The Assad regime recently collapsed after opposition groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and Syrian National Forces (SNF), backed by Turkey, launched a military push. At the same time, Russia and Iran reduced this support for Assad. This shift offers a glimmer of hope for a nation scarred by war and oppression. 

With the fall of the Assad regime, Syria has effectively come under the de facto influence of Turkey and Israel. The October 7 events, when Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel, further weakened Iran’s axis of resistance and its strategic project aimed at undermining Israel, delivering a significant blow to Iran. The attack triggered a full-scale war, leading to devastating Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza and escalating regional tensions.

Additionally, Russia anchored its foothold in the Middle East through a close alliance with the Assad regime and a naval base in Latakia, which gave it access to the Mediterranean. This allowed Russia to project power in the region and counter Western influence directly. The loss of this strategic leverage has diminished Russia’s ability to maintain a strong presence and shape events in the Middle East. 

Turkey and Israel stand to benefit from this new dynamic. They will use their influence to combat terrorist organizations within Syrian borders.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham: savior or threat?

Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez al-Assad, established the Assad regime in 1971 and entrenched a model of authoritarian rule centered on the Baʿath Party and the military security apparatus. Hafez consolidated power through ruthless suppression. He favored sectarian divisions and had an extensive patronage network. Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father in 2000. He initially offered hope for reform but quickly reverted to autocracy. The authorities brutally cracked down on the 2011 Arab Spring protests. The war plunged Syria into a devastating civil war. Assad’s regime, backed by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, clung to power through scorched-earth tactics. They massively used chemical weapons and a campaign of mass terror.

At the forefront of the opposition is HTS. It traces back to al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate that emerged in 2012 during the early years of the Syrian conflict. Initially committed to global jihad, the group rebranded itself as HTS in 2017 under the leadership of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. It declared a break from al-Qaeda and positioned itself as a nationalist force focused on Syria’s liberation.

Over the years, HTS has transitioned from a shadowy jihadist group to the dominant force in Syria’s northwest. It achieved a level of military and administrative control unmatched by other opposition factions. Its leadership claims a commitment to inclusive governance and minority rights, but its history of draconian social policies and sectarian leanings undermines these assertions.

Despite its pivotal role in Assad’s ouster, HTS faces challenges in gaining legitimacy. Turkey, the United States and other international actors still designate it as a terrorist organization. This limits HTS’s ability to secure external support. Allegations of corruption, intimidation and arbitrary detention have marred its governance in areas under its control. Moreover, its Islamist orientation raises alarms about the safety of Syria’s minority communities, particularly Alawites and Christians.

The fall of Assad is a blow to Iran and Russia’s regional ambitions

Iran’s intervention in Syria’s civil war after the Arab Spring was critical in sustaining the Assad regime. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was instrumental in Iran’s involvement. Soleimani coordinated a network of militias, including Hezbollah from Lebanon and other Shiite paramilitary groups from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to bolster Assad’s forces. His maneuvers in battles, such as the recapture of Aleppo in 2016, not only saved Assad’s government but also cemented Iran’s influence in Syria.

Iran invested billions of dollars in Syria, financing military operations and rebuilding infrastructure in areas under Assad’s control. This financial and material backing was coupled with an extensive military presence, including IRGC forces, advisors and bases across Syria. Syria became a conduit for Iranian support to Hezbollah, enabling Tehran to transfer advanced weaponry, including missiles and drones, to its Lebanese proxy. Establishing weapons factories and logistical hubs in Syrian territory allowed Iran to bypass international sanctions and enhance Hezbollah’s military capabilities.

The fall of Assad’s regime dismantled the axis of resistance that Tehran painstakingly built. Following the October 7 escalation and the broader war with Israel, Hamas suffered devastating losses, and its leadership, including Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, was eliminated. Hezbollah, already stretched thin from years of engagement in Syria, faced intensified Israeli retaliation that crippled its command structure. During this period, Israel killed Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, dealing a symbolic and operational blow to the group.

Moqtada-al Sadr, a Shiite cleric and leader of the Sadrist Movement in Iraq, refused to stand by Assad during his downfall, underscoring Tehran’s waning influence, even among its Shiite allies. Among Iran’s loyal partners, only the Houthi movement in Yemen remains severely curtailing Iran’s ability to project power in the region.

Now, Iran faces the prospect of direct confrontation with Israel, which has set its sights on Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure. The fall of Assad underscores Iran’s growing vulnerability. Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, may confront the possibility that it could be the next target in a reshaped Middle East dominated by Israeli and Turkish influence.

Russia’s intervention in Syria, beginning in 2015, was a game-changer for the Assad regime. Vladimir Putin aimed to stabilize Assad’s rule and preserve Moscow’s influence in the Middle East by deploying airpower and special forces. Russian military support, including the bombing campaigns in Aleppo and Idlib, turned the tide of the war in Assad’s favor. Putin also leveraged diplomatic efforts, such as the Astana peace talks, to secure Russia’s position as a key power broker in the conflict.

Syria was more than an ally for Russia — it was a strategic asset. The naval base at Tartus and the airbase at Hmeimim allowed Moscow to project power into the Mediterranean to counterbalance NATO’s presence.

Syria represented a symbolic victory for Putin’s broader geopolitical strategy. It demonstrated Russia’s resurgence as a global power capable of challenging the West, especially after the annexation of Crimea and tensions in Ukraine.

The collapse of Assad’s regime undermines Russia’s ambitions in the region. The loss of its military bases jeopardizes Moscow’s ability to counterbalance NATO and maintain a foothold in the Mediterranean.

Alexander Dugin, known as Putin’s “brain,” has remarked that the fall of Assad symbolizes a collapse of Moscow’s ability to shape outcomes in the Middle East. This failure, he argues, is a profound setback for Putin’s vision of a multipolar world where Russia stands as a counterweight to Western dominance.

Moreover, the downfall of the Assad regime questions Russia’s reliability as an ally. It parallels the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s subsequent rise to power. Just as the chaotic exit from Kabul signaled a blow to American credibility, Assad’s fall marks a significant setback for Russia’s regional strategy. For Putin, the challenge now is twofold: to salvage Russia’s position in the Middle East and to manage the domestic fallout from another costly foreign venture that failed.

Turkey and Israel as Syria’s de facto decision-makers

Before Bashar al-Assad came to power, Israel’s relationship with Syria was full of hostility and conflict. Syria, under Hafez al-Assad, supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and harbored Palestinian militant organizations. Israel captured the Golan Heights during the Six-Day War in 1967, and it has remained a focal point of tension. Syria demands its return, while Israel prioritizes its strategic importance for security.

The 1990s saw limited attempts at peace negotiations, including the 1991 Madrid Conference and subsequent talks mediated by the US. However, these efforts failed to yield a breakthrough due to mutual distrust and irreconcilable differences over the Golan Heights.

When Bashar al-Assad assumed power, hopes for reform and improved relations with Israel were quickly dashed. Assad’s regime deepened its alliance with Iran. He continued providing support to Hezbollah. Then, the Syrian Civil War entrenched hostility as Assad’s government accused Israel of backing rebel factions.

Israel primarily focused its involvement in the Syrian conflict on countering Iranian influence and preventing the transfer of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) targeted Iranian bases, arms depots, and convoys. IDF has admitted to hundreds of strikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah positions to prevent arms transfers and deter threats near its borders. 

With the fall of the Asad regime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed it as a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics. It marks a continuation of Israel’s strategic policies aimed at dismantling terrorist organizations and curbing Iran’s influence in the region. Netanyahu’s celebration is not merely symbolic; it underscores Israel’s proactive stance in shaping the Middle East. Israel sends a clear message that it will not tolerate any actor that threatens its sovereignty or regional stability.

Netanyahu explicitly warned the new leaders of Syria that they must not emulate Assad’s policies, cautioning that they would face the same fate if they did. Israel’s post-Assad policies should include:

• Preventing the Iranian regime’s entrenchment.
• Securing the Golan Heights to prevent cross-border attacks.
• Collaborating with international partners, especially Turkey, to support a political solution that prioritizes regional security and limits the resurgence of extremist factions.

Turkey has experienced shifting dynamics in its relationship with the Assad regime. Initially, Ankara and Damascus shared a pragmatic relationship during the late 1990s and early 2000s, as both countries sought to resolve border disputes and enhance economic ties. The Adana Agreement of 1998, which led to Syria expelling the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — designated as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Turkey and Israel — leader Abdullah Öcalan exemplified this period of cooperation. However, the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011 caused a significant rift. President Erdoğan openly opposed Assad’s brutal crackdown on protesters and began supporting opposition groups.

Turkey became a key supporter of SNF to bolster their fight against Assad. Turkey’s military operations, such as Euphrates Shield, Olive Branch and Peace Spring, were aimed at establishing a buffer zone along its southern border. These operations targeted ISIS and Kurdish terrorist organizations. They also indirectly benefited factions such as HTS, which capitalized on the chaos to expand their influence in northern Syria.

