Tag: iran

Iran is fighting America and Israel with one arm tied behind its back

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized3 Comments on Iran is fighting America and Israel with one arm tied behind its back

Iran has been feuding with America and Israel for decades. America likes to pretend this conflict is based on its principled opposition to the repressive nature of Iran’s government. But its alliances with repressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (among countless others) prove this is a lie. At its heart, this conflict is about America’s desire to prevent the rise of a Muslim power capable of dominating the Middle East. It has pursued this goal primarily to protect its allies in Israel.

America has struggled to contain Iran despite its massive advantage in resources because its objectives are completely unrealistic. Due to its large size, energy deposits, and long history as a unified political and cultural entity, Iran is the nation best positioned to dominate the Middle East. Even America’s unrivaled power cannot change what geography and common-sense dictate.

For the most part, Iran’s leaders have also played their hand shrewdly, but they have made some glaring miscalculations. Chief among them is the way they have violently repressed their own people. One does not need to be Sun Tzu to realize that alienating your own people while locked in a confrontation with foes as powerful and ruthless as America and Israel is not a smart strategy. But that is the path they have chosen.

The anti-government riots rocking Iran are but the latest in a long line that illustrate the dangers of their approach. When it comes to war and geopolitics, only those societies that work together triumph. Iran is still trying to devise a political system that can bring its people together over forty years after deposing the Shah. The hardliners who control its government have steadily chipped away at the few quasi-democratic features installed in the early days of the Revolution. They refuse to recognize the simple truth that certain decisions are inherently personal and should never be subject to government regulation. And they have directed much of their energy towards marginalizing the female half of their population. Their refusal to share power with the progressive elements within their society or empower Iranian women has made harnessing the full power of the Iranian people impossible. Instead of creating a political system that allows their people to work together to protect themselves, they have forced them to fight over women’s fashion.

Of course, the debate over the hijab is not really about women’s fashion but control and the degree to which Muslim governments can compel their citizens to follow religious edicts. In the Muslim world, this debate has been raging for centuries and, maddeningly, has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. As European powers began to conquer and divide Muslim lands amongst themselves, Muslims were forced to confront the glaring differences between their societies and those of their conquerors. Part of this involved comparing the limited governments created by Western societies and the individual freedoms they bestowed upon their citizens to the repressive political and social systems that forced conformity in the Muslim world.

Many astute Muslims recognized the need to create democratic and pluralistic political and social systems that could educate and empower their people. Despite the overwhelming empirical evidence, most of the Muslim world’s religious elite disagreed. Instead of embracing reforms that could protect them from further violence, they convinced the masses they were defeated because they had stopped living like true Muslims.

According to this worldview, the key to re-vitalizing the Muslim world was creating governments that strictly adhered to Islamic law and norms. The great irony here is that, as usual, the conservatives got it completely backwards. The West did not conquer the Muslim world because Muslim women stopped covering their heads. In fact, it was the authoritarian culture that forced women cover themselves that made the Muslim world so easy to conquer.

Again, we are not just talking about the hijab but the roots of the authoritarianism that compels women to wear them that has been a feature of Muslim societies for centuries. The Muslim world’s military and religious elite adamantly refused to share power with their people. To that end, they created authoritarian political and social systems to control them. In the process, they prevented their societies from evolving and developing the technological and economic foundations necessary to protect themselves[1]. Forcing women to wear the hijab is just one of many examples of the dogmatic and reactionary ideas of the Muslim world’s religious elite that eventually destroyed its intellectual climate, stunting its development. This allowed Europe to conquer or subjugate nearly the entire Muslim world. Worst of all, the prevalence of these ideas today has kept it weak, impoverished, and vulnerable to more violence.

Iran may believe it has the upper hand now that it is so close the building a bomb. It may even believe America is unwilling or too exhausted to do anything about it. But that ignores the ugly reality of American politics or the aggressive mindset of Israeli military leaders. America and Israel are both shifting more to the right every day. That means their policies towards the Muslim world will grow increasingly imperialistic and violent. They may not have the stomach to put troops on the ground, but they will continue to use violence and economic warfare to keep Iran subservient to their interests. Unfortunately, their imperial worldview cannot envision anything else. The assassination of Gen. Soleimani by the right-wing Trump administration shows how easily another right-wing administration could escalate violence towards Iran.

