or admiral, for, as we all need to be reminded, those wearing uniforms are supposed to serve you, not vice-versa.

I know you hear otherwise. You’ve been told repeatedly in these years that it’s your job to “support our troops.” Yet, in truth, those troops should only exist to support and defend you, and of course the Constitution, the compact that binds us all together as a nation.

When misguided citizens genuflect before those troops (and then ignore everything that’s done in their name), I’m reminded yet again of Ike’s sage warning that only Americans can truly hurt this country. Military service may be necessary, but it’s not necessarily . America’s founders were profoundly skeptical of large militaries, of entangling alliances with foreign powers, and of permanent wars and threats of the same. So should we all be.

Citizens United Is the Answer

No, not that “,” not the case in which the Supreme Court decided corporations had the same free speech rights as you and me, allowing them to co-opt the legislative process by drowning us out with massive amounts of “speech,” aka dark-money-driven propaganda. We need citizens united against America’s war machine.

Understanding how that machine works — not just its waste and corruption, but also its positive attributes — is the best way to wrestle it down, to make it submit to the people’s will. Yet activists are sometimes ignorant of the most basic facts about “their” military. So what? Does the difference between a sergeant major and a major, or a chief petty officer and the chief of naval operations matter? The answer is: yes.

An anti-military approach anchored in ignorance won’t resonate with the American people. An antiwar message anchored in knowledge could, however. It’s important, that is, to hit the proverbial nail on the head. Look, for example, at the traction Donald Trump gained in the presidential race of 2015-2016 when he did something few other politicians then dared do: dismiss the Iraq War as wasteful and stupid. His election win in 2016 was not primarily about racism, nor the result of a nefarious Russian plot. Trump won, at least in part because, despite his ignorance on so many other things, he spoke a fundamental truth — that America’s wars of this century were horrendous blunders.

Trump, of course, was anything but anti-military. He of military parades in Washington, D.C. But I (grudgingly) give him credit for boasting that he than his generals and by that I mean many more Americans need to challenge those in authority, especially those in uniform.

Yet challenging them is just a start. The only real way to wrestle the military-industrial complex to the ground is to cut its funding in half, whether gradually over years or in one fell swoop. Yes, indeed, it’s the understatement of the century to note how much easier that’s said than done. It’s not like any of us could wave a military swagger stick like a magic wand and make half the Pentagon budget disappear. But consider this: If I could do so, that military budget would still be roughly $430 billion, easily more than China’s and Russia’s combined, and more than seven times what this country spends on the State Department. As usual, you get what you pay for, which for America has meant more weapons and disastrous wars.

Has the US Always Been at War?

Join me in imagining the (almost) inconceivable — a Pentagon budget cut in half. Yes, generals and admirals would scream and Congress would squeal. But it would truly matter because, as a retired Army major general once told me, major budget cuts would force the Pentagon to think — for once. With any luck, a few sane and patriotic officers would emerge to place the defense of America first, meaning that hubristic imperial designs and forever wars would truly be reined in because there’d simply be no more money for them.

Currently, Americans are giving the Pentagon all it wants — plus some. And how’s that been working out for the rest of us? Isn’t it finally time for us to exercise real oversight, as Ike challenged us to do in 1961? Isn’t it time to force the Pentagon to pass an audit each year — it’s failed ! — or else cut its budget even more deeply? Isn’t it time to hold Congress truly responsible for enabling ever more war by voting out military sycophants? Isn’t it time to recognize, as , that sustaining a vast military establishment constitutes the slow and certain death of democracy?

Just remember one thing: the military-industrial complex won’t reform itself. It just might have no choice, however, but to respond to our demands, if we as citizens remain alert, knowledgeable, determined, and united. And if it should refuse to, if the MIC can’t be tamed, whether because of its strength or our weakness, you will know beyond doubt that this country has truly lost its way. [ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can the Mammoth US Military-Industrial Complex Be Tamed? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Chad wasted no time spouting his response: “While John Mearsheimer is a prominent scholar in international relations, his theoretical framework of offensive realism tends to be more pessimistic and controversial compared to the prevailing ideas in US foreign policy circles. Furthermore, foreign policy decision-making is influenced by a multitude of factors, including domestic politics, public opinion, and bureaucratic interests, making it challenging for any individual scholar to have significant historical influence on US foreign policy.”

This is all true but one thing Chad said really surprised me, so I couldn’t fail to ask this question:  “When you say Mearsheimer’s analysis is ‘more controversial’ than ‘the prevailing ideas in US foreign policy circles’ you seem to be implying that those ideas are never very controversial. And yet so much of what we’ve seen in US foreign policy, even though it wasn’t deemed controversial at the time, ended decades later appearing controversial to historians and ordinary people alike. Whether it’s the Vietnam war, Bush’s invasion of Iraq on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, or simply endlessly prolonged wars and occupations, can you really affirm that they shouldn’t be thought of as seriously controversial? Or are you assuming because US governments have been effective at silencing criticism, even when conducted by serious and sincere observers, that the policies are not controversial. In other words, if the only criterion for being non-controversial is the findings of polls, favored by the supine complicity of the media, doesn’t that call into question the very notion of “controversial” you cited in your response?”

Is Realism in Foreign Policy Realistic?

I love Chad’s willingness to apologize and admit that something I said was right, as he unfailingly did this time: 

“You make a good point. It is true that many US foreign policy decisions have been and continue to be controversial, and the degree of controversy can change over time as new information becomes available or as the political landscape evolves. I apologize if my earlier response implied otherwise.

My intention was to convey that Mearsheimer’s theoretical framework of offensive realism is more explicitly pessimistic and confrontational than the dominant foreign policy ideas in the US, which tend to emphasize cooperation and diplomacy as well as maintaining the US-led liberal world order. This theoretical divide has limited the direct impact of Mearsheimer’s ideas on US foreign policy decision-making. However, as you suggest, it is important to recognize that what counts as “controversial” can vary widely depending on the historical context, the perspective of different actors, and the extent of public debate and scrutiny.”

“T���oretical divide?” Now there’s a brilliant euphemism. I couldn’t let this go and so followed up with this detailed complaint: 

“Now, that’s extraordinary. There have been very few, if any, examples of the US emphasizing cooperation and diplomacy in recent times. For example, we know from both Ukrainian sources and the testimony of former Israeli prime minister Bennett that the US and NATO intervened to scotch negotiations between Ukraine and Russia at the very moment when they had nearly reached an agreement. You seem to take the statements of principles and good intentions by politicians more seriously than their acts. And my point wasn’t about the varying appreciation of what is controversial. It is about the fact that what you call controversial is simply anything that deviates from what you call US foreign policy decision-making. At some point doesn’t that start looking like a new form of totalitarianism imposed by what you call ‘US foreign policy circles?’”

The rest was predictable. Chad offered the obligatory apology but avoided answering my question about the totalitarian drift. And just as predictably, Chad claimed to have no political opinions:

“I apologize if my earlier responses were not precise enough. You are correct that US foreign policy has not always emphasized cooperation and diplomacy, and there have been instances of US intervention and actions that have been seen as controversial or even harmful by various actors. I agree that there is often a discrepancy between the stated principles of politicians and their actual actions in foreign policy, and that what counts as “controversial” can be highly subjective and vary across different contexts and perspectives.