In the post-Assad era, Turkey’s ambition to expand its regional influence is evident in its efforts to position itself as a key power broker in Syria. Alongside Israel to shape the postwar order, Turkey has established de facto Turkish-administered zones in northern Syria, complete with Turkish schools, hospitals, and currency.

As a NATO member, Turkey’s active role in Syria enhances the alliance’s presence in the Middle East as it counters Russian and Iranian influence. Ankara’s strategic location and military capabilities make it a pivotal regional player. Turkey aligns its interests with those of NATO while pursuing its national objectives.

Neutralizing Kurdish threats and managing the refugee crisis are central to Ankara’s agenda. Turkey has committed to continued operations aimed at dismantling Kurdish terrorist organizations to ensure that they do not exploit the post-Assad vacuum to establish a foothold near its borders. 

[Liam Roman edited this piece.]

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

The post Assad’s Fall Starts a New Era in the Middle East appeared first on Fair Observer.

Additionally, rooted in Twelver Shi’ism, 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 ingrained 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 1979 revolution in Iran, spearheaded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, marked a watershed moment in the nation’s history. Though predominantly peaceful 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 constitution (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 roots 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 Pivot to the East 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 (JCPOA) and the perceived failure of European signatories to uphold their commitments, leaving Iran economically isolated.

Iran’s deep-seated opposition to US interventionism 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 called 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 signed 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 extended 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 reportedly 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 referred 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, recognizing the annexed regions and parts of Georgia. In recent years, North Korea has participated 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 cooperated 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 return 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 Ahl al-Bayt, 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 resistance against perceived enemies of Islam and Iran. Iran positions itself as the leader of the axis of resistance, a network of state and non-state actors united in their opposition to the United States, Israel, and their regional allies. Proxy groups, 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, receive 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 report 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 displaced 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 documented 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 accused 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) estimates 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 reports 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 lies 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 solidarity 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 Quds Day, 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 serves 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 own 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 supports 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, raising 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 continues uranium enrichment beyond the limits set by the now-abandoned 2015 nuclear deal.

Furthermore, advancements 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 preemptive 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.

[Tara Yarwais edited this piece.]

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

The post Iran’s Revolutionary Ideology Is the Architect of a Destabilizing Order appeared first on Fair Observer.

However, Ottomanism’s journey has gone through detours and complexities. Under Sultan Abdulhamid II, the ideology took on a more pronounced Islamic character. The main point was the sultan’s role as Caliph of the Islamic world. This new approach aimed to unite the empire’s Muslim population under a shared faith.

Ottomanism could not save the empire, which succumbed to internal dissent and external pressures. With the abolition of the Sultanate on November 1, 1922, and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the Ottoman state became a historical relic. The once-hopeful vision of unity faded alongside the civilization it sought to preserve.

Emerging in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Neo-Ottomanism revived ideas from the original empire within the context of the Republic of Turkey. Current proponents of Neo-Ottomanism advocate for a more active Turkish foreign policy in regions that once belonged to the Ottoman Empire. They emphasize Turkey’s potential role as a leader and mediator in the Middle East and surrounding regions.

However, Neo-Ottomanism has resulted in a downgrade of Turkey’s position, both politically and economically. Its emphasis on past glories and a more interventionist foreign policy has strained relations with key countries and diverted resources from addressing crucial internal challenges.

The rise of Neo-Ottomanism

The term “Neo-Ottomanism” first emerged in the 1970s in Greece as a response to concerns about Turkey’s interventions in Cyprus. However, until the late 1980s, Turkey’s foreign policy remained largely focused on the West. This was evident in its close relationship with the United States and its pursuit of membership in the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the European Union.

The military coup of 1980 marked a turning point that led to significant changes in Turkey’s political landscape. Turgut Özal, who became prime minister in 1983, played a pivotal role in this transformation. He implemented a neo-liberal economic model that aimed to integrate Turkey more deeply with the global market. He also recognized the growing economic importance of regions beyond Europe and the US.

Özal shifted the focus towards fostering good relations and economic ties with countries like Iraq, Iran and Libya. While maintaining connections with Europe and the US remained an important aspect of his foreign policy, Özal emphasized Turkey’s historical and cultural connections with the Turkic world and the broader Islamic world. This newfound emphasis on these historical ties marked the incorporation of elements of Neo-Ottomanism into Turkish foreign policy. Özal strategically used concepts like Islam, Turkism and Ottoman history to build bridges with countries in the Middle East, Balkans and Central Asia.

Özal’s death in 1993 marked the end of the first era of Neo-Ottomanism. The following years were characterized by internal political instability and economic problems, leading to a temporary halt in the development of this foreign policy doctrine.

A shift towards assertive regionalism

The 2002 elections marked a turning point in Turkish foreign policy with the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The AKP, rooted in a center-right Islamist ideology, promised a fresh approach to foreign policy that would depart from the previous era of coalition governments’ focus on Western alignment. This new vision drew heavily from the doctrine of “Strategic Depth” developed by political scientist Ahmet Davutoğlu. Strategic Depth emphasized Turkey’s unique geopolitical position at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It argued that Turkey could leverage its historical and cultural legacy, particularly its Ottoman past, to become a pivotal player in a multipolar world order.

Initially, the AKP adopted a “zero problems with neighbors” policy, prioritizing soft power tools. Turkey significantly increased its foreign aid contributions and became a major donor in the region. Cultural programs attempted to foster closer ties with neighboring countries by promoting Turkish language, music and cuisine. This approach resonated with many regional actors, particularly those wary of Western dominance.

Simultaneously, the AKP pursued EU membership with renewed vigor. They introduced domestic reforms to align with European standards, and Turkey actively participated in regional initiatives to showcase its commitment to stability and cooperation. A key example was the significant improvement in relations with Syria, a former adversary. Diplomatic ties, increased economic cooperation and energy partnerships between the two countries flourished.

However, the EU accession process proved to be a slow and frustrating experience. The EU’s internal resistance to Turkish membership fueled a growing sense of disillusionment in Ankara. Turks perceived the whole process as foot-dragging.

Ahmet Davutoğlu amplified this sentiment when he became Foreign Minister in 2009. A strong proponent of Neo-Ottomanism, Davutoğlu envisioned a more assertive role for Turkey on the world stage. He argued that his country’s future lay not solely in aligning with the West, but in re-establishing its influence as a regional leader.

Several events served as catalysts for this shift. In 2009, Erdoğan delivered a scathing critique of Israel’s actions in Gaza in his One Minute speech at the World Economic Forum. Erdoğan highlighted his growing sense of divergence from traditional Western foreign policy positions. The following year, the deadly Mavi Marmara flotilla attack, where Israeli forces raided a Turkish humanitarian aid convoy headed for Gaza, further strained relations with the West. These incidents resonated deeply with Turkish public opinion, strengthening the appeal of Neo-Ottoman ideals that emphasized a more independent and assertive foreign policy.

The Arab Spring uprisings of 2010 presented a golden opportunity for Turkey to advance its Neo-Ottoman ambitions. Embracing a pro-Arab stance, Turkey actively supported rebellions against established governments in Egypt and Libya. Ankara hoped to cultivate close ties with these new governments, fostering economic partnerships and establishing itself as a champion of democratic reform in the region. This approach aligned with Neo-Ottomanism emphasis on fostering regional leadership and projecting Turkish influence beyond its borders.

However, the Arab Spring’s aftermath proved to be far more complex than anticipated. The rise of Islamist movements to power in Egypt and Libya initially bolstered Turkey’s foreign policy ambitions. However, the subsequent descent into instability and violence in these countries exposed the limitations of the Neo-Ottoman approach. Turkey’s ability to influence events on the ground proved to be limited, and its regional standing became entangled with the ideological struggles within Arab societies.

The 21st century descent into instability

Turkey openly supported the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. When a military coup overthrew it in 2013, Turkey’s regional ties with Egypt became strained. Turkey’s condemnation of the coup and its staunch backing of the Brotherhood led to a diplomatic rift with Egypt and its allies in the Gulf, leaving Turkey increasingly isolated in the Middle East. This isolation had significant economic consequences. Trade and investment between Turkey and the Arab states declined sharply.

Internally, Neo-Ottomanism’s emphasis on the ummah (Muslim community) fostered a sense of pan-Islamism that challenged the core tenets of the Turkish Republic’s secular identity. The concept of ummah fueled the rise of Islamist tendencies within Turkish society, particularly among conservative segments of the population. Educational reforms introduced under the AKP placed a greater emphasis on Islamic history and culture, eroding secular values in the public sphere. These social tensions manifested in increased polarization and a decline in religious tolerance towards minority groups.

