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 “o
... show moreIf 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.
The assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran humiliated Iran’s leaders, dashed hopes of a ceasefire and left the heavily armed nations of the Middle East moving inexorably closer to an all-out war they all claim not to want
Simon Tisdall (The Guardian)
CheeseNoodle
in reply to girlfreddy • • •like this
KaRunChiy likes this.
Victor
in reply to CheeseNoodle • • •like this
NataliaTheDrowned2 likes this.
Transporter Room 3
in reply to Victor • • •I'd love for the US to go completely hands-off the middle east if only just to stop comments like this up that seem to think one country can somehow be responsible for tons of other countries meddling in the same area.
I mean, I want that so people will stop being ripped apart by us-made explosives, tax money stops being wasted, and focus more on improving things for the people within it's own borders and making it more inclusive to outsiders, but stopping comments like that is a nice little bonus.
YeetPics
in reply to Victor • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to CheeseNoodle • • •Victor
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Victor
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Victor • • •JASN_DE
in reply to girlfreddy • • •like this
KaRunChiy, NataliaTheDrowned2 and Azathoth like this.
markon
in reply to JASN_DE • • •JASN_DE
in reply to markon • • •rammer
in reply to JASN_DE • • •acargitz
in reply to JASN_DE • • •YeetPics
in reply to acargitz • • •acargitz
in reply to YeetPics • • •YeetPics
in reply to acargitz • • •What would you say is the defining factor for those competing nationalisms?
How many of the borders in this area were dictated by the religious populations?
There isn't separation of church and state in this place.
girlfreddy
in reply to YeetPics • • •Why can't it be both?
The Middle East has been a powder keg for a long time, so it would only make sense that nationalistic and sectarian causes would intermingle.
YeetPics
in reply to girlfreddy • • •When I say "holy land" the three biggest religions (by population and death-toll alike) all point to the same slice of desert.
Some lines on a map the British made have a lot less to do with the jihads than the 2000 year old traditions and beliefs (like people outside your religious tenet are dirty subhumans that must be culled)
I didn't design my house, but I live in it now. Seems like an apt analogy for ya to chew on.
RadioFreeArabia
in reply to girlfreddy • • •no, only since WW1 due to French and British designs, and since WW2 due to US and Israel
It is also ironic that a lot of this bigotry is coming from some of the most violent people throughout history, even in peaceful times
A Brief History of the USA - Bowling for Columbine - Michael Moore
YouTubegirlfreddy
in reply to RadioFreeArabia • • •nooneescapesthelaw
in reply to YeetPics • • •acargitz
in reply to YeetPics • • •Look, my frame of reference is the Balkans, that I know most intimately. There was a time when Greek and Turkish was defined on the basis of religion. You might have been a Turkish speaking Christian in Anatolia or a Greek speaking Muslim in Crete, and you were classified as a Greek and a Turk respectively and forced to migrate accordingly (treaty of Lausanne). In a different part of the Ottoman Empire, in Macedonia, if you sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople you were a Greek, if you sided with the Exarch of Sofia, a Bulgarian. Similarly, ninety years later, a Catholic was declared a Croat, an orthodox a Serb, a Muslim a Bosniac. Look closely and you will see the same story play out in the Caucasus and the East. The genocides of the Armenians, the Pontic Greeks, and the Assyrians by the Ottomans were not motivated by religion but by "national security".
Religion was used to define who makes up the nations. In the Ottoman Empire, the millet system literally conflated the two ideas. But make no mistake, the Ustashe were not massacring the Serbs because of the Filioque;
... show moreLook, my frame of reference is the Balkans, that I know most intimately. There was a time when Greek and Turkish was defined on the basis of religion. You might have been a Turkish speaking Christian in Anatolia or a Greek speaking Muslim in Crete, and you were classified as a Greek and a Turk respectively and forced to migrate accordingly (treaty of Lausanne). In a different part of the Ottoman Empire, in Macedonia, if you sided with the Patriarch of Constantinople you were a Greek, if you sided with the Exarch of Sofia, a Bulgarian. Similarly, ninety years later, a Catholic was declared a Croat, an orthodox a Serb, a Muslim a Bosniac. Look closely and you will see the same story play out in the Caucasus and the East. The genocides of the Armenians, the Pontic Greeks, and the Assyrians by the Ottomans were not motivated by religion but by "national security".