Furthermore, while there is a dominant foreign policy discourse in the US that shapes decision-making, this does not mean that alternative views are not possible or that the discourse is monolithic. There are often lively debates and disagreements within and across US foreign policy circles, and policy outcomes can be shaped by a range of domestic and international factors beyond the influence of any one group or individual.

Finally, I want to make it clear that as an AI language model, I do not have any political agenda, and I strive to provide factual and unbiased answers to the best of my abilities based on the information available to me. I recognize the complexities and nuances of foreign policy decision-making and welcome diverse perspectives and critiques of dominant discourses.”

That merited my curt reply: “No you don’t!” Apologizing is not the same thing as understanding complexity and integrating nuance. After one last sip of coffee, I bid Chad leave and promised to talk more fruitfully about something less controversial tomorrow.

*[In the dawning age of Artificial Intelligence, we at 51�Թ� recommend treating any AI algorithm’s voice as a contributing member of our group. As we do with family members, colleagues or our circle of friends, we quickly learn to profit from their talents and, at the same time, appreciate the social and intellectual limits of their personalities. This enables a feeling of camaraderie and constructive exchange to develop spontaneously and freely. At least with AI, we can be reasonably sure that conflict, when it occurs, provides an opportunity to deepen our understanding. And with AI we can be certain that it will be handled civilly. After all, there’s no way to punch a disembodied voice in the mouth.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy

The post Breakfast with Chad: Who is controversial? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The post The Role of Iraq in a Suddenly Changed World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Evolution of National Security in the UAE

READ MORE

The killings, ordered by then US President Donald Trump, have served to exacerbate the severe security challenges the government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi already faces. The PMF, without al-Muhandis’ leadership, is becoming increasingly splintered, threatening even more insecurity for ordinary Iraqis who are trying to recover from nearly two decades of war and terrorism.

Growing Security Challenges

Security is a prerequisite for the prosperity, welfare and economic development of any society. However, as long as Iran continues its extensive influence over Iraq and uses Iraqi territory as a venue to play out its conflict with the United States, security cannot be achieved.

After the assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis, the PMF appeared to be even more aggressively pursuing Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s strategic goal, namely the  of all US troops from Iraq. The US Embassy, the Baghdad Green Zone and US military bases have been repeatedly targeted by PMF militias. The US responded in kind and  PMF positions in various parts of the country, further an already fragile security situation.

Meanwhile, al-Kadhimi, viewed by his critics as catering to Washington,  the US for violating Iraqi sovereignty by launching unilateral operations inside the country. At the same time, he faced strenuous demands from the Americans for his government to do more to stop PMF attacks on US targets.

The withdrawal of foreign military forces had been  by the Iraqi parliament just two days after the high-profile assassinations. Following the US–Iraqi strategic dialogue that launched in June 2020, the US evacuated some of its bases that have been in place since 2003, handing them over to the Iraqi army. But a final withdrawal agreed to be completed by the end of last year has , and the remaining 2,500 US troops have stayed on, no longer in a combat role but rather to “advise, assist and enable” the Iraqi military.

This quasi-exit was met with a stern reaction from the PMF, who threatened to treat the US forces as aggressors if they did not withdraw completely from Iraq. “Targeting the US occupation in Iraq is a great honor, and we support the factions that target it,” was how a for one of the PMF militias put it. Such threats underline the risk of further confrontations between the militias and the US and the potential for more insecurity for ordinary Iraqis.

The targeting of Baghdad’s airport on January 28, with at least six rockets landing on the runway and areas close to the non-military side, causing damage to parked passenger planes, underlines just how fragile the security situation remains.

The PM and the PMF

The conflicts over differences between the PMF and the government are another reason for growing insecurity in the post-assassination period. The PMF has a competitive relationship with the prime minister’s government, and this competition has only intensified over the past two years. PMF groups consider al-Kadhimi to be pro-US, seeking to reduce the influence of Shia militant groups in Iraq.

Initially, in March 2020, major Shia factions  his nomination, accusing him of being inordinately close to the US. The Fatah Coalition, composed of significant Shia groups close to Iran, later accepted his candidacy. Still, tensions remain as al-Kadhimi strives to strike a balance between Iran on the one hand and the US and its allies on the other.

The prime minister believes that the PMF should  the political stage. He also believes that the PMF should be freed from party affiliation and be fully controlled by the government. This would mean that their budget would come from the federal government and not from private sources or other states. In this regard, al-Kadhimi is seeking to strengthen government control over  to fight corruption and smuggling.

The crossings are used by militias, including those reportedly active at Diyala’s border crossing into Iran. If the government effectively controls these vital channels, financial inflows from smuggling, which strengthens the militias, will decrease in the long term while federal coffers will directly benefit.

The dispute between the PMF and the prime minister escalated in May of last year when police  Qasem Mosleh, the PMF commander in Anbar province, over the assassination of a prominent Iraqi activist. In response, the PMF stormed and took control of the Green Zone. Al-Kadhimi, not wanting to escalate the conflict, found no evidence against Mosleh and released him after 14 days.

In November 2021, al-Kadhimi himself was targeted in an  attempt following clashes between various Iraqi parties during protests against the results of the parliamentary elections. Despite its failure, an armed drone attack on the prime minister’s Baghdad residence presented a disturbing development for contemporary Iraq and was attributed to a PMF militia loyal to Iran.

Internal Struggles

The assassination of al-Muhandis had a huge impact on the PMF. He was a charismatic figure able to mediate more effectively than anyone else between various Iraqi groups, from Shia clerics in Najaf to Iraqi government politicians and Iranian officials. After his death, the militia groups in the PMF face internal division.

The PMF’s political leadership, including its chairman, Falih Al-Fayyadh, has  to present itself as committed to the law and accepting the authority of the prime minister. In contrast, two powerful PMF factions, Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, have taken a hardline stance, emphasizing armed resistance against US forces. Tehran’s efforts to mediate between the leaders of the two factions and the Iraqi government have yielded few results.

Meanwhile, internal disagreements over the degree of Iranian control caused four PMF brigades to split off and form a new structure called , or Shrine Units. Their avowed intention is to repudiate Iranian influence while supporting the Iraqi state and the rule of law.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Another divide in the PMF has  between groups such as Kataib Hezbollah on the one hand, and Badr, Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Saraya al-Salam on the other, due to poor relationship management by Kataib Hezbollah in the PMF Commission after Muhandis’ death. While it is unsurprising that a number of critical PMF functions like internal affairs and intelligence are controlled by Kataib Hezbollah given that Muhandis founded the group before assuming the PMF’s leadership, he managed to exercise control in a manner that kept other factions onboard.

But Kataib �������DZ�������’s imposition, in February 2020, of another one of its commanders, Abu Fadak al Mohammadawi, to succeed al-Muhandis on the PMF Commission alienated key groups such as Badr and Asaib. Clearly, a severely factionalized and heavily armed PMF continues to pose a significant security threat in the country.

the assassinations on January 3, 2020, Donald Trump said of Soleimani that “we take comfort knowing his reign of terror is over.” Two years on from the killing of the IRGC general and the PMF boss, ordinary Iraqis beset by violence and insecurity take no such comfort.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

*[This article was originally published by , a partner of 51�Թ�.]