The year 2013 marked a turning point for Turkey on multiple fronts. The Gezi Park protests erupted in response to a government development project that threatened a beloved public space in Istanbul. The protests morphed into a broader movement against the AKP government’s perceived authoritarian tendencies. The government propagated further emphasis on Ottoman history and identity. Grandiose infrastructure projects like the replica Ottoman barracks on the banks of the Bosphorus deliberately attempted to romanticize the Ottoman past and distract from present-day challenges.

The Syrian Civil War, which began in the same year, added another layer of complexity to Turkey’s foreign policy. While Turkey initially supported the rebels fighting against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the emergence of extremist groups like ISIS and the Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units), backed by the US, posed a significant security threat on its borders. ISIS carried out a series of deadly terrorist attacks within Turkey, targeting tourist destinations and civilian populations. The YPG (affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a Kurdish separatist group designated internationally as a terrorist group) clashed with Turkish security forces along the border and further destabilized the region.

Additionally, Russian and Iranian support for the Syrian government forced Turkey into a precarious geopolitical balancing act. Turkey’s attempts to contain the Syrian conflict within its borders and prevent a mass refugee influx strained its economic resources and humanitarian capacity. Ummah-oriented propaganda aimed at Muslim countries encouraged uncontrolled migration towards Turkey. Millions of refugees fleeing the Syrian Civil War poured into Turkey, straining its social services, economy and infrastructure. The influx of refugees also contributed to rising social tensions and xenophobia within Turkish society.

Turkey’s political landscape was particularly tumultuous between 2015 and 2016. Internal power struggles within the AKP and a surge in terrorist attacks by ISIS and Kurdish separatists exposed the potential dangers of an expansive foreign policy. The controversial downing of a Russian jet by the Turkish military, which resulted in the crew’s deaths, strained Russia–Turkish relations further. This put heavy pressure on bilateral trade and tourism.

Turkey critically needed to evaluate Neo-Ottomanism costs and benefits. The pursuit of an ambitious foreign policy had diverted resources away from addressing pressing domestic issues like poverty, unemployment and social inequality.

In 2016, after a failed military coup attempt against Erdoğan, Turkey declared a state of emergency and subsequent purge against the alleged plotters. Erdoğan began the transition to a presidential system which allotted him significant power. Interestingly, Neo-Ottomanism played a role in legitimizing his new system. Supporters of the president appealed to Islamic pride sentiments within a segment of the population by portraying him as a strong leader akin to an Ottoman sultan.

Concerns have arisen among citizens regarding the Turkish government’s commitment to democratic principles. In response, the government cracked down on popular dissent. It arrested thousands of protesters, purged its civil service and military, and tightened its control on the media and the courts.These actions attracted criticism for stifling free speech and weakening the system of checks and balances that underpins a well-functioning democracy.

Moreover, the government’s pursuit of a more conservative and religious agenda deviates from the secular foundations of the Turkish Republic as established by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This and its attempts to augment presidential power through constitutional amendments have lost the new government the trust of a large portion of Turkish society. Secularists apprehend a reversal of Atatürk’s reforms, liberals express anxieties about curtailed freedoms, and many nationalists harbor reservations concerning the foreign policy ramifications of Neo-Ottomanism.

Neo Ottomanism is a challenge to NATO’s cohesion 

Turkey’s growing emphasis on Neo-Ottomanism presents a potential challenge to its critical role within NATO. Established in the aftermath of World War II to deter Soviet aggression, NATO functions on the principle of collective defense by requiring member states to come to each other’s aid in the event of an attack. Neo-Ottomanism’s prioritization of regional issues works against the principle of collective defense, potentially weakening the alliance’s ability to respond effectively to external threats.

Thus, Turkey’s involvement in the Syrian civil war and its support for the Libyan government have strained relations with allies like the US, whose interests in these conflicts diverge significantly from Turkey’s.

Furthermore, Neo-Ottomanism focuses on reviving Islamic influence and potentially Islamic state structures that could be fundamentally at odds with NATO’s commitment to secular and democratic values. Ambitions associated with Neo-Ottomanism, such as aiming to reclaim former Ottoman lands, could lead to disputes and border conflicts with neighbors, some of whom are also NATO members or partners. This raises concerns about internal strains within the alliance and the erosion of a unified front.

Military interoperability — the ability of allied forces to work together seamlessly — is essential for NATO’s effectiveness. However, Turkey’s acquisition of military equipment incompatible with NATO systems, such as the S-400 missile system from Russia, disrupts this seamlessness. The S-400 system’s incompatibility with NATO air defense architecture could endanger the ability to distinguish between friendly and hostile aircraft. This incompatibility not only hinders joint military exercises and operations but also casts doubt on Turkey’s commitment to the alliance’s collective defense strategy. The United States’ suspension of Turkey from the F-35 fighter jet program due to the S-400 deal further exemplifies this strain.

Neo-Ottomanism appeal to Turkish nationalists across the political spectrum could create divisions and factions within the Turkish military, potentially fracturing internal cohesion and undermining Turkey’s readiness to cooperate effectively with NATO allies.

Neo-Ottoman rhetoric, often critical of Western powers and their actions in the region, creates tension with some NATO members, particularly those with whom Turkey has historical or ongoing political disagreements. Tensions with Greece, a fellow NATO member, over control of the Eastern Mediterranean could escalate due to Neo-Ottoman pronouncements. These tensions hinder cooperation and trust within the alliance.

Furthermore, the emphasis on anti-Western orientation and aspirations to free Turkey from dependence on the United States could create a perception of Turkey as a rival or competitor rather than a partner among some NATO members. This erosion of trust and the perception of divergent goals significantly complicate efforts to maintain regional stability.

The current state of Turkey’s EU membership

EU membership is contingent upon fulfilling a set of core principles enshrined in the Copenhagen criteria. These include robust democratic institutions, an independent judiciary and an unwavering respect for human rights. Furthermore, the EU emphasizes peaceful resolutions to international conflicts and close cooperation with member states, principles outlined in the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

Herein lies the crux of the tension between Turkey’s aspirations under Neo-Ottomanism and EU membership. Turkey’s assertive actions and territorial disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly with Greece and Cyprus, raise concerns among EU members about its commitment to peaceful conflict resolution and regional cooperation. Additionally, Turkey’s involvement in the Libyan Civil War has further strained relations with EU countries. These escalating tensions threaten the stability and security of the Eastern Mediterranean region.

Internal developments within Turkey further complicate the picture. Growing concerns about weakening democratic institutions, notably the independence of the judiciary and freedom of the press, cast doubt on Turkey’s adherence to the Copenhagen criteria. Criticism from the EU and international organizations regarding crackdowns on dissent, erosion of the rule of law, and human rights violations have intensified scrutiny. Indicators rank Turkey low in terms of judicial independence and press freedom.

Furthermore, Turkey’s economic and social policies increasingly diverge from EU norms. Protectionist trade policies clash with the EU’s focus on free trade while a perceived shift towards a more conservative social agenda creates friction with the EU’s emphasis on social liberalism. Turkey’s recent economic policies, characterized by increased state intervention, nationalist rhetoric and rising public spending, further distance it from the EU’s economic model. Accusations of a growing conservatism in Turkish society raise questions about Turkey’s compatibility with the EU’s social values. Environmental and social welfare concerns may also diverge from the EU’s established approach, creating additional obstacles to full integration.

The economic fallout of Neo-Ottomanism

The initial period of robust economic growth under the AKP party in Turkey (2002–2011) witnessed a remarkable 5.6% annual average GDP growth. However, this progress has subsequently been overshadowed by a series of economic woes. The execution of Neo-Ottomanism has contributed to a period of economic downturn. 

A cornerstone of a healthy economy is trust in its central institutions. However, the politicization of key economic institutions under Neo-Ottomanism, such as the central bank, severely damaged domestic and international confidence. Investors and citizens alike questioned the independence and competence of these institutions in managing economic policy, particularly regarding interest rates and inflation control. Trust in the Turkish lira’s stability has eroded, discouraging foreign investment and hindering long-term economic planning. For instance, the abrupt 2021 dismissal of Naci Agbal, the Central Bank governor by Erdogan, who advocates for low interest rates despite high inflation, sparked a sharp currency decline and raised concerns about central bank autonomy.

Neo-Ottomanism strained ties with the European Union, a major trading bloc, and the United States, a significant source of foreign direct investment. Decreased trade volumes ensued. Additionally, tensions with regional neighbors like Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have disrupted tourism revenue and potential regional economic cooperation. Turkey’s involvement in the 2020 conflicts in Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh, alongside its exploration for natural gas in the Eastern Mediterranean, provoked diplomatic disputes with several European and Middle Eastern countries. These disputes negatively impacted Turkey’s trade and tourism sectors, which contribute approximately 25% of its GDP.