Iran’s leaders must therefore brace themselves for sustained conflict even after they finally build their bomb. Doing so requires understanding why the West has been so dominant and reforming their society in accordance with these lessons. Democracy is not just the moral choice; it is the practical choice. Democratic systems based on the rule of law that protect property and human rights as well as freedom of expression have proven the best at generating wealth and technological innovation and these are necessary precursors for military power in the modern age.

I have argued elsewhere that they must also seek alliances with non-Arab Muslim Sunni states to protect themselves from the long-term dangers posed by America’s and Israel’s increasingly unhinged political climates. But an even more fundamental step is seeking peace with their own people. Without a strong political foundation based on the popular support of most Iranians, Iran will continue to fight with one arm tied behind its back.

Thus far Iran’s leaders have reacted to the riots in typical fashion. They have blamed Western conspiracies while dismissing the legitimate grievances of their people. In doing so, they are only hurting themselves and proving why the Muslim world has suffered at the hands of the Great Powers for so long.  

[1] For a more detailed explanation see Kuru Ahmet, “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment,” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019)

Tagged : / / / / /

The Taliban have no reason to celebrate: 

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorizedLeave a Comment on The Taliban have no reason to celebrate: 

Reports coming out of Afghanistan regarding the Taliban’s celebrations are extremely confusing.  The end of any war is always cause for joy because it brings hope for peace. But anyone who thinks the Taliban’s “victory” is worth celebrating as a triumph of Muslim military prowess is a fool with extremely low standards. Glorifying events in Afghanistan is an implicit acceptance of the Muslim world’s unbelievably weak military abilities.

America conquered Afghanistan with such ease that one could almost forgive its leaders for underestimating the Taliban’s ability to re-group. It only needed a few special forces troops and air power to conquer a nation that is over 650,000 square kilometers in the span of a few weeks. The Taliban were completely outmatched and ran away almost immediately. Its conquest was so easy that it never even bothered to station more than 20,300 troops there during the first five years of its occupation.

America withdrew from Afghanistan because, as explained here, it shot itself in the foot in a variety of ways, leading to the Taliban’s resurgence. It then realized it did not care enough to stay and clean up its mess. So, it left. It decided long ago that Afghanistan was not worth the effort but only stayed for so long due to its stubborn pride and corporate interests. And yet it still took the Taliban twenty years, an estimated 50,000 dead soldiers, and 40,000 dead civilians to convince them to leave. That is not a victory worth celebrating.

Afghanistan was easily conquered and occupied by both Russia and America because it has never been able to build an industrial base capable of generating the military capacity to deter these invasions. It has been unable to do so because a significant number of Afghans are philosophically opposed to the type of reforms needed to modernize. The Taliban’s views are not an aberration within Afghan society or the Muslim world either. They are just an extreme manifestation of the authoritarian tendencies that have prevented Muslims from instituting the changes necessary to thrive in the modern world. As such, the debacle in Afghanistan is an indictment of Afghan society and a reflection of the weakness that has consumed the entire Muslim world.

While it was occupying Afghanistan, the US decided to invade Iraq too. Using fabricated evidence, it concocted a tale to justify an invasion that led to the slaughter of between 200,000 – 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis. No one is sure how many Iraqis died because no one bothered to count all the bodies. It was able to violently maintain control over both nations simultaneously for many years, and only left after it grew tired of wasting resources on countries that were not part of its core national security interests.

America’s embarrassingly easy conquests and overlapping occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and the inability of the entire Muslim world to prevent these attacks are just one piece of the puzzle. The tiny nation of Israel has established complete military control over the Eastern Mediterranean and bombs its Arab neighbors with impunity when it is so inclined. It also launches clandestine and aerial attacks against Iran, which can only respond with threats and impotent, asymmetric gestures. Pakistan has tried and failed to take Kashmir from India three times. The string of military defeats suffered by Muslims is too long to list in its entirety. But they are all related to the same root causes.

The simple fact is that Muslim societies would not be so prone to conquest if their institutions had not already rotted from within.

There are still too many Muslim nations living under the tyranny of dictatorship. The violent authoritarian control exercised by the region’s military and/or religious elite[1] has crippled the ability of Muslims to build effective governments and social institutions capable of nurturing the economic and technological development necessary to end their appallingly weak military abilities. Until Muslim societies wholeheartedly implement serious reforms to their political, legal, educational, social, and economic systems to free themselves from the shackles of dictatorship, they will continue to be subject to the same pattern of conquest they have endured these past five centuries. Instead of blaming outsiders, Muslims must accept responsibility for their failures. The simple fact is that Muslim societies would not be so prone to conquest if their institutions had not already rotted from within, making them such inviting targets.