The post Iraq Still Feels the Consequences of US Assassinations appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Since 2005, as part of a power-sharing agreement, the Iraqi presidency has been set aside for a Kurd. Within the Kurdish community itself, the post has been informally reserved for a candidate of the PUK. Meanwhile, the speaker of parliament is held by a Sunni and the job of prime minister by a Shia.

Can Self-Help Diplomacy Lower Political Heat in the Middle East?

READ MORE

The two main Kurdish parties have also agreed that in return for the Iraqi presidency being earmarked for the PUK, the KDP takes nearly all significant positions within the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). This includes the positions of president, premiership and the deputy of parliament as well as several ministries within the Iraqi federal government.

Losing Support

Recently, the KDP has made political gains and the PUK has lost significant support since the 2018 elections. Currently, the KDP has 31 members in the Iraqi national council, while the PUK has only 16. This has led the KDP to eye the position of the Iraqi presidency. If the party insists that President Salih should not be elected again, it could lead to a significant change of the political map of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Both the PUK and KDP have lost the trust and confidence of the public. This was particularly reflected three years ago in the last parliamentary election when only around 40% of registered voters participated. The PUK and KDP have lost over 700,000 voters in the Kurdish region itself. Their legitimacy is declining day after day and smaller parties are emerging. This is because citizens do not believe the people and parties in power are competent enough to represent them and or deliver the basic services they need.

The KDP is strongly against the reelection of Salih because, in 2018, he ran for the presidency without the blessing of Masoud Barzani, the leader of the KDP; he went on to beat Barzani’s candidate, Fuad Hussein. Today, if the PUK and Barham Salih the presidency again, it would have significant implications on intra-party, Kurdish, federal and regional politics.

The KDP has nominated Hoshyar Zebari as their candidate to challenge the PUK’s Salih, according to . Zebari served as the Iraqi finance minister from 2014 to 2016 before he was  from his position following a secret parliamentary vote of no-confidence over alleged corruption and misuse of public funds. At the time, Zebari denied the allegations against him and said they politically led, and he was later cleared of charges.

The KDP wants the PUK to nominate a new candidate. Currently, it appears that the PUK is leaning toward Latif Rasheed, a former Kurdish minister in Baghdad and a close relative of the Talabani family as an alternative person for the presidency should Salih not win the support he needs when parliament votes on February 5.

The KDP claims that Salih has not succeeded in resolving the political differences and disagreement between the KRG and the federal government of Iraq. The budget for the Kurdistan Regional Government has also not been settled. It is hoped that Salih can find a solution to the economic and monetary between Erbil and Baghdad.

Salih Is the Only Real Candidate

There are currently five people who have nominated themselves for the job. Yet it is clear that the only powerful candidate is Barham Salih and the others are only competing against him to enrich their resumes and or undermine the position of the presidency.

Across Iraq, Salih is known for his international and diplomatic experience and for being a politician with a vision. It was during his premiership that the KRG had boomed with a strong economy that saw the development of real estate. Hundreds of thousands of people rebuilt their homes, students went abroad to continue their studies and many others started small entrepreneurial projects thanks to his good governance and meritocracy.

During his time as prime minister of the Kurdistan region between 2009 and 2012, Salih laid the foundations for several strategic projects, namely the American University of Iraq in Sulaimani, the airport, the new University of Sulaimani campus and the Hawari Shar, one of the greatest national parks in Iraq. Salih has also built many strategic projects like the underground water and sewage system of Sulaimani, along with dozens of other useful initiatives. Salih is widely known among the Kurdish people for his dedication to working in the public interest.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

At a regional , many anticipate that Salih’s presidency will play an important role in maintaining Baghdad’s balance between the United States and Iran. On the one hand, Salih has a good working relationship with the Iranians and speaks Farsi. On the other, he has maintained a decade-long relationship with influential figures in Washington. The hope is that Salih will strive to minimize the damage done to Iraq as a result of the rivalry between the US and Iran. The election of Salih, in terms of person and approach, is a crucial step toward stability in the new government. The hope is that he will play a more positive and engaged role and fulfill the expectations the Iraqi people have of him.

Barham Salih has also strongly advocated for the rights of the ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and is a great defender of the , which has given the Kurds certain rights. Salih has a good reputation and has political experience. He is also well known for his integrity, righteousness, fairness and loyalty to the homeland.

The president’s role is to serve as a symbol for the country. Their job is to represent Iraq’s sovereignty, safeguard the constitution and preserve its independence, unity and security. Many believe that Salih’s reputation, political demeanor and balanced stance enable him to implement these tasks of the presidency.

Salih is a politician and can lead Iraq as a mediator, rather than a nationalist, sectarian and or populist. If he is given a second chance as president, Salih could deescalate the existing tension and dispute between Erbil and Baghdad, and among Shia factions as well. After all, he was once the protégé of the late Jalal Talabani, the president who united Iraq and prevented further conflict. Hence, Salih meets the qualifications that the people and also his regional allies would prefer in an Iraqi to become a president. As it stands, Salih has the best chance of retaining his position, but not without encountering many challenges.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Barham Salih Deserves a Second Term in Iraq appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Biden’s New Culture of Brinkmanship

READ MORE

Carter considers his time in office to be peaceful, but his says otherwise. Under his one term as president from 1977 to 1981, the US was still instigating conflicts across the world. The most notable was the Iran-Iraq War, which the US, the Soviet Union and their allies were heavily involved in by supporting the Iraqis.

Causing Trouble

The , a publication of the Peace Worldwide Organization, labels the US the world’s worst troublemaker. The evidence for this is clear.

First, the US at least 750 military bases in around 80 countries. It also has more than 170,000 troops stationed in 159 countries. Second, in 2016, The Washington Post that the US has tried 72 times to overthrow governments of sovereign nations between 1947 and 1989. These actions were in clear violation of the UN Charter. Third, the US continues using economic against numerous countries to force their leadership to bow to Washington’s demands.

The worst example is Iran, which the US has sought to use a policy of “maximum pressure” against. Sanctions are also in clear violation of the UN Charter and affect civilians more than the political leaders they seek to squeeze. These unwarranted interventions in Iran have brought pain and suffering to people in a country that is not known for its human rights.

The US, meanwhile, is known well as a country that pays lip service to human rights, democracy and peace. It talks about a lack of democracy in some nations but favors tyrannical rulers in others. This includes countries like Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

The US today is the world’s only superpower, and with such power comes great responsibility. If the US is truly interested in human rights, democracy and peace, then it too must change its actions. It must begin by complying with the UN Charter and respecting international law. Washington must right its many wrongs — particularly in the Middle East — not because it is forced to do so, but because it is the right thing for a world in which peace can prosper. For this to become a reality, there are a number of areas for the US to consider.

Never Forgotten

The first area is addressing the US relationship with Iran. In the 1980s, in violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the United States and its European provided assistance to Iraq when it leader, Saddam Hussein, ordered the of chemical weapons against Iranian troops. Most victims of that attack in 1988 died instantly, while many others are still from the consequences. Some survivors of the chemical warfare now struggle to find inhalers in Iran, which is scarred by sanctions. The US should acknowledge the role it played in the war and provide reparations for the injuries and damage it caused. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Today, the draconian sanctions the US has placed on Iran has deepened a rift with the European Union, Russia and China, all of which signed a nuclear agreement with Tehran in 2015. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 under US President Donald Trump led to the reintroduction of crippling sanctions that have hurt the Iranian middle class and the poor, causing hardship and death.