The Turkish economy has become heavily reliant on foreign capital to finance growth, exposing it to external shocks. The lira’s value fluctuates significantly in global currency markets can lead to significant, disrupting commerce. Import costs have increased and inflation is a growing predicament. Additionally, a high dependence on energy imports makes Turkey susceptible to global energy price fluctuations. Furthermore, a lack of sufficient domestic savings and foreign exchange reserves weakens Turkey’s ability to weather these external economic storms. The 2018 diplomatic row with the US over the detention of an American pastor serves as a case in point. It triggered a currency crisis that saw the lira lose 40% of its value against the US dollar. This crisis also exposed Turkey’s large current account deficit, which reached 6.5% of GDP in 2017.

Turkey’s focus on foreign policy under Neo-Ottomanism has diverted attention away from crucial domestic economic reforms. A lack of investment in infrastructure, education and technological innovation still hinders long-term economic growth and competitiveness. The economy remains reliant on low-value-added sectors such as construction, agriculture and tourism. This lack of diversification makes the Turkish economy less resilient and hinders its ability to compete in the global marketplace. In 2019, the Global Competitiveness Index ranked Turkey poorly on indicators such as innovation capability, quality of education and macroeconomic stability, placing it 59th out of 141 countries.

Despite the economic downturn, Turkey achieved a notable recovery in 2021, with an 11% growth rate to become the fastest-growing G20 economy. This was driven by the easing of COVID-19 restrictions and expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. However, Turkey’s 2021 growth came with challenges like high inflation (reaching 21.3% in November 2021) and a widening current account deficit (reaching 7.1% of GDP in the third quarter of 2021). Moreover, devastating February 2023 earthquakes caused significant human and material losses, further pressuring the already fragile macro-financial situation. Turkey’s current inflation stands at 67.07%.

The government’s new Medium-Term Program for 2023–2025 aims to achieve an average GDP growth of 5.3%. However, the success of the program will depend on the implementation of structural reforms, the diversification of trading partners and the restoration of credibility and stability in the economic environment.

Originally, Neo-Ottomanism aimed to boost Turkey’s global influence and transform it into a major regional and possibly even international player. However, Turkey has suffered in the economic, cultural and political arenas under Neo-Ottomanism.

[Gwyneth Campbell edited this piece]

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

The post A Sultan’s Shadow: The Truth About Neo-Ottomanism appeared first on Fair Observer.

A US-led invasion ousted the Taliban from power in 2001. Despite their removal, they continued to wage a guerrilla war against the Afghan government and foreign forces. Fast-forward to 2021. The world witnessed a seismic shift in Afghanistan’s geopolitical landscape when the Taliban launched a massive offensive and seized control of the entire country. This resurgence followed the US announcement of its withdrawal, marking the end of a 20-year war. The Taliban declared they would re-establish the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, a statement that would reverberate globally and pose complex questions about the legitimacy of their rule.

The Taliban assert their legitimacy as Afghanistan’s rightful rulers although they have the support of neither the Afghan populace nor the global community. The organization’s claim to legitimacy is rooted in its ideology, relying on three pillars: its supposed connection to the Afghanistan’s historical emirate, its Pashtun ethnic identity and its adherence to the Deobandi school of Islam.

Rekindling the emirate

The Taliban’s right to rule starts with their self-proclaimed position as heirs to Afghanistan’s historical monarchy, officially called the Emirate of Afghanistan. Established in 1826 by Emir Dōst Moḥammad Khān, the emirate symbolized unification under Pashtun leadership and staunch resistance against foreign incursions, particularly from the British and Persians. It marked the country’s first independent state, solidifying its borders and identity.

While facing internal and external challenges like the Anglo-Afghan Wars and Panjdeh Incident, the emirate witnessed significant advancements. Constitutions, flags, anthems, a currency, postal systems and even a nascent railway network all marked notable strides during this period. In 1926, the emirate came to an end when Emir Amanullah Khan declared Afghanistan a “kingdom” with himself as king. The name change marked a shift to a more modernizing, Western-influenced style of governance.

The Taliban strongly reject both a kingdom and a republic as incompatible with their Islamic ideology. They view an emirate as the sole licit, authentic political system for Afghanistan. This stance is further bolstered by their adoption of the original emirate’s name, flag and symbols. They see themselves as its rightful successors, inheriting its legacy and its responsibility to safeguard Afghanistan’s sovereignty against foreign influence.

In their narrative, the British, Soviets and Americans stand as historical invaders and enemies, while their own resistance is a sacred jihad — a struggle for moral correctness. The internationally recognized government and its security forces were illegitimate collaborators in their eyes, puppets of foreign powers. The Taliban strive to establish a pure Islamic state governed by their understanding of Sharia law, with the emirate’s revival serving as a cornerstone of their legitimacy claim.

The horrific obsession of the Deobandi school

Building upon their historical connection to the emirate, the Taliban further bolster their legitimacy with their strict adherence to the Deobandi school of Islam. Born in 19th-century India, Deobandism emerged as a reformist movement that emphasized strict adherence to the Quran and Sunnah, traditional Islamic practices, and social reform. While not entirely rejecting the four conventional Sunni schools of jurisprudence, Deobandis prioritize the direct interpretation of religious texts. They advocate for a literal, conservative understanding of Islam.

This ideology found fertile ground in Afghanistan, particularly among rural Pashtun communities. Deobandi madrasas — colleges dedicated to Islamic study — flourished, educating generations of scholars and religious leaders, including many future Taliban members. The Taliban embraced Deobandi principles as their official creed, shaping their vision for an Islamic state governed by an unwavering understanding of Sharia law.

The Taliban’s specific interpretation of Deobandi principles led them to impose an austere version of Islam in Afghanistan. They banned music, art, entertainment and education for women, viewing these things as incompatible with their morality. Religious minorities, deemed heretical or infidel, faced persecution. While these actions are justified by the Taliban as upholding Deobandi doctrine and defending Islam, they are broadly condemned by Deobandis and the international community.

Crucially, this Deobandi foundation imbues the Taliban’s claim to legitimacy with a unique character. Their fight is cast as a divinely ordained crusade, drawing authority directly from God. This renders modern concepts like democracy and nation-states obsolete in their eyes. They see themselves as instruments of God’s will, liberated from the need for earthly validation through elections or global recognition. This divine mandate, they argue, justifies their actions and grants them unyielding support from their devout followers.

Assimilation, xenophobia and Pashtun identity

The Taliban also draw their legitimacy from their ethnic identity. They are predominantly Pashtuns, members of the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. Primarily located in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan, Pashtuns constitute approximately 42% of the population. For centuries, Pashtuns have not simply inhabited Afghanistan, but have played a role in shaping its destiny, leaving a legacy that the Taliban now weaponize as their birthright to leadership.

Prior to the ascendancy of the Pashtuns, Mongol and Turkic dynasties ruled Afghanistan. The 18th and 19th centuries witnessed the rise of Pashtun dynasties like Hotak, Durrani and Bārakzai. Their empires stand as testaments to Pashtun political prowess and influence. The Hotakis challenged the Mughal Empire’s dominance by capturing Kandahār Province from them. The Durranis established an empire stretching from Mashhad in Persia to Kashmir and Delhi in India. The Bārakzais shaped the framework of modern Afghanistan and founded the emirate.

This legacy forms the bedrock of the Taliban’s narrative. The Pashtun identity they claim suggests an inherent right to rule stemming from ancestral ties and past achievements. They argue that Pashtuns are not merely Afghanistan’s largest minority but the core of its national identity. For the Taliban, the term “Afghan” itself serves as an synonym of “Pashtun.” (The name, “Afghanistan,” meaning, “Land of Afghans,” first appeared in the 1879 Treaty of Gandamak following the Second Anglo-Afghan War.)

Beyond their historical narrative, the Taliban draw heavily on Pashtunwali, a deeply ingrained ethical and social code that governs Pashtun life. This intricate tapestry of values, encompassing melmastyā́ (hospitality), nənawā́te (asylum), nang (justice), badál (revenge) and túra (bravery), serves as a cornerstone of their legitimacy claim. They portray themselves as not only rulers, but caretakers of this moral code.

The Taliban argue that Pashtunwali forms the bedrock of Afghan identity. They propose that other ethnic groups in Afghanistan either share Pashtun ancestry, having assimilated into their cultural sphere over centuries, or have embraced Pashtunwali as their own moral compass. This assertion of cultural hegemony is another vital argument in their narrative, suggesting that their leadership is not merely a political choice, but an imperative for maintaining moral and cultural unity. The Taliban’s ideology is a hybrid and synthesis of the Pashtunwali and Deobandi schools of thought, which complement and reinforce each other.

The Taliban’s emphasis on Pashtun identity breeds xenophobia. Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks face suspicion, marginalization and even demonization. The Taliban ignore their legal and cultural systems in favor of a rigid interpretation of Pashtunwali and Sharia law. The Pashtuns’ language, Pashto, flourishes in education and government while other languages wither. Representation in these spheres is deeply imbalanced, stoking resentment among excluded groups. The most brutal manifestation of this xenophobia is the Taliban’s use of violence and intimidation, creating a climate of fear that silences dissent. This exclusionary approach sows deep societal fissures, jeopardizing Afghanistan’s fragile unity.