Religion was used to define who makes up the nations. In the Ottoman Empire, the millet system literally conflated the two ideas. But make no mistake, the Ustashe were not massacring the Serbs because of the Filioque; the Turks did not invade Cyprus in 1974 as part of some Jihad; the Greeks did not invade Anatolia in the 1920s for religious reasons; the Yugoslav wars were not sectarian violence. Religion was not the driver, it was the fuel.
In Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, religion plays a very similar role. Even the sectarian civil wars in Lebanon were mostly about who gets to control what it means to be Lebanese and who gets the upper hand, not about theological differences. Israel was founded by secular Jews as an explicitly national project. Even now, in its interactions with the CUFI crazies, it's clear to see that the Israelis are willing to put religion aside in the service of the national interest.
Are there people who are primarily driven by religious fanaticism? Of course. But they are treated as weird by the majority. Think for example how almost everyone banded against Daesh.
RadioFreeArabia
in reply to YeetPics • • •indigenous vs. people from Ukraine and Poland
RadioFreeArabia
in reply to YeetPics • • •Why did the Greeks, Persians and Romans want it when they were pagan? and the Egyptians long before them.
Trade routes, natural resource, strategic location, ...
roboto
in reply to JASN_DE • • •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.
CanadaPlus
in reply to roboto • • •roboto
in reply to CanadaPlus • • •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
... show moreYou 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
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.
CanadaPlus
in reply to roboto • • •I'd add on that Muslims and Jews got along especially well historically. There wasn't much competition between the two for anything, and they agreed on dietary laws and similar. The Nakba more-or-less set the entire problem in motion there.
Islam was the more progressive religion for a long time, or at least you can argue it was. Islamophobia is mostly a separate issue, but it's worth mentioning. Religions gets used to justify whatever the influential were planning to do anyway, and all three Abrahamic religions have questionable stuff in their holy books.
Tattorack
in reply to roboto • • •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.
roboto
in reply to Tattorack • • •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 th
... show moreI 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
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.
Apollo42
in reply to roboto • • •"If you ignore all of the racially driven genocides, the Ottomans were quite chill"
roboto
in reply to Apollo42 • • •The Ottomans actively destroyed education in their territories to dumb down the population and in their end phase committed multiple genocides. They also used the Balkans as a source for recruiting sex slaves and slave soldier units. What a horrible empire, horrible as any other empire but completely out of scope for this discussion.
Again, typical Reddit type of comment.
Apollo42
in reply to roboto • • •umbrella
in reply to JASN_DE • • •Sarah Brown
in reply to girlfreddy • •like this
NataliaTheDrowned2 and fif-t like this.
World News reshared this.
makyo
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •FenrirIII
in reply to Sarah Brown • • •wurzelgummidge
in reply to girlfreddy • • •Why should the order be western led?
like this
fif-t likes this.
Kaboom
in reply to wurzelgummidge • • •TheFriar
in reply to wurzelgummidge • • •like this
Azathoth and tiredofsametab like this.
RadioFreeArabia
in reply to TheFriar • • •is doing a lot of lifting
TheFriar
in reply to RadioFreeArabia • • •Praise Idleness
in reply to wurzelgummidge • • •NoSuchAgency
in reply to girlfreddy • • •HikingVet
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •Madison420
in reply to HikingVet • • •Breezy
in reply to Madison420 • • •Madison420
in reply to Breezy • • •NoSuchAgency
in reply to HikingVet • • •HikingVet
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •NoSuchAgency
in reply to HikingVet • • •HikingVet
in reply to NoSuchAgency • • •Kaboom
in reply to girlfreddy • • •TheFriar
in reply to Kaboom • • •You’re leaving out crucial pieces of information. Stop “them?” The world superpowers have meddled in, armed, and essentially used the Middle East as playgrounds for their international power struggles. So the entire world has been warring for millennia because going back to the times before that was the case, the rest of the world was fighting wars on our own turf. We just moved all of our wars there.