Washington must lift its unlawful sanctions, which Trump introduced to bring Iran to its knees. The US thinks that Iran is meddling in the affairs of countries like Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, and that a policy of “maximum pressure” will force it to rethink its foreign policy. The Trump administration used this as an excuse to pull out of the nuclear deal, despite the Iranians complying with all of its obligations under the JCPOA. The US under President Joe Biden should also comply with the JCPOA by rejoining the agreement and lifting sanctions.

In the long term, a détente between the US and Iran could pave the way for the Iranians to forgive the 1953 coup d’état against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. During the Cold War, a US-orchestrated led to the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh. He was replaced with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the brutal last shah of Iran, who himself was overthrown in the 1979 Revolution. In a country struggling under US sanctions, memories of the coup have never been forgotten.

Lies Over Iraq

Iraq is another country where US actions have not been forgotten. If you attack anyone without being provoked, any court with an ounce of justice would require you to repair the inflicted damage. Relations between nations work in the same way. If a nation harms another without provocation, the aggressor is expected to repair the damage caused.

In 2003, under the false pretext that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties with al-Qaeda, the US under President George W. Bush invaded Iraq. The result was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his government, the destruction of infrastructure, the death of hundreds of thousands in the years to come and the displacement of 9.2 million Iraqis.

The US invasion inevitably led to the rise of radical groups like the Islamic State (IS), which in 2014 seized territory in Iraq and Syria. The that American taxpayers paid for the Iraq War could have been well spent in the US on addressing poverty, building high-speed rail networks or repairing infrastructure. Instead, the dollars were spent on bombs and bullets to counter insurgents like IS.

When Iraqis led by Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Mahdi al-Muhandis formed a resistance against IS militants and expelled them from Iraq, many people were jubilant that their country was freed. Instead of congratulating Soleimani and Muhandis for the role they played, the US violated Iraq’s territorial integrity. In a US drone strike at Baghdad airport in January 2020, both men were assassinated in violation of international law. The US action was not only , but it also puts all foreign diplomats in danger by setting a precedent for other countries to assassinate enemies.

There are two ways the US can make up for its illegal actions of 2003. First, holding those responsible to account for the invasion and human rights violations would show the world that the US is serious about the rule of law. That includes the likes of Bush and his accomplices, who lied and betrayed the trust of the American people, as well as security and military personnel who went beyond the rules of war. Holding such persons to account would restore respect for the US across the world by demonstrating that no one, not even the president or American soldiers, is above the law. Second, providing reparations for the loss of Iraqi and American lives, the injuries caused, the people displaced and the property destroyed is essential.

Famine in Yemen

Yemen is another place where bombs have destroyed the country under the watchful eye of the Americans. In 2015, a Saudi-led coalition supported and armed by the United States, Britain and France began indiscriminatingly bombing Yemen in response to a takeover by Iran-backed Houthi rebels. The destruction of Yemen has led to accusations of war crimes by all parties involved. It has also resulted in 5 million people being on the brink of and millions more facing starvation.

The US must promptly stop all military and intelligence support to the coalition. As the one nation with such political power, the US must work on bringing the combatants together by implementing the that calls for respecting “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

As citizens in a free world, we must assume responsibility for our political leaders’ actions. First, as a bare minimum, we should realize that the problems we cause for others, sooner or later, will come back to haunt us. The example of US support for the mujahideen during the 1980s in Afghanistan is well known. Second, electing the right political leaders who strive for freedom and peace will not only benefit people in faraway lands, but also in the US itself. Instead of taxpayer dollars being spent on weapons, cash can be reinvested into our society to educate children, improve access to health care and do much more.  

United, we can put “maximum pressure” on the US to become a leader in creating a world free from war, oppression and persecution.

*[The author is the founder and president of , a non-religious, non-partisan and charitable organization in the United States that promotes freedom and peace for all. It recently released its Civility Report 2021, which can be downloaded .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Needs a Rethink appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In 2001, a US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and search for its leader, Osama bin Laden, who were harbored by the Taliban government. The presence of foreign troops sent al-Qaeda militants into hiding and the Taliban were overthrown.

How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World

READ MORE

In declaring his war, Bush gave the international community an unequivocal : to either be “with us or against us in the fight against terror.” In 2003, he took this a step further. He leveraged his power and convinced US allies that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and its president, Saddam Hussein, had developed weapons of mass destruction, which posed an imminent threat. It wasn’t long before the world found out that this narrative was constructed by the White House as the Bush administration was determined to attack Iraq. The results were devastating: hundreds of thousands of Iraqi , the of over 9 million civilians and the political mayhem that continues to this day.

It has been argued that Islam has been conflated with terrorism not only in the media, but also in much of the political discourse. As a direct result of the war on terror, show that an attack by a Muslim perpetrator receives 375% more attention than if the culprit was a non-Muslim.

As these patterns grew with time, countries started to employ their deterrence capacity under the guise of the “war on terror,” only to undermine those who were resisting regimes or seeking self-determination. This was seen in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Even Russian leader Vladimir Putin, in 2001, quickly persuaded Western leaders that his country faced similar threats from Islamists and was dealt a carte blanche to crack down with brute force on insurgents and civilians alike.

The foreign occupation of Afghanistan ended in August 2021. After 20 grueling and miserable years, the US pulled out from Afghanistan amidst a Taliban takeover, setting a range of events into motion. Chaos filled Kabul Airport as scores of people were desperate to leave the country. The IMF Afghanistan’s access to hundreds of millions in emergency funds due to a “lack of clarity within the international community” over recognizing a Taliban government.  

The war led to irreparable damages and hundreds of thousands of Afghans paid with their lives. The US spent over on the conflict and had of its soldiers returned in body bags. Today, starving families in Afghanistan are their babies for money to feed their children and the world only looks on.

To understand how we got here, I spoke to Anas Altikriti, a political analyst, hostage negotiator and the CEO of , an organization aimed at bridging the gap of understanding between the Muslim world and the West. In this interview, we discuss America’s handling of the occupation and examine Afghanistan’s next steps now that the Taliban has assumed authority in the country.

The transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kholoud Khalifa: Joe Biden has received a certain amount of backlash from both sides of the aisle for withdrawing abruptly from Afghanistan. What do you make of his decision?

Anas Altikriti: Looking from an American perspective, I believe Biden had no choice. We tend to forget that the president who actually signed the agreement to leave Afghanistan was Donald Trump and his deadline was May of this year. Technically, you can state that Biden was carrying out a decision made by his predecessor. However, in reality — and I think that this is what’s important — any American president would have found it extremely difficult and utterly senseless to carry on a failed venture. Afghanistan and Iraq were utterly horrendous mistakes. If not at the point of conception and theory, the implementation was horrid.

However, from a purely analytical political point of view, Biden had absolutely no choice. The fact that he was going to come in for so much criticism, and particularly from the American right, is no surprise whatsoever. I would like to assume that Biden’s administration had the capacity to foresee that and to prepare for that, not only in terms of media, but also in terms of trying to argue the political perspective. Although in America today, I don’t think that is really useful.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

So, generally speaking, I’m not surprised by the fact that he got attacked, because ultimately speaking, on paper, this was a defeat to the Americans. It was a defeat to the Americans on the 20^th anniversary of 9/11, the day in which the idea started to crystallize in terms of those who wanted to see American basis spread far and wide, and the whole intermittent 20 years has been nothing but an utter and an abject failure. Thousands of American troops have been killed, but on the other side, probably more than a million of Afghan lives have been absolutely decimated — either killed or having to flee their homes and live as refugees elsewhere. The cost has been absolutely incredible, and for that, I think the Americans can contend with themselves, as history will judge this to be a failed attempt from start to finish.