The Taliban’s rule remains at odds with the desires of the Afghan people and the principles of the international community. As long as this fundamental dissonance persists, the question of legitimacy will continue to cast a long shadow over Afghanistan’s future, with profound consequences for its stability and prosperity.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

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

The post History, Heritage, Hegemony: The Truth About the Taliban Emirate appeared first on Fair Observer.

Iran: an enduring pillar of hegemony in the Middle East

Iran’s claim to legitimacy is deeply rooted in a history that spans millennia. The land known today as Iran has been home to a succession of influential civilizations and empires, each leaving its mark on the country’s cultural and intellectual makeup. From the Elamites, who rival the Sumerians as one of the oldest civilizations in world history, to the Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids and Safavids, Iran’s rich history fosters a profound sense of pride and identity in its people. Iran has often been the seat of power for empires stretching across the Fertile Crescent and into Central Asia, a heritage which serves as a foundation for Iran’s claim to leadership. 

Furthermore, Iran draws strength from its religious legitimacy as the epicenter of the Shia branch of Islam. Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution toppled the pro-Western monarchy and founded a theocratic republic. This revolution gave Iran religious authority as the hub of Shia Islam, which has many adherents in nations such as Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and Yemen. 

Beginning with the Islamic Revolution, Iran has exported its revolutionary ideology to fellow Shia communities. It has created a network of allied non-state military actors like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and various groups in Iraq and Palestine, strategically extending its influence. The Quds Force, which was led by the late General Qasem Soleimani, plays a pivotal role in coordinating these proxy militias. This force solidified Iran’s ideological foothold beyond its borders.

In addition, Iran has been a major supporter of Hamas, the Palestinian armed group that controls Gaza. Hamas carried out a sudden attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and capturing more than 200 hostages. Iran supplied Hamas with money, arms and training, as well as operational and strategic guidance for the operation.

Iran is also a substantial military power in its own right. The Islamic Republic maintains approximately 610,000 active-duty personnel, 350,000 reserve personnel and 150,000 paramilitary personnel. The military structure comprises two main branches: the regular armed forces, encompassing the army, navy and air force, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a parallel force directly accountable to the Supreme Leader. The IRGC possesses ground, naval and aerospace units, in addition to the Quds Force and the Basij, a volunteer militia.

Iran’s military arsenal includes a spectrum of ballistic and cruise missiles, with some boasting a range of up to 1,200 miles. Drones, submarines and cyber-warfare capabilities further enhance Iran’s military capabilities.

Notably, Iran adopts a strategic approach relying on asymmetric and unconventional warfare tactics, employing swarm tactics, proxy forces, and sabotage to counterbalance adversaries’ conventional superiority. Illustrating this strategy, Iran has recently employed missile and drone attacks to target US bases in Iraq, as well as targeting Israel-linked ships. Meanwhile, Iran’s proxy forces like Hamas and Hezbollah serve to harass and deter these adversaries.

Saudi Arabia: the conservative powerhouse

If Iran is the revolutionary force in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is the conservative one.

Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam. It was here that the Prophet Muhammad was born and received his revelations in the 7th century CE. The two holiest sites in Islam, the Great Mosque of Mecca and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, are both in Saudi Arabia. For this reason, the Saudi monarch styles himself as “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.” This historical and religious connection grants the nation a profound moral legitimacy to exert influence over the Middle East.

The two mosques serve as focal points of the annual pilgrimage, known as hajj. Making the pilgrimage at least once in a lifetime is a religious duty for Muslims. By hosting millions of pilgrims yearly, Saudi Arabia strategically deploys its religious influence to further its political objectives and propagate its ideological stance.

During the formative period of Islamic civilization, Saudi Arabia was the center of the Caliphate. It served as the seat of the first four caliphs who governed the expanding Muslim empire from 632 to 661 CE. Following the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the last Islamic caliphate after World War I, Saudi Arabia again asserted itself as the heart of Islam, without laying claim to the title of caliph. Saudi Arabia championed Wahhabism — a strict and conservative interpretation of Sunni Islamic teachings. This ideology, considered by its adherents the pure and authentic form of Islam, underpins Saudi Arabia’s historical and religious claims.

Saudi Arabia also enjoys the support of a major non-Islamic power, the United States. The US has emerges as Saudi Arabia’s foremost partner, providing robust military support. The roots of this alliance trace back to 1945 when the nations signed a pivotal agreement granting the US access to Saudi oil in exchange for military and economic aid. This agreement, known as the Quincy Pact, was forged by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz Al Saud aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal. It marked the beginning of a long-lasting and mutually beneficial relationship between the two countries.

Over the years, this strategic partnership has deepened, encompassing cooperation on counter-terrorism, regional security and energy. The United States has supported Saudi Arabia in various conflicts, such as the Iran–Iraq War, the Persian Gulf War and the ongoing Yemen Civil War, as well as in confronting the threats posed by al-Qaeda and ISIS.

As the primary arms supplier to Saudi Arabia, the United States furnishes military training, intelligence, and logistical support, aligning its interests with Saudi policies in the region. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States accounted for 79% of the total arms imports by Saudi Arabia from 2016 to 2020. This alliance positions Saudi Arabia as a key American ally and a counterbalance to Iran’s influence in the Middle East.

Turkey: Ottoman Heritage and a unique foreign policy

The third factor in the Middle East is Turkey, a powerhouse boasting the largest economy in the region and the second-largest population.

Turkey’s foreign policy in the Middle East is anchored in its Ottoman heritage. The Ottoman Empire, centered in Turkey, was the dominant Islamic power and caliphate — both the religious and political leader of the Muslim world until its dissolution in 1924, following Turkey’s defeat in World War I.

The Ottoman Empire ruled the Muslim world from North Africa to Iraq and extended deep into Europe. It was a diverse and multicultural society. This environment promoted coexistence among various ethnic and religious groups through a system of relative tolerance and autonomy.

Turkey’s historical legacy not only gives its people a sense of pride and identity but a perceived right to leadership and influence in the Middle East. Viewing itself as the rightful successor of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey sees itself as having a special responsibility and role within the region, encapsulated in its foreign policy vision of New Ottomanism, tempering Turkish nationalism with a pan-Islamic focus. 

Like Iran, Turkey is a sizeable military power with a large population. Turkey boasts approximately 510,000 active-duty personnel, complemented by 380,000 reserve personnel and an additional 150,000 paramilitary personnel. Turkey is also a member of NATO, which affords the nation access to the collective defense and security mechanisms of the West.

Employing its hard power, Turkey has intervened militarily involvement in various countries, notably Syria, Libya and Iraq. In these theaters, Turkey has lent support to various factions in order to counter adversaries such as the Assad regime, the Haftar forces and Kurdish militias. This military intervention serves as a tangible expression of Turkey’s commitment to shaping regional dynamics.

Turkey strategically deploys proxy forces to bolster its alliances and extend its influence. Entities like the Syrian National Army, the Government of National Accord in Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt serve as instrumental proxies, trained and supported by Turkey to align with its strategic objectives.

The spirit of cold war unmistakanly pervades the current geopolitical landscape. The outcome of the struggle between Iran Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will shape the future of a new Middle East.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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

The post The New Middle East: A Triangular Struggle for Hegemony appeared first on Fair Observer.

Nostalgia, a sentiment characterized by a yearning for a past perceived as superior to the present, holds immense power. It is not only a personal emotion but also a political tool that actively shapes collective memory, identity and action. Therefore, nostalgia plays a pivotal role in the emergence of a multipolar world.

For countries with a history of hegemony, nostalgia evokes feelings of disillusionment with the current world order and prompts a longing for a better one. Nostalgia instills pride and confidence in one’s own identity and values. It empowers individuals to resist and challenge the dominance and influence of the unipolar power. Moreover, nostalgia fosters a sense of connection and cooperation among individuals who share a nostalgic vision. This drives the search for and support of alternative alliances and institutions capable of countering the unipolar power.

As the world undergoes profound shifts, nostalgia emerges as a powerful force that reshapes the global landscape. Its ability to evoke longing, inspire resistance and foster cooperation makes it an indispensable tool for those seeking to challenge and redefine the prevailing world order.

Reviving the ancient Silk Road redefines China’s global power

As the world’s second-largest economy and a rising superpower, China aims to achieve the dream of national rejuvenation and global leadership. It has been pursuing a grand strategy of economic development, military modernization and diplomatic engagement. 

One of China’s most ambitious and visible projects is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It is a massive infrastructure and investment plan that aims to connect Asia, Europe and Africa through a network of roads, railways, ports, pipelines and other projects. The BRI is often presented by China as a revival of the ancient Silk Road. For centuries, the Silk Road was a historical trade route that linked China with the rest of the world and fostered cultural and civilizational exchanges.