The military incompetence of Muslim nations represents an existential threat that can no longer be ignored.

America’s occupations were but the latest in a long line that all prove a simple point. It is time for change. The military incompetence of Muslim nations represents an existential threat that can no longer be ignored. Imagine what would have happened if Afghanistan and Iraq were actually important to the US. It has already proven it will do anything to win a fight, even if that means dropping atomic bombs on an island full of emaciated women and children. America may not care about the Muslim world today, but the world is volatile, and things change. If it decided to come back, no one could stop it.

America is not the only country Muslims should worry about either. Any Muslim welcoming China, given its treatment of the Uighurs, is a hypocrite and an even bigger fool. In some respects, Russia has been an even more brutal conqueror of Muslims than the West. The Czars conquered vast Muslim populations who have repeatedly tried and failed to throw off the yoke of Russian occupation. These examples highlight a glaring pattern of weakness prevalent across nearly the entirety of the Muslim world. The Taliban and those with similar views may see events in Afghanistan as a vindication of their beliefs, but that only proves how foolish they truly are.

Afghanistan’s new rulers appear to have learned how to deal with Western media. One can only hope they have also studied the deeper causes of the Western world’s military dominance, which is the result of its democratic forms of government, inclusive political and social institutions, secure property rights, and free speech protections. These have allowed the West to create governments, schools, and private companies capable of stimulating the economic and technological development necessary to develop advanced military capabilities. Until the Muslim world implements reforms that can lead to similar capabilities, it will continue to be a victim of conquest.

Instead of celebrating, the Taliban should ask themselves why their nation was so easily conquered and why it took so long to evict Russia and America. Doing so requires deciphering why it has been unable to modernize or develop a system of government that allows its diverse people to work together. Until they solve these riddles, they will be unable to develop policies that can ensure they are never conquered again. By extension, the rest of the Muslim world should be asking, to varying degrees, why it has been so weak for so long. If Afghanistan was a victory for Muslim arms, I shudder to think about what a defeat would look like.

Having discussed the problem of the Muslim world’s military incompetence, here are some ideas to correct these issues.

The author is a US Navy veteran and creator of the blog www.mirrorsfortheprince.com where he examines the causes of the Muslim world’s sustained weakness and suggests reforms that can help it modernize.

[1] Kuru Ahmet, “Islam, Authoritarianism, and Underdevelopment,” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 3-6, 9-12, 93-101, 225.

Tagged : / / / / / / / /

It is time to create a Muslim NATO:

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized10 Comments on It is time to create a Muslim NATO:

As explained in more detail here, America no longer has the desire to act as the Muslim world’s military hegemon. As such, it is only a matter of time before the US relinquishes its role as the dominant military power within the Islamic world. Though the contours and timing of its withdrawal are still uncertain, Muslim nations must begin considering how this withdrawal will impact them and how they should react. The changes that are likely to transpire represent a “critical juncture[i]” in the history of the Muslim world that will determine its trajectory for several decades. The reaction of Muslim nations will be pivotal in determining this trajectory. The following is not an attempt to predict what Muslim nations will do, but to suggest what they should do.

THERE IS NO SINGLE MUSLIM NATION POWERFUL ENOUGH TO ASSUME THE SECURITY ROLE THE US HAS FULFILLED

There is currently no Muslim nation with the military and economic resources to act as a military hegemon within the Muslim world. In fact, the most powerful military in the Middle East belongs to Israel. Among Muslim nations, Pakistan fields the most powerful military but given its fixation on India and extreme underdevelopment, it does not have the capacity to project military power beyond its borders. Given the current security dynamics in the region and the military weakness of most Muslim states, particularly the Arab states[ii], a withdrawal of US forces from the Islamic world will lead to further instability due to the security vacuum such changes will create[iii]. As such, the governments of the region must devise new policies that can fill the vacuum created by America’s inevitable withdrawal. Though not a direct cause of the Muslim world’s underlying weakness, America’s military presence has certainly helped entrench it and the dependence of Muslim nations on its power will make developing adequate military capabilities considerably more difficult.