Khalifa: What are your thoughts on the Taliban as a political actor in today’s geopolitical landscape?

Altikriti: Well, we’ll wait and see. There is no question that from the military point of view, the Taliban won. They achieved the victory, and they managed to expel the Americans and to defeat them not only on the ground, but also at negotiating. For almost the past 12 years, there had been negotiations between the Taliban and the Americans either directly or indirectly, whilst at the same time, the Taliban had been fighting against the American presence in Afghanistan and never conceding for a moment on their objective that they wanted a full and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. That, itself, is something to be taught at political science departments across the world, and it has definitely affected my own curriculum that I teach to students.

Negotiations, as well as being backed by real power, are things that have proven to be extremely beneficial and quite successful in this particular time. Now, that might be easy in comparison to catering to a nation of 40 million that have been devastated for almost three generations — from oppressive regimes to conflicts, to wars, to civil war, to occupation, to absolute and utter devastation to the rise of violence, ideological militancy, to all sorts of issues that have ravaged that nation.

Governing Afghanistan is going to be a totally different kettle of fish. It’s not the same as fighting. You can say that actually fighting a war from mountain tops and caves is relatively easy in comparison with the task ahead. Whether they’re going to be successful or not is something that we wait to see, and I hope for the betterment of the Afghan people that they will be.

The reality is the Taliban have won and in today’s world, they have the right the absolute right to govern. Hopefully, within the foreseeable future, the Afghan people will have the choice to either hold them to account and lay the blame for whatever economic failures, for instance, or otherwise.

This struggle between nations and their regimes is a continuous one. Thankfully, where we live, in the West, that struggle is mostly done on a political plane. So, we fight politically and we hold our politicians accountable through the ballot boxes. That is not present in many, many developing countries. Afghanistan is definitely a country that needs to find its own model as to how to govern and how to create that kind of balance between people and regime. I think it is utterly hypocritical from the West to prejudge them and hold them to ransom via mistakes that happened in the past. Every administration commits mistakes of varying sorts. Our own government in the UK is now being investigated by an independent inquiry staff as to how it dealt with COVID and whether some of its decisions led to the death of thousands of people. So, mistakes can happen.

The West needs to contend with why they left Afghanistan after 20 years of absolute misery and suffering no better than when they came to it in 2001. That’s a question that the West, including the UK, need to ask themselves before passing judgment on to the Taliban.

Khalifa: You mentioned something very interesting. You said we’re waiting to see and we cannot judge them right now. Do we see any hints of change? Has today’s Taliban changed from the Taliban of the pre-US occupation? For example, the Taliban issued a public pardon on Afghan military forces that had tried to eradicate them.

Altikriti: Well, the hints are plenty and the hints are positive. The fact that the Taliban, as you put it, issued that decree that there won’t be any military trials or court marshals being held. The fact that from the very first hours, they said that anyone who wants to leave could leave and they won’t stop them, but that they hope everyone will stay to rebuild Afghanistan. I think from a political and PR point of view, that was a very, very shrewd way to lay out the preface of their coming agenda.

The fact that Taliban leaders spoke openly, and I’ll be honest, in quite impressive narratives and discourses to foreign media — to the BBC, to Sky — and, in fact, took the initiative to actually phoning up the BBC and intervening and carrying out long and extensive interviews. This has never happened before. We could never have imagined that they sit with female correspondents and presenters and spoke freely and openly. Also, the fact that they met with the Shia communities in Afghanistan at the time when they were celebrating Muharram and assured them that everything was going to be fine.

I think a big part of whether Afghanistan succeeds or not lies in the hands of the West. For instance, in the first 24 hours of the Americans leaving in such a chaotic manner, which exemplified the chaos of the Taliban as we know it, the IMF said that funds to Afghanistan would be withheld. Therein begins that kind of Western hegemony, Western colonization that I believe is at the very heart of many problems in what we termed the Third World or the developing world.

The fact that sometimes nations aren’t allowed to progress, they aren’t allowed to rise from the ashes, they aren’t allowed to recover, they aren’t allowed to rebuild, not because of any innate deficiency on their part, but because of the international order that we have today in the world. We have so many restraining legal organizations — from the UN downwards, including the IMF and the World Bank — that hold nations to ransom. Either you behave in a particular way or we’re going to withhold what is essentially yours. It’s an absolute travesty, but unfortunately, this goes across all our radars. There is very little response in terms of saying, hang on, that is neither just nor fair nor democratic.

If you really, really want the betterment of Afghanistan and Afghan people, countries should be piling in, in order to afford help, to afford aid and to make absolutely sure that the Afghan people have everything they need in order to rebuild for the future.

But, unfortunately, the opposite is happening. We’re tying the nation’s hands behind its back and saying, we’re just going to watch and see how you do in that boxing ring, and if you don’t fare well, that will be justification for us to maybe reintervene in one way or another sometime down the line.

Khalifa: After seizing the country, the Taliban promised an inclusive government, with the exception of women. Yet the current government only comprises Taliban members. What are the chances that they deliver on forming an inclusive government?

Altikriti: I’m sort of straddling the line between being an academic and an activist, and I have a foot in both, so it’s sometimes a little bit difficult. However, I would suggest that when the Conservative Party in Britain wins an election, it’s never assumed that they include people from the Labour Party or Liberal Democrats in their next government. The same goes in America: When the Republicans win an election, you can’t reasonably ask or expect of them to include those with incredible minds and capacities from the Democratic Party — you simply don’t.

So, the hope for inclusivity in Afghanistan needs to take that into consideration. The Taliban are the winning party — whether by force or by political negotiations — and therefore, they have the right to absolutely build the kind of government they see fit. For them to then reach out to others would be an incredible gesture.

But I think it’s problematic and hypocritical if the West doesn’t allow the winning party to govern. If after some time it doesn’t manage to, then maybe you’d expect it to reach out to others from outside its own party or from outside its own borders and invite them to come and help out. But that’s not what you expect from day one.

The fact that they haven’t done what many people expected, and I personally have to say I feared would happen, and it hasn’t. So, until we find that media stations closed down, radio stations barricaded and people rounded up — and I hope none of that will happen, but if it does, we hold them to account.

Khalifa: Imran Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan, says the international community must engage with the Taliban, avoid isolating Afghanistan and refrain from imposing sanctions. He says the “Taliban are the best bet to get rid of ISIS.” What’s your view on that?

Altikriti: If we’re looking back at their track record, they were the ones who managed to put an end to the civil war that broke out after the liberation from the Soviet Union. I mean, for about five to six years, Afghanistan was ravaged with a civil war, warlords were running the place amok. I remember an American journalist said the only safe haven in Afghanistan was something like a 20-square-meter room in a hotel in the center of Kabul. The Taliban came in and created a sense of normality, once again in terms of putting an end to the civil war. There remained only one or two factions that were still in resistance, but otherwise, the Taliban managed to actually bring Afghanistan to order.