China’s nostalgia for the Silk Road is based on a selective and idealized memory of its past. China remembers the Silk Road as a time of peace and prosperity when China was the center of the world. For China, the Silk Road is a model of inclusivity and cooperation. It was a time when China welcomed and learned from other cultures.

The use of the Silk Road as a symbol of the BRI is a deliberate choice. It reflects China’s nostalgia for its past glory and influence. The Silk Road evokes a positive image of China as a prosperous civilization that contributed to the world’s development and harmony. It serves as a contrast to the US-led liberal order. China perceives international institutions of the US as unfair and as a source of instability and conflict.

By reviving the Silk Road, China aims to create a new world order. This new order would be more favorable to China’s interests. It would also accommodate China’s rise as a global power. With nostalgic connotations, the BRI becomes China’s means to achieve the vision of global leadership. 

Reclaiming past eras fuels Russia’s resistance to unipolarity

Russia is the world’s largest country by land area and a nuclear-armed power. Yet despite its sheer size, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of Russia’s superpower status and the beginning of its decline and isolation.

Russia has been struggling to redefine its role in the world. One way it has done so is by invoking the past as a source of pride and legitimacy in order to reclaim its influence. Russia’s deep-seated nostalgia for its Soviet and pre-Soviet past motivates the nation to stand against the unipolar world.

The Soviet era remains a complex and controversial topic in Russia. In recent years, the official discourse and propaganda have tended to emphasize the positive and heroic aspects of the Soviet era. Russia’s nostalgia is based on a collective and selective memory of unity and strength. During that time, Russia led the socialist bloc and rivaled the capitalist world. Russia championed the cause of the working class and oppressed nations. The Soviet Union was considered a model of justice and equality. Nostalgia for this era serves as a justification for Russia’s current foreign policy actions and ambitions.

In addition to the Soviet past, Russia invokes nostalgia for the Russian Empire and the Tsarist era. The Russian Empire was one of the largest and longest-lasting empires in history. It spanned across Europe and Asia, encompassing diverse cultures and religions. The Tsarist era was a period of cultural and artistic flourishing, producing renowned writers, composers and painters. The Russian Empire and the Tsarist era create a nostalgic image of Russia as a great, civilized power with a rich and unique heritage. Russia remembers this era as a time of prosperity when it was respected by the world. 

Russia’s nostalgia for both the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire serves as a way to contrast and criticize the West and its values. Western institutions such as democracy, human rights and liberalism are seen as hypocritical to Russia’s interests and sovereignty. It justifies its intervention in Ukraine and Syria and its opposition to NATO and the EU as a defense of its historical legacy and security interests. With nostalgia, Russia aims to boost national confidence in state affairs.

Memories of revolution serve as Iran’s foreign policy

Spanning from the ancient Persian Empire to the modern Islamic Republic, Iran possesses a rich and extensive history. Throughout its journey, Iran has encountered numerous changes, challenges and crises that have significantly shaped its identity and future. Consequently, Iranians harbor a sense of nostalgia for aspects of their past. Iranian nostalgia is influenced by personal and political perspectives.

A prominent source of nostalgia is the Islamic Revolution, a popular religious uprising that toppled the Persian monarchy and established the Islamic Republic in 1979. The revolution aimed to establish an Islamic government and society and revive the early days of Islam. It would be rooted in the principles and teachings of Islam as practiced during the time of Prophet Muhammad and his successors.

Islamic nostalgia played a significant role in shaping the goals and aspirations of the revolutionaries. They sought to reclaim what they perceived as the pure and authentic form of Islam, free from what they considered to be corrupting influences of Western secularism and imperialism. The revolutionaries believed that by returning to the foundations of Islam, they could address the social, economic and political challenges Iran faced.

Iran’s use of nostalgia isn’t restricted to the past. It also significantly influences its current foreign policy conduct across multiple areas and issues. This includes its nuclear program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful and aligned with Islamic principles as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran continues to argue for the right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian purposes such as energy and medicine. Iran draws upon nostalgia for the values of the Revolution to justify its resistance and defiance. The urge to reclaim the objectives of the Revolution rallies domestic support against perceived Western bullying.

Perceived Western bullying also includes US allies. Iran opposes and challenges Israel and Saudi Arabia, both seen as adversaries of Islam. Various Shia Muslim groups are supported by Iran in order to position itself as the defender of the Muslim world. Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, the Hashd al-Shaabi in Iraq and the Assad regime in Syria are several examples. 

Iran invokes nostalgia to legitimize these interventions. Appealing to the desire for old influence garners sympathy and cooperation from entities that share Iran’s grievances. Iran seeks to challenge the perceived unjust and oppressive unipolar world order through nostalgia. Time will tell if that is enough to assert its own interests and values.

Reclamation of the Ottoman heritage strengthens Turkish identity

Turkey holds the status of a regional power in both Europe and Asia.  Yet, despite its rich cultural heritage, Turkey has experienced notable political and social transformations. 

In 2002, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, was elected as Turkey’s leader. Erdoğan’s rise to power beckoned a more religious and nationalist approach. This marked a departure from previous governments’ secular and pro-Western stance in Turkey’s foreign policies. Turkey also turned to nostalgia to influence its international relations. 

Turkey has actively pursued a more assertive foreign policy to assume a leadership role on the global stage. Additionally, Turkey aims to address the conflicts and crises that impact its neighboring countries and beyond. This is an attempt at a revival of Turkey’s Ottoman heritage.

The Ottoman Empire governed a significant portion of the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Europe for six centuries before its dissolution following the First World War. The symbol of the Ottoman Empire serves as a model of tolerance and diversity for both the Turkish nation and the Muslim world. 

The nostalgia to return to this period of greatness and glory forms the foundation of Turkey’s foreign policy doctrine. This use of nostalgia, also known as neo-Ottomanism, seeks to revitalize Turkey’s influence as a mediator between the East and the West. By reclaiming the Ottoman heritage, Turkey strives to reinstate its historical role, strengthen its identity and fulfill its potential and responsibilities in the global arena. 

Nostalgia as a means to a multipolar world order

It is no question that nostalgia has become a powerful influence on the global stage. Evoking perceived memories of past eras bolsters national identity and support. However, nostalgic power isn’t constricted to national borders. Nostalgia can also challenge hegemonic global orders.

The strategic utilization of nostalgia by China, Russia, Iran and Turkey underscores its pivotal role in challenging the prevailing unipolar world order. These nations actively contribute to the emergence of a multipolar global landscape by shaping collective memory, fostering resistance and asserting their unique identities. Retrospection has proved to be a way forward.

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

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

The post The Valuable Role of Nostalgia on the World Stage appeared first on Fair Observer.

Throughout Israel’s history, the United States has explicitly supported Israel’s right to self-defense. These two countries share a common goal in countering Iran, an Islamist regime which has positioned itself as Israel’s archenemy. It is developing nuclear weapons, and it supports proxy groups throughout the Middle East, including several that are close to the borders of Israel — especially Hamas, a Sunni extremist group based in the Gaza Strip to Israel’s southeast, and Hezbollah, a Shia extremist group based in Lebanon to Israel’s north.

The US maintains control over diplomatic channels, employing negotiations and sanctions to prevent the advancement of Iran’s nuclear program. Israel has reserved the right to take military action against the Iranian nuclear threat. Additionally, Israel and the United States jointly strive to reduce Iran’s influence in the Middle East, with the Abraham Accords being a significant example of this cooperation.

The US protects Israel during the current conflict

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a brutal attack against Israeli citizens, killing 1,400 people. In response, Israel initiated a military campaign to neutralize Hamas’s rocket launchers, tunnels and leadership centers in Gaza. The waves of this conflict have also reached Lebanon, where Palestinian militants launched rockets from southern Lebanon into northern Israel. In turn, Israel has retaliated with precision strikes.

Israel’s attention is thus being drawn in at least two directions. Israel’s enemies — which include both militant groups and states like Syria — could decide to strike while Israel is distracted, enlarging the war. To forestall this, the US has decided to respond with a show of force. Sending two aircraft carrier groups to the area signals to would-be belligerents that the US will not allow Israel to be attacked.

A potential Israeli failure to defeat Hamas could have disastrous implications for the region. It would embolden regional players like Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, leading to an escalation of hostilities and territorial ambitions. This, in turn, poses security threats to the United States and its regional allies, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. These Sunni states see revolutionary Shia Iran as a threat to their own stability.

Already, US forces stationed in the region have been coming under attack as a consequence of the fighting. This would doubtless escalate if Iran and its other proxies were to get directly involved in the war. So, by supporting Israel’s security, the US indirectly contributes to its own security and prevents regional conflicts. Only in a stable environment can peace processes, like Israeli–Arab normalization, move forward.

