If Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was hoping for a honeymoon period after his inauguration last week, he must be sadly disappointed. Less than 12 hours after Pezeshkian was sworn in, an explosion, reportedly caused by a remotely controlled bomb, shook an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) compound in central Tehran. The target: Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, an honoured guest at the inauguration, and one of the Middle East’s most wanted. The bomb under the bed killed Haniyeh instantly. Honeymoon over.
The Haniyeh assassination, attributed to Israel and not denied in Jerusalem, has scrambled all those hopes. Pezeshkian finds himself in the eye of an international storm that analysts warn could lead to all-out war, engulfing the Middle East.
Infuriated by an audacious attack that humiliated him, his country and its elite armed forces, Khamenei – Iran’s ultimate authority – is said to have ordered preparations for direct military retaliation against Israel. Avenging Haniyeh’s death was “our duty”, Khamenei said. Pezeshkian had no choice but to meekly go along. Now the world waits to see what Iran will do. So much for a fresh start.
Iran’s next step may be decisive in determining whether the Middle East plunges into chaos. Its pivotal position should come as no surprise. Its gradual emergence as the region’s pre-eminent power has accelerated in the wake of 7 October. Iran’s anti-Israeli, anti-American “axis of resistance”, embracing militant Islamist groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, and ever more openly backed by China and Russia, is now a big force challenging the established western-led order.
Fucking religious nutjobs…
When you see how the geopolitics are fueled directly by multiple clashing religious groups vying for the same land (which is so important because muh ancient texts) it makes even more sense.
Not denying that religion plays a role, but seeing this as sectarian violence doesn’t have as much explanatory power as a struggle between competing nationalisms. Simply put, for the vast majority of the people involved, nationalism explains a lot more. And note also of course that nationalism is extremely effective in incorporating and weaponizing religion to its narrative. And the fuel of nationalism is geopolitics.
Oh please. The middle east has been and will be religious nutjobs vs. religious nutjobs for ages.
How about taking about the elephant in the room that is British + French colonialism plus the establishment of a genocidal apartheid settler colony along with US driven regime changes through funding terrorist groups or just outright invasions?
It’s so damn lazy to blame all of this on religion.
Both empires dissolved decades ago. The situation in Israel would have gone the way of South Africa or Hong Kong, if it weren’t for American mysticism propping it up.
You mean American evangelicals? Yeah I mean that’s true, but I interpreted OPs comment in a way that they think the conflict between Israel and everyone else would simply be about Jews vs Muslims and I think that’s a very catchy Reddit type of comment but it’s very far from reality.
There was a somewhat peaceful coexistence of all kinds of religions before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (let’s not get into the genocides the Ottoman Empire committed here). There have been pan-Arab nationalist movements in the 19th century to separate from the Ottoman Empire that the British undermined, see e.g. their meddling in Egypt. There have been local Arab nationalist movements that have been undermined, most prominently the Palestinian one.
Jews were in general safer in the Middle East than in Europe (I hope I don’t have to explain this). Especially in Palestine there have always been Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Lebanon there were and still are many Christians. In Syria there are many ethnic and religious minorities. In Iraq there has been a coexistence between Shia and Sunni people. Iran wasn’t a very religious country.
The suppression of nationalist movements during the Ottoman period, the arbitrary borders that the British and French drew after they left their colonies, the installment of monarchies loyal to their interests and the creation of Israel all fueled conflicts. After the creation of the apartheid settler colony Israel, the Americans led regime changes in
- Syria (1949, 1956-1957)
- Egypt (1952)
- Iran (1952-1953)
- Iraq (1959, 1963)
all with the goal to prevent disloyal governments from forming, or even worse regimes that would take away their rights to extracting resources for free. These regime changes usually led to the establishment of brutal military dictatorships and to resistance groups forming. This is when the religious nut jobs finally entered the stage. They were either fighting the Americans (Iran) or armed by the Americans (Saudi Arabia, Taliban anyone?). And since the post WW2 period sectarian violence emerged because who would have guessed that destabilizing an entire region just to keep its influence down would fuel conflicts between people.
Maybe now you see why it’s such a typical snappy Reddit comment to blame it on religion but it’s in fact a pretty stupid take.
Btw for sources, regarding arab nationalism there’s „10 myths about Israel“ by Ilan Pappe and regarding regime changes there’s an extensive Wikipedia article on all American led regime changes.
Religion still drives it. The people in the middle of it could’ve made the best out of a shitty situation, but they chose conflict based on their religious ideals.
So yeah, fucking religious nutjobs.
I am lazy so I will simply copy and paste my response to the other comment.
There was a somewhat peaceful coexistence of all kinds of religions before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (let’s not get into the genocides the Ottoman Empire committed here). There have been pan-Arab nationalist movements in the 19th century to separate from the Ottoman Empire that the British undermined, see e.g. their meddling in Egypt. There have been local Arab nationalist movements that have been undermined, most prominently the Palestinian one.
Jews were in general safer in the Middle East than in Europe (I hope I don’t have to explain this). Especially in Palestine there have always been Muslims, Christians, and Jews. In Lebanon there were and still are many Christians. In Syria there are many ethnic and religious minorities. In Iraq there has been a coexistence between Shia and Sunni people. Iran wasn’t a very religious country.
The suppression of nationalist movements during the Ottoman period, the arbitrary borders that the British and French drew after they left their colonies, the installment of monarchies loyal to their interests and the creation of Israel all fueled conflicts. After the creation of the apartheid settler colony Israel, the Americans led regime changes in
- Syria (1949, 1956-1957)
- Egypt (1952)
- Iran (1952-1953)
- Iraq (1959, 1963)
all with the goal to prevent disloyal governments from forming, or even worse regimes that would take away their rights to extracting resources for free. These regime changes usually led to the establishment of brutal military dictatorships and to resistance groups forming. This is when the religious nut jobs finally entered the stage. They were either fighting the Americans (Iran) or armed by the Americans (Saudi Arabia, Taliban anyone?). And since the post WW2 period sectarian violence emerged because who would have guessed that destabilizing an entire region just to keep its influence down would fuel conflicts between people.
Maybe now you see why it’s such a typical snappy Reddit comment to blame it on religion but it’s in fact a pretty stupid take.
Btw for sources, regarding arab nationalism there’s „10 myths about Israel“ by Ilan Pappe and regarding regime changes there’s an extensive Wikipedia article on all American led regime changes.
The US could, but it would require imposing actual conditions on Israel.
Killing the negotiator… Zionists never wanted peace, not even in 1923.
Here’s another quote where he was more honest [emphasis mine]:
[It is the] iron law of every colonizing movement, a law which knows of no exceptions, a law which existed in all times and under all circumstances. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else – or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempts to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not “difficult”, not “dangerous” but IMPOSSIBLE! … Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonialization.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky
Yet, nearly half the comments here blame the Palestinians for the natural response Jabotinsky accurately predicted.
“… a colonizing adventure that stands or falls by the question of armed force.” I hate how unflinchingly this statement was made while the implications of it are terrifying. That is something I simply can’t wrap my head around.
How can people have such callous disregard for humanity?
Yes, Iran’s lack of direct force projection capability.