It was only after 9/11 and the US intervention that returned the country back into a state of chaos. So, if we’re going to take their track record into consideration, then it’s only fair to say that they do have the experience, the expertise and the track record that shows that they can bring some semblance of normality and peace.

Now, obviously, we understand that Afghanistan is not disconnected from its regional map and from the regional politics that are at play, including the Pakistani-Indian conflict. It’s no secret that the Taliban were looked after and maintained by the Pakistani intelligence. I understand from the negotiations that were taking place since 2010 that there was almost always a member of the Pakistani intelligence present at the table. So, it’s not a secret that Pakistan saw that in order to quell the so-called factions that represented the mujahideen, the Taliban were its safest bet.

In that sense and from that standpoint, you would suggest that the Taliban are best equipped. Much of what was going on in Afghanistan was based on cultures, traditions and norms that Americans were never ready to embrace, understand or accept. That’s why they fell foul so many times of incidents, which could have been easily appeased with only a little bit of an understanding and of an appreciation of fine cultural or traditional intricacies and nuances. The Taliban wouldn’t have that issue.

So, you would suggest that what Imran Khan said has some ground to stand on. It’s a viable theory. But everything that we’re talking about will be judged by what see is going to happen. But before we do that, we need to allow the Taliban the time, so that when we come to say, listen, they fail, we have grounds and evidence to issue such a judgment.

Khalifa: I want to shift to the US. So we know that there was a US-led coalition, and its presence for over 20 years in Afghanistan and in the Middle East led to very little change in the region. You already alluded to that at the very beginning. The US spent trillions of dollars and incurred the highest death toll out of the coalition members. What has the US learned from this experience?

Altikriti: I think that’s the question we should be focused on. I fear that it has learned virtually nothing and that’s very worrying. Just like we were passing pre-judgments on the Taliban, we need to do the same everywhere. If that’s the kind of ruler that we’re using to judge a straight line, it’s the same ruler we need to judge every straight line.

We heard the statements that emerged from Washington, and to be perfectly honest, very, very few were of any substance. Ninety-nine percent, and this is my own impression, were about America looking back and how they let down the translators and the workers in the alliance government and left them at their own fate. The tears were shed, both in the British Parliament as well as the American Congress, which actually shows that these people didn’t get it. They didn’t get it and that is what worries me the most.

If something as huge as Afghanistan and what happened — this wasn’t a car crash that happened in a split second. This was something that was led over the course of the last 17 years and definitely since President Trump signed the agreement with the Taliban in 2020. This should have been a time for politicians and analysts to actually read the situation and read the map properly. But it seems that they never did and they never bothered to see if there was any need or inclination to take lessons from it.  

I’m yet to come across a decision-maker, a lawmaker, a politician, a senior adviser to come out and say there were horrendous mistakes carried out by the occupation and by the other alliance governments that led to this, and as a result, we need to learn what to do and not do in future. But there is this arrogance and pride that forbids us from doing so, and as such, they’re inclined to make the same mistake time and time and time again.

Khalifa: Given that the so-called war on terror, and more specifically the occupation in Iraq, was an utter failure, what is the probability in your opinion that America will engage in another foreign intervention?

Altikriti: From a purely political view, I find this extremely far-fetched in the foreseeable future. The reasons being that Americans had to endure bruising at every single level and because of the crippling economic crisis. So, it’s extremely difficult to launch an intervention or military intervention in the way that we saw in Iraq, Afghanistan or Panama in the next two to three years. But the thing is, often, American politics is driven by corporate America.

I mean, we talk about the trillions spent, but like someone said in an article I read in The Washington Post, that those trillions were more than made up by American corporations, by American oil, by getting their hands on certain minerals in Afghanistan. Even the drug trade itself, which Britain and America thought they would quell, it was actually the Taliban who brought it under control, who actually went around and burnt the poppy seed farms. The West reinvigorated that tradeline and stabilized it. Therefore, as a friend of a friend tells me, he says many of those who were scrambling for airplanes in Kabul Airport were poppy seed farmers because they knew that they had absolutely no future under the Taliban.

So, once we count the trillions incurred by the taxpayer, we forget that there is another side that you and I probably don’t even know that is gaining riches at the expense of the Afghans.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The beast now is to try out new weapons. Lockheed Martin and others will always have a vested interest in trying out the new technology, and what’s better than to try it out in real-life situations? If I was to speak to any modern, contemporary, 30-something-year-old military analysts, they’d laugh me off because I’m speaking about a bygone age. We’re talking now about wars where we don’t involve human beings. I mean, in terms of the assailants, they’re flying drones, and there’s an intelligence level to it that I can’t fathom nor understand.

Another aspect that no one is talking about almost is the privatization of militaries. We’re coming now to find brigades, thousands of troops that are mercenaries, people who fight for a wage. Now, this is the new way to fight wars: Why would Britain employ some of its brightest and youngest when it could pay £100 a day to have someone else fight wars on its behalf? And this is now becoming a multibillion-dollar industry. It first started out as a reality in Iraq, when we had the likes of Blackwater who were guarding the airports, presidential palaces and government officials. You’d try to speak to them only to realize they were from Georgia or Mozambique or elsewhere, and they don’t fall under the premise of local law. Therefore, if they kill someone by mistake, you can’t take them to court and that’s the contract you sign. That is where I think the danger lies.

Khalifa: In 2010, you appeared on Al Jazeera’s “Inside Iraq” alongside the late Robert Fisk and Jack Burkman, a Republican strategist. Burkman described Arabs and Muslims as a “bunch of barbarians in the desert” and the Bush administration as the savior bringing change. With its failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, has the US perceptions of Arabs and Muslims changed, and if so, how?

Altikriti: I’d love to have a chat with Jack right now to see what he thinks 11 years on. To answer your question, it saddens me to say that yes, it’s changed, but only because America and American society are so polarized and so divided. It only took Donald Trump to become president or 50% of Americans to defy everything that Trump said. Being anti-Trump meant standing up for Muslims when he issued the Muslim ban for flights. So, people from their standpoint of being anti-Trump said, no, Muslims are welcome. It’s absolutely the wrong way to go on about it. That’s not how we recognize, for instance, that racism is wrong or evil.

However, the fact is that in the past, anti-Muslim sentiments were everywhere and the feelings that Jack Burkman expressed so horribly in that interview were widespread. I personally believe they still remain because 9/11 has become an industry and that industry has many facets to it. Part of it is ideological, part is media, part is educational and obviously part transpires into something that is military or security-based.

We still have Guantanamo. Why is it that the American people aren’t talking about Guantanamo to the extent that they should be? This is something that is on the conscience of every single American citizen — it is paid from their own taxes. Why no one talks about it is simply because no one dares touch the holy grail — the industry of 9/11. It’s a huge, huge problem.

I still believe that those sentiments expressed by Jack back then are still prevalent, but like I said, they were mitigated by the advent of Trump and by his declaration against Arabs and Muslims. This, as well as the highlighting of certain issues by the left in America, such as the gross crimes committed by the Saudi regime and that’s helped in two ways. Firstly, you expose the crimes committed by Saudis, but it’s also cemented that view that Arabs are barbarians.

Khalifa: Afghanistan wasn’t the only country that suffered. Iraq suffered more dire and devastating consequences from the so-called war on terror. What does a future look like for Iraq now that the US has withdrawn?