This conflict the economies of both nations

Mutually beneficial economic cooperation is a pivotal aspect of the US–Israel alliance. In 1985, the two nations signed a free trade agreement. This agreement eliminated tariffs on many goods and services. Following this agreement, bilateral trade between Israel and the US saw a remarkable increase. The US is Israel’s primary trading partner. In 2019, the trade in goods and services between these two countries reached $50 billion. The United States also plays a significant role in foreign direct investment in Israel, accounting for nearly 40% of foreign direct investment in Israel in the same year.

This innovation and collaboration is facilitated through various bilateral foundations that encompass research and development projects across diverse fields. Major examples include the Binational Science Foundation, the Binational Agriculture Research and Development Fund, the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation. These foundations have funded numerous projects, leading to significant breakthroughs, patents, products and startups. In turn, the projects have enhanced the competitive edge and quality of life for both nations.

Hi-tech Israel is a regional economic powerhouse. If Israel cannot defeat Hamas, this would jeopardize economic cooperation and development between the United States and Israel. Understandably, no one wants to do business in a country where rockets are flying or militants could pour over the border without warning. So, trade and investment activities would be disrupted.

The intensified crisis could lead to flight cancellations, damage to Israel’s infrastructure and stringent security measures restricting the movement of people and goods. Collaborative research and innovative projects would be directly impacted by the ongoing conflict. In an Israeli defeat scenario, then, the US would lose one of its most capable economic partners.

US commitment to Israeli values and interests must continue

But US–Israeli friendship is not just about money. It is about shared values, interests, and common perspectives between Israel and the Middle East. Both nations are vibrant democracies. They embody political respect for human rights, the rule of law, freedom of expression and religion.

Furthermore, they share a vision of peace and stability. In 2020, the US mediated the signing of the Abraham Accords, which normalized ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. These exemplified the collaborative efforts of the US and Israel to promote cooperation and dialogue with Arab and Muslim nations, previously Israel’s adversaries.

In the realm of diplomacy, the US has consistently advocated for Israel’s legitimacy and security interests on the global stage. Using its UN Security Council veto power, the US has prevented the passage of resolutions that it deemed unfair or detrimental to Israel’s security or diplomatic standing.

A scenario in which Israel is defeated in the face of Hamas jeopardizes the credibility of the US as a reliable partner and protector of its allies, already weakened by its defeat in Afghanistan and its inability to secure Ukrainian victory against Russia. The United States must unequivocally stand alongside Israel and support efforts to end the confrontation with Hamas and other fighting factions.

The US–Israeli alliance is a cornerstone of democracy, stability and prosperity in the Middle East. The US cannot allow its ally to be exposed to vicious, terroristic attacks any longer. As Israel is engaged in a vital struggle against Hamas, American support cannot falter.

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

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

The post The Case for Concord: US–Israel Alliance More Important Than Ever appeared first on Fair Observer.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian nationalism has been on the rise and is a key driver of the Russia-Ukraine War. Russian President Vladimir Putin has fostered this nationalism for decades. He first made his name by crushing the anti-Russian uprising in Chechnya. In recent years, Russia has become more aggressive. In the case of Ukraine, Putin has been particularly aggressive. 

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine sparked a conflict. This violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and has led to a deadly conflict that has claimed thousands of lives.

Tracing the Roots of Russian and Ukrainian Nationalism

Nationalism has always played a big role in Russia’s history. It first came to the fore at the end of the 18th century. In the early 19th century, an idea of national superiority and honor came into shape, along with a strict loyalty to the ideology of Emperor Alexander I. During what is known as the “Golden Age” of Russian literature, writers such as Ivan Kireevsky, Mikhail Pogodin and Fyodor Tyutchev furthered these sentiments. 

These writers asserted that Russian culture was superior to that of other nations. They glorified Russian martyrs who gave their lives for their country. Over time, this sense of national pride became ingrained in the mindsets of most Russians. 

The Russian Romanticism of 1820-1840 extolled Russian literature, culture, language and orthodoxy as sources of pride and uniqueness. This was also a time when the Russian Empire continued to spread through Central Asia and the Caucasus. Russia fought against both the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires for territory. This quest for empire fuelled Russian nationalism.

Russia’s nationalism is driven by a sense of being wronged by others and a desire for a strong leader. Throughout history, Russians have faced invasions and attacks from different enemies, such as the Mongols, the Swedes, the Poles and the Nazis. These experiences have shaped their sense of identity and pride.

They also made Russians crave a strong leader who can protect them from any threat. This craving is the reason Russians have tolerated authoritarian rulers for centuries and why many of them support Vladimir Putin today. Putin claims to be a strong leader who can stand up to the West and defend Russia’s interests. 

Ukrainian nationalism also has deep roots in the country’s history. It grew out of a resistance to domination and assimilation by the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires. In the 19th century, a group of Ukrainian intellectuals and writers initiated a movement for Ukrainian national revival, which aimed to celebrate and preserve their unique language, culture and national identity. These nationalists also advocated for an independent state, free from outside domination. 

Ukrainian nationalism is no longer simply about asserting independence from Russia. It is also about integrating with Europe and NATO, who are both now seen as partners and allies. Ukrainians view themselves as part of Europe, both geographically and culturally. This is reflected in their desire to embrace Western values and norms, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

At the same time, Ukrainian nationalism is defined more than ever by standing up to Russia’s bullying and meddling. This became progressively worse since Russia took over Crimea and started a war in Donbas. For Ukrainian nationalists, their language, culture and history matter immensely. These Ukrainians are willing to fight and even die to protect the nation. They want to speak Ukrainian in all situations, celebrate Ukrainian holidays and traditions, and honor Ukrainian heroes and achievements.

Putin Sees Ukraine as a Betrayer of Slavic Unity

Putin’s vision of “Great Russia” or a “Russian World,” encompasses not only the territory of modern-day Russia and Ukraine but other countries with significant ethnic Russian populations. They include Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Baltic states. Putin portrays Moscow. as the protector of Russian speakers abroad. Therefore, he constantly advocates for the rights and the interests of Russian speakers in neighboring countries.

Putin once said that “since time immemorial, the people living in the southwest of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians and Orthodox Christians”. Russia and Ukraine share a common Eastern Slavic heritage that dates back to the medieval state of Kyivan Rus. Kyivan Rus was the birthplace of both Ukraine and Russia. Its ruler, Volodymyr the Great, changed the state religion to Orthodox Christianity in 988 A.D. 

According to Putin, Ukraine’s independence was a result of an erroneous division of land by Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin and his associates. Furthermore, “modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” To Putin, this is unacceptable.

Russia wants to keep Ukraine under its control for many reasons. First, it wants to have a buffer zone between itself and NATO countries, which it sees as Russia’s enemies. Putin is not the only Russian who is also worried about NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders and its interference in its near-abroad, which the country sees as its backyard. Second, Moscow wants to protect the rights of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine. Putin claims that Ukraine is discriminating against them. Third, Russia wants to make sure it has access to important resources such as the natural gas pipelines that run through Ukraine as well as the Ukrainian coastline near Crimea.

The war in Ukraine demonstrates that Russia’s nationalism is all based on a feeling of being wronged by others, a craving for a strong leader and a deep desire to defend ethnic Russians. Over a year of conflict has demonstrated the strength of Russians nationalism and its readiness to fight against the West. It has also shown us how risky and dangerous such nationalism can be and the need for negotiations to avoid more violence.

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

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

The post Unleashing Russia’s Nationalism: An In-depth Look into the Ukraine War appeared first on Fair Observer.

The term hegemony of masculinity, which was first used by R. W. Connell, describes the social hierarchy that tends to validate the superiority of masculinity over feminine, and is founded on historical precedent or adheres to societal norms. It defines a male-dominated social structure that denies females with feminine traits the right to participate in public life. Tragically, this hegemony leads to a heteronormative social structure and the predominance of heterosexism in Islamic doctrines.

The Destiny of Pakistan’s Totalitarian Proxy Regime in Afghanistan

READ MORE

The political discriminatory ideologies of apartheid have been widely employed in several fields of social science ever since Daniel F. Malan first articulated it. Gender-Apartheid is the systematic discrimination of individuals based on whether they were born a man or a woman. Gender-apartheid and the term sexism are connected through historical and cultural roots, which are still tangible in the modern world. 

With six sections and 30 articles, the UN General Assembly approved the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1979. This treaty emphasizes and puts into practice the rights of women and girls around the world. It protects them in areas like discrimination, policy measures, the defense of fundamental freedoms and rights, sex-role stereotyping and prejudice, prostitution, political and public life, representation, nationality, education, employment, health, economic and social benefits, law, marriage, and family life. It has since been ratified and adopted by one hundred eighty nine states. However, despite having signed the pact in 1980, gender discrimination still exists in Afghanistan under the Taliban’s rule.