There is no single Islamic nation capable of becoming a military hegemon on its own because none of them have the size and resources to compete with Russia, China, the US, or a united Europe. The Ottoman Empire was the last great Islamic empire, and it was never able to overcome the geographic vulnerability of having to defend itself against a powerful and antagonistic Persia to the East, an expansionist Russia to its North and a resurgent Europe to its Northwest. Ultimately, Muslims have no choice but to pursue policies that will lead to the sort of unification that Europe has undergone since the end of WWII since this is the only way to create an Islamic political entity with the resources to provide the Muslim world with the security and stability it so desperately needs.

Talking about the integration of Muslim countries considering their highly fractured relations may strike some as fantasy and to a certain extent, it is. However, it is highly doubtful anyone standing in the rubble of Germany or France after WWII could ever have imagined how integrated and prosperous both countries would be so soon after the end of that conflict. In many respects, Europe has a much greater legacy of conflict between its nations than the nations of the Muslim world. In fact, WWII is most accurately interpreted as the culmination of a series of wars resulting from the evolution of Prussia into modern day Germany. As the individual German states united, the power dynamics in Europe shifted, resulting in a series of wars that included WWI and WWII. The chaos and constant warfare that plagued Europe did not stop until a comprehensive political and economic solution in the form of the European Community was created. Some may counter that it was the absolute military victory of the Allied powers that ended this cycle of conflict, and this is true to a degree. But the Allies also decisively won WWI and despite all the carnage of that conflict, Europe was engulfed in war just two decades later. It was not until Western Europe integrated its economies and created the political institutions to manage this integration that the cycle of warfare between Europe’s nations stopped.

From this perspective, working towards the integration of Muslim nations is a realistic though difficult goal. The Muslim world is obviously in a different situation than Europe at the end of WWII. In some respects, it has advantages that Europe did not have since it has not experienced the destruction of a cataclysmic war and does not need to completely rebuild itself. However, this same advantage is also a handicap since the shock of WWII was likely a catalyst behind the first efforts to integrate Europe. On the other hand, if the conquest of Muslim lands and the continuing domination of Muslims by outside powers is still not enough to convince Muslims that working together to ensure their freedom and prosperity is a goal they should aspire to, then it is unlikely even a conflict on the scale of WWII would have any effect either. The biggest disadvantage Muslims face in their quest to integrate is the fact that the political institutions of most Muslim countries are closed and extractive[iv] whereas Europe’s institutions were mostly open and inclusive. The most difficult part of trying to integrate Muslim countries will therefore be reforming these repressive and closed political institutions. If Muslims can successfully reform these institutions, they have the potential to finally end their protracted weakness.

THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF MUSLIM STATES WITH THE CAPACITY TO CREATE SUCH AN ENTITY

The only way to strengthen the Muslim world’s military capabilities is to create a new political entity that can assume the security responsibilities America has performed for the past several decades since there is no Muslim nation capable of handling this role by itself. The most logical route to accomplishing this goal is to resurrect the concepts that led to the creation of CENTO. As the US understood in the 1950s, the nations of Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan have the capacity to form the backbone of a security alliance that could develop into a hegemonic Muslim power. Due to its geography and strategic concerns, Afghanistan should also join this alliance.

The main difference between CENTO and the entity being proposed here (hereinafter referred to as P.A.I.T.) is that the US should not be an active participant. It should support the creation of such an entity, but since the goal is to relieve the US of its security responsibilities, it would make no sense for it to be actively involved in its creation. Instead, it must grow and develop as a purely regional security system that allows Muslims to develop the capacity to work together for their own protection. Due to the extremely weak nature of most governments within the Muslim world, P.A.I.T. also represents the only Islamic countries with the institutional capacity and strategic incentives to create such an entity. Most of the Arab, African, and Central Asian parts of the Muslim world feature either unstable authoritarian governments that are dependent on American or Russian military and economic assistance to maintain their power or failed states that do not have the requisite degree of state centralization to create political, military, and economic institutions that can form the basis for a stable, democratic government, let alone a new multi-national political entity[v].