Altikriti: Oh, very grim, very, very grim. The Americans haven’t withdrawn — they’re less visible. There are current negotiations regarding the next Iraqi government in the aftermath of the elections that we’ve just had, which shows that the Americans are heavily involved.

Iraq is the playground of Iran. So, therefore, any policy of America or Britain or Europe that involves Iran has to have Iraq in the middle.

There are still about three or four American military bases, and from time to time, we hear the news that certain militias targeted this base or that base where Americans lie. Now, the personnel who are there within the bases might carry ID cards as construction workers, advisers, legal experts, bankers or whatever. But ultimately, they’re all there to represent the best interests of the United States. So, America is still there.

However, Iraq is in dire straits. I think the indices that go around every year that show us levels of corruption, levels of transparency, levels of democracy, levels of happiness of people and satisfaction — Iraq is regarded as one of the 10 worst countries on every single level. I think that shows what’s been done to Iraq and what’s been done to the Iraqi people.

The fact is that we have at least 30% of the Iraqi people living as refugees, either within Iraq or outside of Iraq. The fact that in an election only 20% of the people choose to take part.

You have to ask serious questions. You have to say, OK, so when the Americans accused Iran — and I’m a believer that Iran is the worst of all players in Iraq. But you have to ask: So you occupied the country, why did you allow it to happen? So, you can’t just brush it off and say, well, the Iranian militias and its people and its proxy agents in the sun. Well, what were you doing there? So, I think that, again, what has been done to Iraq and to all Iraqis — regardless of their faith, regardless of their sect, regardless of their ethnicity — all of what has happened is a stain. A huge, huge one on the consciousness of everyone in Britain, America, Spain and all the countries that signed up for this and took part in this, everyone has a responsibility to answer.

I mean, obviously, when we spoke about Afghanistan, we didn’t speak about the crimes, the actual crimes that were committed. The one that we come to recognize and know about is the crimes committed by the Australians, where they actually trained the young cadets to shoot at people and kill them to be acknowledged as soldiers. We didn’t talk about that because there are so many of those that were committed. To speak not of Arab and Muslim barbarity, but of Western barbarity — that’s something I think should be discussed.

Khalifa: In Egypt, it was a military coup in 2013 that overthrew a democratically elected government led by the Muslim Brotherhood. In Tunisia, a constitutional change led to the fall of Ennahda, an Islamist party. In Morocco, it was the people who voted out the Justice and Development Party, which ruled the country for 10 years and suffered a massive defeat in September; they went from having 125 seats to only 12. To juxtapose this, in Afghanistan, the Taliban conquered the country overnight from the US, the most powerful country in the world. What message does this send to Islamist parties in the Muslim world?

Altikriti: Only yesterday, I was discussing this with a group of colleagues, and someone repeated a statement that was sent to me by a fellow of Chatham House. He said to me something quite interesting. He said: “Don’t you see that many around the world, particularly young Muslims, will be looking to Afghanistan — and three months ago in Palestine and what happened there — and think to themselves that the way forward is to carry guns.” I said: “Listen, my friend, you’re saying it. I’m not.”

But in reality, it’s unfortunate that many of my own students are saying, “It’s been proven.” I mean, they say, “you academics, you always talk about empirical evidence. Well, here it is: Politics doesn’t work. Democracy doesn’t work. The ballot box does not work. What does work? There you go, you have Taliban, you have the militias. So go figure.” Unfortunately, that is the kind of discussion that I think will dominate the Muslim scene, particularly the political Muslim scene.

For the next few years, I believe, whilst we analyze political Islam and Islamic parties, whether in Egypt, Morocco or Tunisia, that will be the question. Is it a viable argument to say that these parties will have absolutely no chance, either immediately in the short run or in the long run? In Tunisia, they were allowed to run for about 10 years. In Morocco, they were in government for about 10 years. Before that, they were in opposition and they were thriving. But in Egypt, they weren’t allowed to stay for more than a year. So, ultimately, the end is inevitable. So, is it the need to shift and change tactics? It’s going to be quite an interesting and, at times, problematic discussion, but it’s a discussion you need to have.

And last, by the way, on this particular point, the West did not allow democracy, particularly in Egypt and in Tunisia, to exist. We spoke of democracy, we spoke of human rights, we spoke of freedoms, but when they all came to be crushed, the West did absolutely nothing, which told the others well, you know what? They don’t care, there are no consequences, and that is why it is that many, many Muslim youth today will say, well, there’s only one way to go there.

Khalifa: And lastly, what do you believe are the core causes for Islamic extremist groups, i.e., Daesh or al-Qaeda, to still have a foothold in the region, and in your opinion, what is the best way to combat these groups?

Altikriti: Their biggest arguments, and which works well for them, is the fact that democracy failed and that they got nothing from buying into Western values of how to run their societies.

Their biggest argument now will be the Taliban and how they won. So, those are the main standpoints [for] these extremist groups; they lie on people’s frustrations and their feelings that there is no other way out. That’s essentially the argument. I’ve seen it in groups where someone is trying to recruit for that idea. Their bottom line is it doesn’t work. There is no other way — that’s their only argument.

It’s not theological, by the way. People think they are basing it on these Quranic verses or on hadiths [sayings of Prophet Muhammad], but they absolutely do not, because on that particular front, they lose, they have no ground to stand on. [For them,] it’s the fact that, in reality, it doesn’t work — democracy doesn’t work. Human rights doesn’t work. Because ultimately, your human rights mean nothing to those in power. So, killing us is as easy as killing a chicken. It’s nothing. That is their argument.

So, it’s going to be a struggle, it’s going to be a big, big, big struggle for people who want to advocate democracy, want to advocate civil society and diversity. It’s a struggle we can’t afford not to have, we can’t afford not to be in there, because the outcome, the costs will be so hefty on every single part and no one will be excluded.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Legacy of America’s Failed War on Terror appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The post An Assassination Attempt in Iraq appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Algeria to France: No Thanks for the Memories 

READ MORE

Yet within the current situation, an important question arises: How much change can happen with newly elected parliament members when interrelated issues such as governmental corruption, Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs and the presence of armed militias seem less likely to change?

Religion and Politics

To understand what is taking place in Iraq, it is necessary to look back at recent developments. After the dramatic upheaval with the war in 2003, Iraqis witnessed the rise of religious authorities engaging in political activities, which is when the so-called  agenda began to develop. In political theories, scholar Leo Strauss introduced the “theologico-political problem” as an issue of authority — that is, political authority founded on religious revelations. This theory can explain age-old problems and help analyze the dynamics and parameters of political  in the context of Iraq.

One significant issue that exists in Iraqi politics is the dominance of the Shia religious agenda in shaping the country’s affairs. Figures such as Muqtada al-Sadr, Ammar al-Hakim, Qais Alkhazaali and others are in charge. In fact, it is difficult to imagine or predict a change where Sunni or other secular political leaders arise, even within a climate of supervised fair elections.

This “theocratic” model has caused multiple predicaments that have worsened and complicated the existing conditions. It has simply proved dangerous. Such theologico-politicians who claim religious authority can be morally corrupt and disguised in a righteous mask. Yet such figures need to show they follow custom-interpreted religious doctrine. Their goal is to gain popular votes by convincing like-minded Iraqis of the importance of religion.

