If Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was hoping for a honeymoon period after his inauguration last week, he must be sadly disappointed. Less than 12 hours after Pezeshkian was sworn in, an explosion, reportedly caused by a remotely controlled bomb, shook an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) compound in central Tehran. The target: Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, an honoured guest at the inauguration, and one of the Middle East’s most wanted. The bomb under the bed killed Haniyeh instantly. Honeymoon over.
The Haniyeh assassination, attributed to Israel and not denied in Jerusalem, has scrambled all those hopes. Pezeshkian finds himself in the eye of an international storm that analysts warn could lead to all-out war, engulfing the Middle East.
Infuriated by an audacious attack that humiliated him, his country and its elite armed forces, Khamenei – Iran’s ultimate authority – is said to have ordered preparations for direct military retaliation against Israel. Avenging Haniyeh’s death was “our duty”, Khamenei said. Pezeshkian had no choice but to meekly go along. Now the world waits to see what Iran will do. So much for a fresh start.
Iran’s next step may be decisive in determining whether the Middle East plunges into chaos. Its pivotal position should come as no surprise. Its gradual emergence as the region’s pre-eminent power has accelerated in the wake of 7 October. Iran’s anti-Israeli, anti-American “axis of resistance”, embracing militant Islamist groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and ever more openly backed by China and Russia, is now a big force challenging the established western-led order.
Fucking religious nutjobs…
If you look at it through a geopolitics lens, it makes a lot more sense.
When you see how the geopolitics are fueled directly by multiple clashing religious groups vying for the same land (which is so important because muh ancient texts) it makes even more sense.
Not denying that religion plays a role, but seeing this as sectarian violence doesn’t have as much explanatory power as a struggle between competing nationalisms. Simply put, for the vast majority of the people involved, nationalism explains a lot more. And note also of course that nationalism is extremely effective in incorporating and weaponizing religion to its narrative. And the fuel of nationalism is geopolitics.
What would you say is the defining factor for those competing nationalisms?
How many of the borders in this area were dictated by the religious populations?
There isn’t separation of church and state in this place.
Most of these borders were not dictated by religious populations, in fact they were set there by the British et al
Why can’t it be both?
The Middle East has been a powder keg for a long time, so it would only make sense that nationalistic and sectarian causes would intermingle.
The Middle East has been a powder keg for a long time,
no, only since WW1 due to French and British designs, and since WW2 due to US and Israel
It is also ironic that a lot of this bigotry is coming from some of the most violent people throughout history, even in peaceful times
Don’t forget there were 500 years of Crusades that laid the template.
Why can’t it be both?
When I say “holy land” the three biggest religions (by population and death-toll alike) all point to the same slice of desert.
Some lines on a map the British made have a lot less to do with the jihads than the 2000 year old traditions and beliefs (like people outside your religious tenet are dirty subhumans that must be culled)
I didn’t design my house, but I live in it now. Seems like an apt analogy for ya to chew on.
Look, my frame of reference is the Balkans, that I know most intimately. There was a time when Greek and Turkish was defined on the basis of religion. You might have been a Turkish speaking Christian in Anatolia or a Greek speaking Muslim in Crete, and you were classified as a Greek and a Turk respectively and forced to migrate accordingly (treaty of Lausanne). In a different part of the Ottoman Empire, in Macedonia, if you sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople you were a Greek, if you sided with the Exarch of Sofia, a Bulgarian. Similarly, ninety years later, a Catholic was declared a Croat, an orthodox a Serb, a Muslim a Bosniac. Look closely and you will see the same story play out in the Caucasus and the East. The genocides of the Armenians, the Pontic Greeks, and the Assyrians by the Ottomans were not motivated by religion but by “national security”.
Religion was used to define who makes up the nations. In the Ottoman Empire, the millet system literally conflated the two ideas. But make no mistake, the Ustashe were not massacring the Serbs because of the Filioque; the Turks did not invade Cyprus in 1974 as part of some Jihad; the Greeks did not invade Anatolia in the 1920s for religious reasons; the Yugoslav wars were not sectarian violence. Religion was not the driver, it was the fuel.
In Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, religion plays a very similar role. Even the sectarian civil wars in Lebanon were mostly about who gets to control what it means to be Lebanese and who gets the upper hand, not about theological differences. Israel was founded by secular Jews as an explicitly national project. Even now, in its interactions with the CUFI crazies, it’s clear to see that the Israelis are willing to put religion aside in the service of the national interest.
Are there people who are primarily driven by religious fanaticism? Of course. But they are treated as weird by the majority. Think for example how almost everyone banded against Daesh.
What would you say is the defining factor for those competing nationalisms?
indigenous vs. people from Ukraine and Poland
Why did the Greeks, Persians and Romans want it when they were pagan? and the Egyptians long before them.
Trade routes, natural resource, strategic location, …
How about taking about the elephant in the room that is British + French colonialism plus the establishment of a genocidal apartheid settler colony along with US driven regime changes through funding terrorist groups or just outright invasions?
It’s so damn lazy to blame all of this on religion.
Both empires dissolved decades ago. The situation in Israel would have gone the way of South Africa or Hong Kong, if it weren’t for American mysticism propping it up.
You mean American evangelicals? Yeah I mean that’s true, but I interpreted OPs comment in a way that they think the conflict between Israel and everyone else would simply be about Jews vs Muslims and I think that’s a very catchy Reddit type of comment but it’s very far from reality.
There was a somewhat peaceful coexistence of all kinds of religions before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (let’s not get into the genocides the Ottoman Empire committed here). There have been pan-Arab nationalist movements in the 19th century to separate from the Ottoman Empire that the British undermined, see e.g. their meddling in Egypt. There have been local Arab nationalist movements that have been undermined, most prominently the Palestinian one.
Jews were in general safer in the Middle East than in Europe (I hope I don’t have to explain this). Especially in Palestine there have always been Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Lebanon there were and still are many Christians. In Syria there are many ethnic and religious minorities. In Iraq there has been a coexistence between Shia and Sunni people. Iran wasn’t a very religious country.
The suppression of nationalist movements during the Ottoman period, the arbitrary borders that the British and French drew after they left their colonies, the installment of monarchies loyal to their interests and the creation of Israel all fueled conflicts. After the creation of the apartheid settler colony Israel, the Americans led regime changes in
- Syria (1949, 1956-1957)
- Egypt (1952)
- Iran (1952-1953)
- Iraq (1959, 1963)
all with the goal to prevent disloyal governments from forming, or even worse regimes that would take away their rights to extracting resources for free. These regime changes usually led to the establishment of brutal military dictatorships and to resistance groups forming. This is when the religious nut jobs finally entered the stage. They were either fighting the Americans (Iran) or armed by the Americans (Saudi Arabia, Taliban anyone?). And since the post WW2 period sectarian violence emerged because who would have guessed that destabilizing an entire region just to keep its influence down would fuel conflicts between people.
Maybe now you see why it’s such a typical snappy Reddit comment to blame it on religion but it’s in fact a pretty stupid take.
Btw for sources, regarding arab nationalism there’s „10 myths about Israel“ by Ilan Pappe and regarding regime changes there’s an extensive Wikipedia article on all American led regime changes.
I’d add on that Muslims and Jews got along especially well historically. There wasn’t much competition between the two for anything, and they agreed on dietary laws and similar. The Nakba more-or-less set the entire problem in motion there.
Islam was the more progressive religion for a long time, or at least you can argue it was. Islamophobia is mostly a separate issue, but it’s worth mentioning. Religions gets used to justify whatever the influential were planning to do anyway, and all three Abrahamic religions have questionable stuff in their holy books.
Religion still drives it. The people in the middle of it could’ve made the best out of a shitty situation, but they chose conflict based on their religious ideals.
So yeah, fucking religious nutjobs.
I am lazy so I will simply copy and paste my response to the other comment.