A security alliance between P.A.I.T. will not work nor be of lasting duration unless it is underpinned by an economic alliance. The first step in creating such an alliance will therefore be creating free trade agreements that can bind the economies and infrastructures of these nations together. Despite their weaknesses and different strategic concerns, the long-term goals of P.A.I.T. are all best served by economic integration meant to create an entirely new political entity with the strength to fill the power vacuum left by America’s departure. Combining the populations of these four countries would create an entity with a large internal market of over 400 million people that is well endowed with natural resources and defensible borders. The presence of such an entity would allow the US to withdraw its troops from the region by taking over its security responsibilities in the same way that the creation of the UAE allowed the British to withdraw their forces from the former Trucial States.

All four nations face strategic environments that should make their elites more receptive to integrationist ideas. In fact, three out of four are locked in existential conflicts they are not strong enough to resolve on their own. As a result, their governments are not as likely to prevent such an alliance from developing out of fear that it may threaten their grip on power. The main issue is that their elites must see an alliance as being in their interests despite their ethnic and doctrinal differences and the short-term upheaval such changes may cause. Though each has its own weaknesses and strategic concerns, they also have the right combination of institutions and strategic needs to overcome these issues if they can muster the political will and vision to do so.

Part of the impetus for creating a new political entity comprised of P.A.I.T. is that doing so will allow them to consolidate their borders and improve their geostrategic positions by creating advantages of strategic depth and improved internal lines of communication and supply to fortify their frontiers. A Pakistan that can rely on the meaningful support of Afghanistan, Turkey, and Iran in its confrontation with India will be much better equipped to handle such a confrontation and would have more options available to it. An Iran that can use free trade agreements with Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey to mitigate the effects of US economic warfare and provide strategic depth for its military assets will be better able to resist the aggression of the US or Israel. By entering into free trade agreements with Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey, Afghanistan will finally be able to develop the economic strength needed to give its people the peace they have lacked for so long but in a way that does not put it under the undue influence of another power. It may also be the only way to legitimize and moderate the new Taliban government. And the inclusion of Turkey into this alliance will provide it with a well-developed economic base that can be used to facilitate economic development between all four nations while finally allowing Turkey to realize its pan-Islamic foreign policy goals. Essentially, by combining portions of the lands and resources of the old Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires, Muslims can create a new entity that has the land and resources to ensure the great powers of the world can no longer dominate them. Eventually (meaning the distant future), such an entity could expand West and North to include many Arab states as well as the Muslim republics of Central Asia.

P.A.I.T. WILL NEED TO UNDERGO SERIOUS REFORMS

In order to come together to create such an entity, each must first undergo serious internal reforms to either create or strengthen their democratic political institutions. The creation of inclusive and genuine democratic institutions that respect the rule of law and rights of their citizens are absolutely vital for creating dynamic economic institutions[vi] and military capabilities. If Muslims ever hope to end the cycle of conquest and subjugation they have endured for the past several centuries, they must institute deep rooted political and socio-economic reforms because this is the only way that they will ever be able to develop the economic, technological, and military power required to protect themselves.  They must also drastically improve their governing institutions by zealously fighting corruption and ensuring their institutions can provide the government services such an entity will need to thrive. They must work to integrate their infrastructures and create new institutions that can facilitate their integration by increasing trade between all four nations so that their elites can quickly see the benefits of having access to each other’s markets.

They will also need to work to overcome the ethnic and doctrinal rivalries that have consumed the Muslim world. The only way to bridge the divide between Sunnis and Shiites, or Turks and Persians, or Punjabis and Pashtuns, etc. is to create institutions that allow these different ethnic and doctrinal groups to fairly share power with each other. In the modern era, those societies that have been able to create institutions that are successful at fairly sharing resources and settling disputes among its citizens regardless of their ethnic or religious differences have achieved the greatest economic prosperity and sometimes even the greatest amount of military power[vii].  Democratic institutions allow for a greater diffusion of power which leads to a greater diffusion of wealth which empowers groups within a society to continue generating and developing more wealth, creating a reinforcing loop of wealth creation and power diffusion and this usually leads to greater overall wealth for everyone[viii]. Given the diversity of the Islamic world, the only way Muslims will ever come together is by creating such institutions to facilitate their integration.