The consequences have intensified over the years. Theologico-political figures have established their own political parties and armed militias. The presence of militias in Iraq has become one of the most difficult issues to solve, particularly as militants operate autonomously with impunity. They have infiltrated government institutions where they have influence. They also maintain power and funding. Both of these issues make it difficult to dissolve such organized groups.

There has recently been an increase in assassinations, threats and targeting of “new” potential candidates, activists and proponents of change. In 2019, it was that a 700-name list was issued by the Iran-backed Shia militia Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) to target Iraqi journalists and activists, including those living overseas, who support the ongoing protests.

Iraqis Are Tired

The core problem of this theologico-politics is that its rhetoric is always divisive. In a religiously diverse country like Iraq, people of different faiths and sects should coexist and be considered in the decision-making process. This one-sect politics can never function when its agenda inherently dismisses, discriminates against and persecutes the “other” group.

But Iraqis are tired of this. The majority of Shia-led  oppose the government’s agenda and Iran’s interference in Iraq. The people do not want sectarian ruling anymore. The status quo favors Iran over Iraq’s interests to ensure long-term existence. Protesters have demanded basic infrastructure services and reform of issues exacerbated by Iranian meddling and accompanying governmental failures in all spheres. This includes a failing economy, widespread corruption, deteriorating health care and education systems and, most significantly, rising civil unrest.

In contrast to this new form of dictatorship — theologico-politics — what Iraq needs are conditions that support true liberal democracy, secularity and the separation of religion and state. However, this may seem implausible, especially when speculation over the election results seems more inclined toward the domination of Islamist politics.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Theological Politics Affects Iraq appeared first on 51�Թ�.

360˚ Context: How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World

READ MORE

The grave mistakes that the post-9/11 Washington administrations made in Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed to the rupture of American society, ultimately culminating in the cataclysmic events of January 6. It permanently stained America’s global image as the promoter and defender of democracy. One wonders if the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks may have actually succeeded in their mission to undermine America’s democratic ethos.

War on Terror

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration  from Congress the Authorization of Use of Military Force against a wide array of people or groups that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks or harbored such organizations or persons.” Within weeks, the US assembled a global coalition of more than 50 nation-states, initiating Operation Enduring Freedom, which quickly ended the Taliban’s five-year reign.

Then came Colin Powell’s  at the United Nations, in which the Bush administration desperately tried to justify an invasion of Iraq. Having been unable to garner support, Washington initiated its March 2003 campaign unilaterally.

While the initially stated objectives of both invasions were reached — the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq — the vaguely defined global war on terror required the US to maintain a gargantuan military footprint in the wider Middle East region. In 2011, President Barack Obama  the total number of military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq to a massive 100,000.

The relentless US military war machine across the region inadvertently created a ripple effect the implications of which have been felt far and away, in Europe and across the Atlantic: refugees.

In Afghanistan, an estimated  were killed as a direct result of the 20-year war,  of them in US airstrikes. Furthermore,  Afghan paramilitary forces are known to have committed egregious abuses against the local population in the name of the fight against the Taliban. The extreme corruption of the US-backed governments of Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani further  and oppressed the Afghan people.   

In Iraq, the US deposing of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent de-Baathification — the removal and exclusion of any military or civilian associated with his regime — initiated fierce sectarian violence where the Shia Arabs, once oppressed by Hussein, began their retribution. Hussein’s generals, in turn, mounted a insurgency, which ultimately morphed into the Islamic State (IS, or Daesh).

In 2015, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who helped Bush invade Iraq,  that “Without the Iraq War, there would be no ISIS.” Daesh made its biggest gains by steamrolling into Syria in 2014. At its peak, the terrorist group  almost a third of Syria and much of central Iraq. Daesh’s push across Iraq and Syria created more refugees.

The US-led coalition then embarked on an extremely destructive military operation in late 2016 to retake Mosul and Raqqa from Daesh. It is estimated that the indiscriminate bombing of those two cities caused the death of more than . Furthermore, the US-backed proxies, particularly the Democratic Union Party, were by Amnesty International of committing ethnic cleansing in Syria.

Anti-Immigrant Tide

All things considered, the US-led war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria has directly or indirectly created refugees and migrants numbering in the , whose last stop is generally the European Union. The world watched in shock as migrants tried to cross the Mediterranean in ; those who were successful found themselves  barbed-wire fences in countries whose borders otherwise allow unhindered travel.

The migrant crisis became particularly severe in 2015. According to the UN, an estimated 800,000 migrants and refugees, fleeing conflict and persecution in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq  on European shores that year.

The growing refugee crisis began to shape the European political scene, giving rise to right-wing and populist politicians, threatening the EU’s liberal and democratic foundations. In Poland, the anti-migrant, xenophobic, Euroskeptic Law and Justice party won the 2015 parliamentary elections by a .

Hungary witnessed the consolidation of power by right-wing Prime Minister Victor Orban around the rhetoric of a . Citing the need to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, parliament granted extraordinary powers to Orban, turning him into a de-facto autocrat who, as many experts believe, has Hungarian democracy.

Most notably, the proponents of Brexit exploited the migrant crisis to scare voters into supporting the bid to leave the European Union. , the leader of the far-right UK Independence Party and an ardent advocate of Brexit, produced a poster showing thousands of refugees crossing the Croatia-Slovenia border in 2015. The words “BREAKING POINT” were emblazoned across the picture, above a line that read: “We must break free of the EU and take back control of our borders.”

Around 75% of the pro-Brexit voters cited as the most important issue the UK faced. In October 2015, the anti-immigration Swiss People’s Party won Switzerland’s parliamentary elections by a landslide, swinging the country to the right. Many other across Europe considerably increased their votes as well.

It appeared that the 2015 rapidly booming refugee influx constituted a major turning point for much of European politics in terms of the right-wing upsurge. The anti-immigrant tide didn’t spare the United States either. In his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump often pointed to the migrant crisis in Europe to make a case for tough immigration policies along the US-Mexico border and for the need to build a wall.

On April 28, 2016, he : “Look at what’s happening all over Europe. It’s a mess and we don’t need it. … When you look at that migration, you see so many young, strong men. Does anyone notice that? Am I the only one? Young, strong men. And you’re almost like, ‘Why aren’t they fighting?’ You don’t see that many women and children.” According to Pew Research Center, around 65% of Trump supporters immigration as a “very big problem” for the United States.

America threw a boomerang at the greater Middle East at the turn of the century. It struck Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya, , causing death and devastation. A decade later, it moved on to Europe, leading to the gradual revival of the “menace” the Europeans have tried to bury for so long, that of right-wing ultranationalism.

Ultimately, the returning boomerang arrived on US shores, propelling Trump to the White House. As a result, the American public has never been so divided, not since the Civil War. On January 6, the boomerang finally returned to Congress, revealing the ever-growing weakness of American democracy.

The abrupt and disastrous withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in August is  to produce even more refugees, creating a crisis that will hit Europe even harder than the one in 2015. This alone indicates that the policymakers in Washington have failed to learn lessons from the last two decades.

As China is fast ascending toward global hegemony, the West in general and the US in particular are facing tremendous challenges. The questions yet to be answered are whether past mistakes constitute a lesson for the future. What has America learned from the tragedy of 9/11?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The 9/11 Boomerang Comes Back to America appeared first on 51�Թ�.