There was a somewhat peaceful coexistence of all kinds of religions before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (let’s not get into the genocides the Ottoman Empire committed here). There have been pan-Arab nationalist movements in the 19th century to separate from the Ottoman Empire that the British undermined, see e.g. their meddling in Egypt. There have been local Arab nationalist movements that have been undermined, most prominently the Palestinian one.
Jews were in general safer in the Middle East than in Europe (I hope I don’t have to explain this). Especially in Palestine there have always been Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Lebanon there were and still are many Christians. In Syria there are many ethnic and religious minorities. In Iraq there has been a coexistence between Shia and Sunni people. Iran wasn’t a very religious country.
The suppression of nationalist movements during the Ottoman period, the arbitrary borders that the British and French drew after they left their colonies, the installment of monarchies loyal to their interests and the creation of Israel all fueled conflicts. After the creation of the apartheid settler colony Israel, the Americans led regime changes in
- Syria (1949, 1956-1957)
- Egypt (1952)
- Iran (1952-1953)
- Iraq (1959, 1963)
all with the goal to prevent disloyal governments from forming, or even worse regimes that would take away their rights to extracting resources for free. These regime changes usually led to the establishment of brutal military dictatorships and to resistance groups forming. This is when the religious nut jobs finally entered the stage. They were either fighting the Americans (Iran) or armed by the Americans (Saudi Arabia, Taliban anyone?). And since the post WW2 period sectarian violence emerged because who would have guessed that destabilizing an entire region just to keep its influence down would fuel conflicts between people.
Maybe now you see why it’s such a typical snappy Reddit comment to blame it on religion but it’s in fact a pretty stupid take.
Btw for sources, regarding arab nationalism there’s „10 myths about Israel“ by Ilan Pappe and regarding regime changes there’s an extensive Wikipedia article on all American led regime changes.
There was a somewhat peaceful coexistence of all kinds of religions before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (let’s not get into the genocides the Ottoman Empire committed here).
“If you ignore all of the racially driven genocides, the Ottomans were quite chill”
The Ottomans actively destroyed education in their territories to dumb down the population and in their end phase committed multiple genocides. They also used the Balkans as a source for recruiting sex slaves and slave soldier units. What a horrible empire, horrible as any other empire but completely out of scope for this discussion.
Again, typical Reddit type of comment.
I’m not sure what part of my comment you took to mean I thought anything pleasant about the Ottoman empire but cool thanks for the info?
You’d think they’d have moved on by now. Well. Oh well.
Oh please. The middle east has been and will be religious nutjobs vs. religious nutjobs for ages.
Don’t forget rampant nationalism and outside meddling mixed in.
this is more than that
deleted by creator
And he’ll probably also be fine with a thermonuclear wasteland as long as he’s presiding over his part of it
Would you like to play a game?
The US could, but it would require imposing actual conditions on Israel.
Killing the negotiator… Zionists never wanted peace, not even in 1923.
Fuck me that was horrific.
I guess that motherfucker never took that oath he spoke of.
Here’s another quote where he was more honest [emphasis mine]:
[It is the] iron law of every colonizing movement, a law which knows of no exceptions, a law which existed in all times and under all circumstances. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else – or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempts to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not “difficult”, not “dangerous” but IMPOSSIBLE! … Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonialization.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky
Yet, nearly half the comments here blame the Palestinians for the natural response Jabotinsky accurately predicted.
“… a colonizing adventure that stands or falls by the question of armed force.” I hate how unflinchingly this statement was made while the implications of it are terrifying. That is something I simply can’t wrap my head around.
How can people have such callous disregard for humanity?
Colonialists and imperialists and capitalists in general have been known to say and write this stuff all the time. I watched a video on United Fruit (now Chiquita) that described the military response to protests by Banana growers in the early 20th century that had them describe ‘with great delight and satisfaction’ (not the exact words, but similar sentiment) after machine guns were fired into the crowds and hundreds were killed or injured.