There seems to be a direct correlation between inclusive, democratic institutions and military power. This is because societies that fairly share political power and economic resources and properly incentivize their members to increase their economic output are typically going to be wealthier. The increased wealth of these societies provides them with more resources to spend on developing their military capabilities and the inclusive political institutions used to facilitate this wealth creation also reduces friction between members of these societies because they do not feel unfairly marginalized or excluded from power. As such, the members of such societies benefit from having the resources and necessary group cohesion to obtain a decisive military edge. This also shows that arguments in favor of creating liberal, inclusive political institutions are not based solely on a sense of morality or fairness but that such institutions are the most effective at allowing a society to develop the military capabilities necessary to protect itself from conquest. Their primary advantage is of a practical nature and a recognition that such institutions are the most effective at allowing members of a society to work together for their own betterment and protection. Conversely, ideologies based on narrow concepts of ethnic, tribal, or national identity are typically not as good at developing the sort of inclusive political institutions that can lead to greater economic growth and military power. This is important because the only way an entity comprised of Pakistanis, Turks, Persians, and Afghans will thrive is if it creates institutions that can allow these different groups to work together and the only way to accomplish this is to create transparent and fair ways for them to share power with each other and work together.

AMERICA’S ROLE

As part of its withdrawal the US must help create a coalition of allies that can prevent another hostile great power from replacing it. As such, facilitating the creation of an alliance between P.A.I.T. is in America’s long-term interest as well. The current strategy of relying on unstable monarchial dictatorships or military strongmen will not work in the long run. Simply put, these regimes do not have the strength to stand on their own. Consequently, continuing to support such allies makes no sense. Instead, the US must seek new allies that can defend themselves without help. The biggest hurdle to this is America’s ongoing conflict with Iran. If the US is serious about withdrawing its troops from the Middle East, then this issue will need to be resolved amicably. Doing so within the framework of an alliance comprised of traditional US allies like Pakistan and Turkey may present the best opportunity to do so in a manner that protects the interests of both nations.

The US must fundamentally change its policies towards the governments of the Islamic world by using its diplomatic and economic power to encourage these governments to respect the human rights of their citizens and institute meaningful democratic reforms. The only path to doing this is by supporting the spread of genuine democracy within the Islamic world. It must also stop being so fearful of governments within the Muslim world that have an Islamist component or perspective. The US has allowed its fear of political Islam to justify supporting brutal dictators that have mired the region in war and conflict. Instead of fearing such governments, the US must learn to work with them. As the people of the Muslim world become accustomed to choosing their own leaders, they may choose leaders that will have an Islamic perspective. This may lead to disagreements but does not have to preclude the development of strong relationships with these nations in the same way that even serious disagreements with its allies in Europe or India have not been allowed to undermine the fundamentals of those relationships.

Such policies would allow for the development of stable and democratic governments that respect human rights and can lay the foundation for the development of strong economies. This will eventually allow Muslims to develop the military capabilities necessary to prevent their conquest by another great power on their own. Though it may sound oxymoronic, helping Muslims become self-sufficient is the best way to help them achieve true independence and this is the best way to ensure these countries are never conquered or dominated by another competing great power that would deny America access to the region or use its resources as part of a broader confrontation with the US[ix].

CONCLUSION

It is only a matter of time before the US withdraws its troops from the Muslim world. Muslim nations must therefore develop new ideas that can allow them to fill the security vacuum its departure will create. The leaders of the Muslim world must begin to implement the reforms suggested above if they ever hope to end the cycle of violence and weakness that has consumed their countries. It is up to the nations and people of the Muslim world to devise new strategies that can allow them to finally end their protracted weakness. The policies they have pursued thus far have clearly not worked. The Muslim world has been in a sustained state of weakness for many centuries, and it will take many years to reverse the effects of its long decline. As such, the ideas presented here will take many years to develop and implement and the entity proposed above may never even materialize. However, even small steps taken towards creating it will have a beneficial impact on the Muslim world by increasing trade and helping Muslims work together. Muslims must therefore begin the process of building such an entity as soon as possible if they ever hope to reverse their fortunes.

The Arab states of the Gulf appear to believe creating an alliance with Israel will shield them from Iran while Pakistan and Iran are developing bi-lateral relationships with China. Neither strategy will work. Israel’s military is powerful enough to protect Israeli interests but, considering their aversion to casualties, it is highly doubtful Israel’s leaders will risk IDF soldiers to protect allies in the Gulf or help them secure the Gulf’s shipping lanes. Muslims rejoicing at America’s departure and welcoming China should be wary as well. China’s ethnic cleansing of its Muslims should serve as a warning to those who believe it will be a kinder benefactor than America. The authoritarian structure of its political institutions and refusal to countenance even mild criticism or non-conformity indicate it will be the opposite. Instead of trying to replace the US with another outside power whose interests will then take precedence, Muslims must learn to look to each other for their security needs.