And this is no different. This is largely if not entirely propped up by “west vs east.” It’s just a sphere of influence for the rest of the world, and serves as a staging ground for wars we don’t want on our own doorstep. Nukes saw to that, I think. The “we’re not the ones at war” security blanket stops the nukes from dropping, I guess.
like this
fif-t likes this.
Nuke_the_whales
in reply to TheFriar • • •TheFriar
in reply to Nuke_the_whales • • •Yeah…but so has the rest of the world. You’re acting like that’s an anomaly. Colonialism has played a massive part in the unrest in the Middle East for centuries. And, I mean…it’s the birthplace of modern society. Humans have constantly been at war, so to paint the Middle East as particularly war-ridden without noting the effects of colonialism is disingenuous at best. The area was a valuable trade route and has been resource rich—it’s literally the Fertile Crescent.
So yeah, it’s a war torn area, but discounting the effects of colonialism dating back centuries and the fact that it’s the birthplace of agriculture…it just feels weird the way you’re putting it. As if middle eastern people are particularly conflict prone. People are conflict prone. And the rest of the world has meddled in the Middle East as long as it’s been possible. The French and the British (and Italians and Russians) literally just drew borders on a whim—and for their own ends. That’s a huge part of modern
... show moreYeah…but so has the rest of the world. You’re acting like that’s an anomaly. Colonialism has played a massive part in the unrest in the Middle East for centuries. And, I mean…it’s the birthplace of modern society. Humans have constantly been at war, so to paint the Middle East as particularly war-ridden without noting the effects of colonialism is disingenuous at best. The area was a valuable trade route and has been resource rich—it’s literally the Fertile Crescent.
So yeah, it’s a war torn area, but discounting the effects of colonialism dating back centuries and the fact that it’s the birthplace of agriculture…it just feels weird the way you’re putting it. As if middle eastern people are particularly conflict prone. People are conflict prone. And the rest of the world has meddled in the Middle East as long as it’s been possible. The French and the British (and Italians and Russians) literally just drew borders on a whim—and for their own ends. That’s a huge part of modern strife there. And the rest is, as I said, proxy battles for the rest of the world.
So war spans the globe, so to point out he Middle East as somehow worse while completely overlooking the cause dating back centuries (that is, colonialism), really just feels like you have some ulterior motive or are pushing some fucked up idea.
cecinestpasunbot
in reply to TheFriar • • •TheFriar
in reply to cecinestpasunbot • • •Nuke_the_whales
in reply to Kaboom • • •cecinestpasunbot
in reply to Nuke_the_whales • • •This is such a wildly naive and orientalist view of the Middle East. If you actually studied the modern history of the region you would know that since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire western powers have ceaselessly meddled in the affairs of the people there.
They’ve supported coups in order to overthrow democratic governments. They funded right wing jihadis including the precursors to and allies of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. They’ve enabled war crimes left and right. They even invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to bomb the whole region with an extensive and secretive drone program. Even now the west continues to defend authoritarian and genocidal regimes like Saudi Arabia or Israel as long as they serve their western interests regardless of their destabilizing effect.
The reality is you have no idea what a Middle East would look like without western intervention. To pretend that you do only reveals your complete ignorance and racist arrogance.
kerrypacker
in reply to cecinestpasunbot • • •Sure let's look at other places where the 'meddling western powers' have leftand peace broke out.
Oh hang on....
Sweetpeaches69
in reply to Nuke_the_whales • • •mightyfoolish
in reply to Nuke_the_whales • • •RadioFreeArabia
in reply to Nuke_the_whales • • •Nuke_the_whales
in reply to RadioFreeArabia • • •We're all guilty of this, but some places have evolved tribalism into nationalism, whereas some global regions are still a series of small communities who have their own ways. No matter what borders you put around them. People fight.