Israeli journalist and author Gideon Levy in 2015 explains how Israelis do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EtNFXL_ykg
tl;dw: they don’t see Palestinians as humans
Ceasefire end of this week! Trust me bro!
It’s not going to be war, Iran has to retaliate but they are not going to escalate things. I would expect a similar response to response for the attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria.
I agree, but I’m sure some of the USN is itching to pull Operation Preying Mantis 2, MOAB Boogaloo
Still doubt it’s gonna escalate tbh.
They say Houthis are an Iranian proxy and yet they’ve done more to Israel than whatever Iran has tried directly.
What’s saying that’s not intentional? using a proxy to fight a battle is nothing new.
Yes. That’s how proxies work.
Well, yeah, if you have to do the things yourself and take direct responsibility for them, then your proxies aren’t very useful
The middle east has been warring for millennia. You can’t stop them
You’re leaving out crucial pieces of information. Stop “them?” The world superpowers have meddled in, armed, and essentially used the Middle East as playgrounds for their international power struggles. So the entire world has been warring for millennia because going back to the times before that was the case, the rest of the world was fighting wars on our own turf. We just moved all of our wars there.
And this is no different. This is largely if not entirely propped up by “west vs east.” It’s just a sphere of influence for the rest of the world, and serves as a staging ground for wars we don’t want on our own doorstep. Nukes saw to that, I think. The “we’re not the ones at war” security blanket stops the nukes from dropping, I guess.
It’s silly to think the middle east is at war only because of exterior meddling once you actually read the history of the region. I’m going over Byzantine and Roman history and the eastern tribes have always been at constant war with each other.
Yeah…but so has the rest of the world. You’re acting like that’s an anomaly. Colonialism has played a massive part in the unrest in the Middle East for centuries. And, I mean…it’s the birthplace of modern society. Humans have constantly been at war, so to paint the Middle East as particularly war-ridden without noting the effects of colonialism is disingenuous at best. The area was a valuable trade route and has been resource rich—it’s literally the Fertile Crescent.
So yeah, it’s a war torn area, but discounting the effects of colonialism dating back centuries and the fact that it’s the birthplace of agriculture…it just feels weird the way you’re putting it. As if middle eastern people are particularly conflict prone. People are conflict prone. And the rest of the world has meddled in the Middle East as long as it’s been possible. The French and the British (and Italians and Russians) literally just drew borders on a whim—and for their own ends. That’s a huge part of modern strife there. And the rest is, as I said, proxy battles for the rest of the world.
So war spans the globe, so to point out he Middle East as somehow worse while completely overlooking the cause dating back centuries (that is, colonialism), really just feels like you have some ulterior motive or are pushing some fucked up idea.
The problem here is western nations use orientalist and racist narratives to pretend as if their meddling in the Middle East is not the primary cause of modern conflict in the region. People just accept those natives uncritically and assume they must be the smart ones for having read articles in the NYT about it. Never do they study the modern history of the region and the ways in which western powers are constantly intervening.
Exactly my point. The people who responded above seemed to imply It was the people of the Middle East that were causing wars. And as if dating back to the time before colonialism was a factor the rest of the world wasnt just as war-prone. You hit the nail on the head, it’s just a racist trope. I was just avoiding using that word for some reason. But the imperialist powers plundered and meddled in the Middle East ever since they were able to spread their influence there. That is the root cause of almost all modern Middle East strife.
You get downvoted out of emotional reaction but you’re right. It’s silly how many young people think this is all new or even fixable. You could eliminate every Jewish person from the middle east and Gaza and the people left will just start killing each other instead. It’s always been tribal in the middle east and it hasn’t changed in 2024. One tribe gains power and oppresses the rest, rinse and repeat.
This is such a wildly naive and orientalist view of the Middle East. If you actually studied the modern history of the region you would know that since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire western powers have ceaselessly meddled in the affairs of the people there.