The best way to start is by allowing the people of the Muslim world to re-create the cultural, social, and commercial links that once bound them. Muslim governments and people both need to begin promoting the free exchange of goods, people, and ideas between each other. Islamic societies were once integrated through interconnected layers of political alliances, trade and religious networks. These connections and the infrastructure that supported them helped to create what was essentially a free trade zone that allowed for the movement of goods, people, and ideas throughout the Islamic world in a manner that helped it to develop a common culture and an integrated economy.  If Muslims are ever going to take control of their security needs, they must rebuild these links so that the interests of the Muslim world’s different nations and people begin to align in a manner that leads to further economic, political, and military cooperation.  Ultimately, the nations of the Muslim world have no choice but to adapt to their changing security environment by learning to rely on themselves and each other. Arguing for an alliance between P.A.I.T. may seem like a desperate plan but after centuries of conquest and subjugation, desperate is a fitting description for the Muslim world. The absolute military, political, and economic weakness of the Muslim world will only be corrected through bold measures.    

These ideas are also consistent with the theories developed by Professor Huntington in his important work “The Clash of Civilizations.” The past few decades have illustrated the prescience of his model for understanding international relations and conflict. As he predicted, the world is moving towards a multi-polar international system largely centered around its major civilizational blocks. Before this system can realize its potential, the Islamic world will need to stabilize itself. Until this happens it will continue to destabilize surrounding regions and it will continue to present a security vacuum that outside powers will try to fill. As Prof. Huntington’s model implies, it will fall upon the people and nations of the Muslim world to help themselves since nations from other civilizational blocks will be both unwilling and unable to do so[x].

[i] A “critical juncture” is when a “confluence of factors disrupts the existing balance of political or economic power.” See Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, (New York: Crown Business, 2012) at 106.

[ii] The UAE, a.k.a. “little Sparta” is the only Arab nation that has managed to develop adequate military capabilities.

[iii] Bandow, Doug, “Want to Fix the Deficit? Bring Home the Troops,” Foreignpolicy.com, May 28, 2020,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/28/us-deficit-military-spending-budget-bring-home-troops/.

[iv] For a more detailed discussion regarding the impact of such institutions, see Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, (New York: Crown Business, 2012) at 79-83; 216; 271.

[v] Both Indonesia and Nigeria are too geographically remote, and Nigeria does not face a strategic environment that would cause its elites to support the reforms that would be necessary to join such an entity.

[vi] Again, for a more in-depth discussion of these ideas see Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail, (New York: Crown Business 2012) at 79-83; 216; 271.

[vii] Though he does not explain why in great detail, Prof. Bernard Lewis appears to agree with this conclusion in his article “Why Turkey is the only Muslim Democracy,” Middle East Quarterly, March 1994, pp. 41-49.

[viii] Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James, Why Nations Fail, (New York: Crown Business 2012) at 306-17.

[ix] The author is obviously thinking about China’s growing influence in the region.

[x] Huntington, Samuel, The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order, (New York: Touchstone, 1996) pp. 21-29.

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Non-violent resistance is the best chance the Palestinians have left

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized5 Comments on Non-violent resistance is the best chance the Palestinians have left

On April 13, 1919 British General Reginald Dyer ordered his troops to open fire on a crowd of unarmed Indians in the city of Amritsar. They murdered 379 men, women, and children that day. Despite the inevitable calls for revenge, Mahatma Gandhi worked tirelessly to convince his countrymen that non-violent resistance was still their best chance for freedom. It took nearly thirty years and countless more deaths, beatings, and unjust imprisonments, but Gandhi’s tactics eventually freed the Subcontinent from the evils of imperialism. Martin Luther King borrowed many of Gandhi’s ideas to finally free African Americans from the evils of segregation. Though primarily grounded in value systems that abhorred violence, the choices Gandhi and King made were also a reflection of the fact that they were outgunned by men who had no problem murdering women and children. Non-violence was not just a moral choice, but a necessity born of weakness.