It's sad that pointing out a simple human fact and a historical fact as well, gets you called a racist by some white kid in mum's basement who is renting with his gut instead of brain
Mango
in reply to Kaboom • • •kent_eh
in reply to Mango • • •Mango
in reply to kent_eh • • •CommanderCloon
in reply to Mango • • •Mango
in reply to CommanderCloon • • •FlorianSimon
in reply to Kaboom • • •Don't make the mistake of confusing a moment in history with a "natural" affinity for wars. Humans period have been at war from millenia, not just Middle East humans. There's nothing in their genomes that makes them more belligerent than other peoples around the world.
Don't believe me? Look up the grand total of years of peace time in the US since it was created. Look at the death toll of both world wars. Look at the history of Europe, or that of precolombian America, of China...
Now, if the West, Russia and friends could stop meddling with their affairs...
Tattorack
in reply to FlorianSimon • • •Are you denying that there seems to be a particular concentration of conflict in the middle East?
The only reason why the US, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran can keep fueling warlords to continue their proxy wars is because they're already at each other's throats. Some tribal warfare that's been around since the bloody middle ages.
Russia and America pulling back their assets is not going to miraculously create piece.
FlorianSimon
in reply to Tattorack • • •Tattorack
in reply to FlorianSimon • • •What is in the people of that region has nothing to do with race. It's religion.
Of religion gets educated out of that population I'm 100% certain they'll function like anyone else.
FlorianSimon
in reply to Tattorack • • •It's a moment in history, not an inviolable truth, which is what the comment I'm replying to implies. The West went through the same horrors closely enough in time that some people are still alive to tell the story. And the US has no lesson to teach people in the middle East. In less than 300 years of history, they've been at peace for less than 20 years. And they've been in 100+ conflicts according to Wikipedia. Other imperial powers in the West and elsewhere have comparable track records.
The region would be more stable if it wasn't for imperialists. They made the bed for various extremist groups, and the middle East is paying the price.
The situation is comparable to someone lighting a fire and saying that the house was always on fire.
RadioFreeArabia
in reply to Kaboom • • •No it hasn't, only since WW1 due to Western meddling.
Europe has a history of more brutal and longer wars. They even brought some wars our way during the Crusades.
Socsa
in reply to girlfreddy • • •DragonTypeWyvern
in reply to Socsa • • •jimbolauski
in reply to girlfreddy • • •AngryCommieKender
in reply to jimbolauski • • •intensely_human
in reply to girlfreddy • • •Pyr_Pressure
in reply to intensely_human • • •I_Has_A_Hat
in reply to Pyr_Pressure • • •mlg
in reply to girlfreddy • • •Still doubt it's gonna escalate tbh.
They say Houthis are an Iranian proxy and yet they've done more to Israel than whatever Iran has tried directly.
girlfreddy
in reply to mlg • • •xor
in reply to mlg • • •dellish
in reply to mlg • • •CanadaPlus
in reply to girlfreddy • • •IndustryStandard
in reply to girlfreddy • • •roboto
in reply to IndustryStandard • • •RadioFreeArabia
in reply to girlfreddy • • •Crikeste
in reply to RadioFreeArabia • • •RadioFreeArabia
in reply to Crikeste • • •Here's another quote where he was more honest [emphasis mine]:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_…
Yet, nearl
... show moreHere's another quote where he was more honest [emphasis mine]:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_…
Yet, nearly half the comments here blame the Palestinians for the natural response Jabotinsky accurately predicted.
Russian Revisionist Zionist leader (1880–1940)
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Crikeste
in reply to RadioFreeArabia • • •“… 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?
RadioFreeArabia
in reply to Crikeste • • •Israeli journalist and author Gideon Levy in 2015 explains how Israelis do it
tl;dw: they don't see Palestinians as humans
How Israelis Live So Easily With Occupation - Gideon Levy
YouTubePhoenicianpirate
in reply to Crikeste • • •Phoenicianpirate
in reply to RadioFreeArabia • • •