They’ve supported coups in order to overthrow democratic governments. They funded right wing jihadis including the precursors to and allies of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. They’ve enabled war crimes left and right. They even invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to bomb the whole region with an extensive and secretive drone program. Even now the west continues to defend authoritarian and genocidal regimes like Saudi Arabia or Israel as long as they serve their western interests regardless of their destabilizing effect.
The reality is you have no idea what a Middle East would look like without western intervention. To pretend that you do only reveals your complete ignorance and racist arrogance.
Sure let’s look at other places where the ‘meddling western powers’ have leftand peace broke out.
Oh hang on…
Based on what? The Muslims, [Palestinian] Christians, Jews, Samaritans, Polytheistic Nomads, and the Druze living in Southern Lebanon seemed to be in peace a few decades ago.
This tacit racism and ahistorical bigotry gets upvoted. Just awful. Western meddling and Zionism is the cause.
It’s called human nature. Especially when tribalism and religion are involved. I’m native Latino and we are the same. We find division among each other and segregate into our little groups even when we’re in another country. And the more you segregate, the more you find little divisions among your shrinking group. My native blood alone made me a target when I was young. We’re all guilty of this, but some places have evolved tribalism into nationalism, whereas some global regions are still a series of small communities who have their own ways. No matter what borders you put around them. People fight. It’s sad that pointing out a simple human fact and a historical fact as well, gets you called a racist by some white kid in mum’s basement who is renting with his gut instead of brain
The only way to truly stop it is to level all of the holy sights. Even then, they might fight over the dirt.
Removed by mod
Are you denying that there seems to be a particular concentration of conflict in the middle East?
The only reason why the US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran can keep fueling warlords to continue their proxy wars is because they’re already at each other’s throats. Some tribal warfare that’s been around since the bloody middle ages.
Russia and America pulling back their assets is not going to miraculously create piece.
Removed by mod
What is in the people of that region has nothing to do with race. It’s religion.
Of religion gets educated out of that population I’m 100% certain they’ll function like anyone else.
Removed by mod
I can think of a way to stop them. It’s not a very ethical way though.
Would that be the same unethical final solution that Netanyahu has in mind?
Idk. I don’t really pay a lot of attention to talking heads and politics. I just think conflict can be generally over when troublemakers are dead.
Good luck nuking European capitals & Washington
😘
No it hasn’t, only since WW1 due to Western meddling.
Europe has a history of more brutal and longer wars. They even brought some wars our way during the Crusades.
challenging the established western-led order.
Why should the order be western led?
That wasn’t a statement on how it should be, but a statement of fact on how the world has worked since the end of ww2.
worked
is doing a lot of lifting
You’re thinking of the homonym
deleted by creator
Because they’re the only ones wanting peace. Every one else would prefer if a lot of people died.
Why the fuck does Iran think that the killing of a Hamas leader is an affront to them?
I imagine the US would be pretty peeved if Russia assassinated the leader of Ukraine while he was visiting the states.
That might be comparable if Iran gave a single shit about Palestine and it’s people.
Well yes, America can stop it any time really…
🤭
I’d love for the US to go completely hands-off the middle east if only just to stop comments like this up that seem to think one country can somehow be responsible for tons of other countries meddling in the same area.
I mean, I want that so people will stop being ripped apart by us-made explosives, tax money stops being wasted, and focus more on improving things for the people within it’s own borders and making it more inclusive to outsiders, but stopping comments like that is a nice little bonus.
😂 Do we tell them?
America is a force of nature. Nobody controls it. It is not a sentient actor. Don’t blame America…
🤭
NGL though, your username is pretty freaking great. Props for coming up with that one.
Thanks
Removed by mod
Got any proof of that?
A whole mouthful.
Is it a whole mouthful though?
Depends on which end we’re assuming they’re getting human centipede-ed with.
Yeah, his first term
Specific actions taken?
He took their ability away to fund these wars, simple as that. Biden and Kamala got in office and unlocked billions for Iran.
Lol, I’m going back to my earlier question and ask do you have proof? Back up your statement. Link the piece of legislation that he sponsored, backed other otherwise championed.