The Taliban runs a de facto government that is not officially recognized. They are centered on a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, and have close ties to the terrorist group al-Qaeda. On August 15, 2021, the Taliban took back Kabul, and since then they have ruled Afghanistan with an Islamic system based on the Deobandi school. The Taliban progressively began to implement their ideologically-based teachings throughout the nation; among them, the Taliban are passing anti-feminine legislation and marketing them as Islamic teachings through their media apparatus. Their curriculum is dominated by masculinity and violates the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

The Taliban’s Motivation

In the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN lists the right to an education as one of the most important human rights. This is a cosmic and global right, not one that is exclusive to a place or location. Everyone is entitled to a high-quality education, regardless of their race, color, ethnicity, country, or gender. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes the value of education, which includes tolerance, community, and mutual understanding among all people, as well as the right to be educated.

Afghanistan Is Losing Faith in the Taliban

READ MORE

In opposition to international values, the Taliban regime has denied Afghan girls and women the chance to enroll in schools and institutions. The Taliban government may be utilizing the education of Afghan women as a tool to pressure Western democracies to embrace them. However, It is evident that nothing has changed to date, despite the fact that sanctions against the Taliban’s administration have gotten tougher.

Under the Taliban government, women no longer play an active part in society. At the cabinet, provincial, or municipal levels, no women have been appointed by the Taliban. In actuality, the Taliban rule has usurped the social lives of women and, by relegating them to the private sphere, has diminished their stature. The Taliban regime’s workforce is patriarchal and sexist in this sense. It might be argued that patriarchy has a significant impact on the Taliban’s administrative structure.

The Taliban bureaucratic system’s gender-centricity cannot be boiled down to a call for recognition. In fact, one of the tenets of the Deobandi school, which forms the Taliban ideology, values that the public sphere should be gender-centric. As a phenomenon, work is considered to be man-centered. The fatwa that permits women to work in a setting where there is no chance for conversation with males is the only area where the Deobandi school has shown flexibility so far on women’s right to employment. According to this, the Taliban’s manifesto has a clause that is said to support the barring of women from bureaucratic roles.

Consequences of Gender Apartheid Policies

The Taliban’s anti-women policies diminish the idea of women as fully human beings. Women are denied citizenship rights and are not regarded as social contract signatories under this system. Due to the Taliban regime’s treatment of women, Afghan society has regressed both politically and economically. A political setback is the absence of women in the public sphere, the centralization of Afghan bureaucracy, and its concentration on the position of the man as well as the political exclusion of women from these positions.

Women have less economic influence under the Taliban government. The Taliban system makes women into workers with very low human capital, little incomes, and limited opportunities for growth in the workplace by denying them the access to study. Women who work as men’s employees won’t advance because they lack the capacity to handle affairs. On the one hand, this economic paralysis of women contributes to the inefficiency of half the people of the society, and on the other, it causes the economic paralysis of the entire nation.The Taliban administration imposed gender segregation and patriarchal control on Afghan society by defining women in the private sphere. Afghanistan’s radicalization eventually will only lead to disaster and the emergence of a radical generation. [Charlize Cheesman edited this article]

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

The post One Of The Taliban’s Monumental Ruins: Gender-Apartheid Policies appeared first on Fair Observer.

The advent of the new order, as the offspring of the modern para-ideology of liberal democracy, by its nature implies cohesion and solidarity on the world stage. The doctrines of liberal democracy are claimed to be universal and nation states are required to implement them to provide equality of opportunities, equity, in a context of freedom, individualism, and pluralism, all of which make up the infrastructural concept of human rights on the global stage. 

Citizens of the states are deemed to have signed the social contract, transferring their right to rule in their mother territory to the central government as the legitimate organ empowered to implement its sovereignty to uphold the nation’s rights and freedom. In this context, democracy is meaningless if plurality is suppressed since the concept of democracy includes at its roots the acceptance of pluralism. Any act that serves to deprive any human beings of their universal rights violates the principle of plurality.. 

For this reason, as well as for the maintenance of the global order, international institutions such as the ICC, United Nations, and IAEA were created. But apparently, no element of the new order has been perceived in the interest of the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes like Russia, the People’s Republic of China, Iran’s Islamic Republic, and the last totalitarian Stalinist regime in North Korea are calling into question the liberal-democratic order across the globe. Russia’s invasion of  Ukraine lit its flame.

Strategic Goals of Russia in the Ukraine War

The vertical propaganda machine of the Russian Federation justifies the invasion of Ukraine as a anti-Nazi special Operation. Its stated ultimate goal is de-Nazifying and demilitarizing Ukraine, and preventing Ukraine from joining NATO. However, it is not all the aspects of the iceberg. 

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Donbas has been the industrial center of independent Ukraine, due to the fact that the land contains a large reserve of coal. Historically, Donbas has played a crucial role in the industrialization of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.  On the other hand, the flocking of people of Russia to Donbas during the late 19th century created a strong cultural tie between the people of Russia, and the Ukrainians in the Donbas. Furthermore, throughout the history of the Russian Empire, since 1654, Ukrainians were prone to being systematically assimilated into the Russian Empire. The educational system followed the Russian model and Russian became the official language under the policies known as Russification. 

Hence the concentration of Russians and Russian culture in Donbas is multifaceted, with a historical, socio-cultural and economic dimension. The eventual annexation of the Donbas by Russia promises not only to enrich Russia economically but also to create a strategic dependence of Ukraine with regard to Russia. This is an important factor in the logic that underlies the Russian claims of historical and socio-cultural ties between the Donbas and the motherland of Russia. 

The Cold War began as the Second World War ended. The international arena found itself confronted with the bipolar pitting of the Western block against the Eastern bloc. The Western bloc was formed by the collective defense agreement of NATO. After the integration of West Germany into NATO, the Soviet-backed collective defense agreement known as the Warsaw Pact was signed in Warsaw, Poland. The Warsaw pact disbanded in 1991 as, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the communist structure had lost all legitimacy in Eastern Europe. 

NATO, however, experienced eight periods of enlargement since its establishment in 1949. The Russian Federation considers NATO a threat to its national security. They see it as an anti-Russia treaty. Thus the Kremlin feels it cannot sit idly by and watch the expansion of NATO to Eastern European countries, which they see as being part of their “historical land.” Therefore, one objective behind the invasion of Ukraine is Russia’s desire to forbid the expansion of NATO. 

The 20th century is known as the age of emerging ideologies. The map of the globe experienced revolutions, risings, significant wear and tear and a confusion of political ideologies. The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 changed the trajectory of history, apparently in the direction of the interests of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism. That year stands as the starting point of a unipolar world. Democracy in line with the rule of law, individualism, freedom, the right to vote, equality of opportunities, equity and pluralism are the stated core values of the new order, which the democracies across the globe aspire to achieve. 

This order, led by the Western block, is now being challenged by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes seeking to establish and feed a multipolar order and a new era in international relations. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took place in the context of a global movement away from the unipolar world of 1991. Some believe it signifies that Russia is striving for the revival of the Russian Empire’s hegemony over Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and the Central Asia Countries. The People’s Republic of China is vying to become an economic hegemon under the Xi doctrine. It has engaged in a subtle cultural hegemonic war in its challenge to the dominance of Western culture. It is now taken for granted that Western liberal-based countries backed by the United States of America constitute one pillar of the emerging multipolar world order that may form a triangle with the Russian Federation and China in international relations. However, this triangle holds the potential of becoming a square, with the rising influence of political Islam. Nevertheless, the question concerning which among a trio of countries – Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia – may end up leading such an Islamic coalition and whether such a coalition can maintain a viable level of cohesion is far from settled. 

The Atrocities in Ukraine and the Banality of Evil

Hannah Arendt, the German political philosopher who coined the term “the banality of evil” after the trial of Eichmann for his role in the Holocaust, argued that in our age, the age of genocide, extreme evil is done when the perpetrator renounces the power human beings have of discerning between good and evil. For Arendt, the banality of evil is “thought-defying.” The perpetrator is only obeying bureaucratic orders, rather than being driven by ideological motivations or personal resentment.

The atrocities perpetrated by Russian forces in Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Kyiv Ukraine can be seen as the repetition of the banality of evil in our era. There are no ideological incentives behind this war, and there is no personal resentment of the Russian military forces toward the innocent civilians of Ukraine. 

Plurality is a feature of all human societies. No one can deny the existence of others, and their interests as nations or ethnical groups. Any act that implies ignoring identities, assimilation, war crimes, and genocides violates the principle of pluralism, and can thus be considered an act of dehumanization. Every evidence of war crimes and atrocities in the ongoing catastrophe in Ukraine is yet another act of dehumanization that points to  the reemergence of the banality of evil at this age.

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

The post The Banality of Evil, the Ukraine War and Russia’s Strategic Goals appeared first on Fair Observer.