The parallels between these examples and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be painfully obvious. The latest fighting claimed the lives of over 250 Palestinians compared to just 12 Israelis. While some may find it crude to compare casualty figures, the huge disparity in these numbers highlights the power differential between both groups and is consistent with numbers from previous conflicts as well. For example, in 2014 Israel killed over 2,100 Palestinians while suffering only 73 fatalities. The lopsided casualties suffered by the Palestinians is based on their inability to match Israel’s military capabilities. They do not have the heavy weapons required to challenge the IDF in a conventional fight and have proven incapable of developing effective guerilla tactics that can do so either. From a military perspective, the Palestinians are incredibly weak while Israelis are incredibly strong.

One of the few American media personalities to correctly diagnose this state of affairs is comedian Trevor Noah who poignantly highlighted on his Daily Show that the Palestinians simply do not have the military ability to protect themselves. Hamas’ ability to attack Israel with rockets may grab headlines but homemade rockets are not going to significantly change the balance of power in this conflict as long as Israel has all the tanks and warplanes. Consequently, the only real path to peace and dignity for the Palestinian people lays in civil disobedience and non-violent resistance aimed at dismantling the Apartheid state most of them have been forced to live in since 1967. Given the serious military imbalance between the parties, this is the only chance for the Palestinians to secure their rights. It also represents their best chance to use the political momentum and sympathy generated from the latest violence to their advantage.

For the most part, the latest round of fighting was depressingly similar to previous bouts of violence that always seem to feature massive Israeli bombardments and disproportionate Palestinian casualties. However, there was one crucial difference this time. For the first time, the Palestinians had vocal support from within the US political establishment. For the first time, Americans are having a conversation about their government’s unequivocal support for Israel. These changing sentiments are still not enough to challenge the vested and powerful interests within America that have always supported Israel, but it shows there is a chink in the armor. And the best way for the Palestinians to exploit this opening is by adopting widespread civil disobedience in which they peacefully refuse to comply with Israel’s Apartheid policies. Doing so would not only secure the moral high ground (given their lack of weapons, this is the only high ground they can hope for), it would also give them new political momentum and significantly change the current dynamics of the conflict which still heavily favors Israel.

Non-violence is the only tactic that has the potential to change the pattern of violence between both parties. Otherwise, these periodic conflagrations will continue repeating themselves because the fundamental dynamics of this conflict will remain unchanged. And the one unchanging fact shaping this conflict for the past 16 years is that Israel has overwhelmingly won both militarily and politically. It won when it crushed the second Intifada and locked Hamas in an open-air prison (along with two million innocent Palestinians for good measure).


The recent détente between Israel and various Arab states and the muted reaction to Israel being labeled an Apartheid state by Human Rights Watch also highlight the degree to which it has won this conflict politically. The sad reality is that the Western world has become numb to the devastation being inflicted upon the Palestinian people. Until this latest round of violence, America’s unwavering support gave Israel carte blanche to do as it pleased to the Arabs under its control and it seemed there was no red line it could cross that would change this, even attacking Islam’s third holiest site during Ramadan. Non-violent resistance is therefore the only path left that has any chance at ending the cycle of violence and securing a favorable outcome for the Palestinians.

The biggest barrier to effectively using such tactics is the fact that no amount of civil disobedience will result in the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Israel’s colonization of the West Bank destroyed that option. The presence of roughly 760,000 settlers and the extensive network of settlements and infrastructure they built across the entire area integrated the West Bank with Israel, creating “facts on the ground” that make building a viable Palestinian state impossible. Many Israelis are adamantly opposed to a one-state solution, but the truth is that their leaders set them on this path the minute they started building settlements in the West Bank (to say nothing of the fact that a nation built in the heart of the Arab world should probably expect to have a few Arab citizens). Israel and the West Bank are already a single state in all but name, controlled by a single political authority. Israel has just hidden behind the legal fiction of the Green Line to create an Apartheid state that denies the Palestinians their fundamental rights.

For non-violence to work, it must be used with a realistic goal in mind that forces Israelis to decide if they would rather live in a Jewish state or a democratic one. And the Palestinians must understand that just because they refuse to resort to violence does not mean Israel will play along. The British did everything they could to goad Indians into fighting back. Similarly, attempts at non-violent protest in Gaza were met by sniper fire in 2018. Israel will do everything in its power to get the Palestinians to keep fighting for the false promise of their own state because violent resistance, even in self-defense, plays into the hands of right-wing Israelis looking to justify their unbelievably hypocritical policies. Despite these obstacles, civil disobedience still represents the best chance for the Palestinians to end their suffering by creating a genuinely democratic state in which all of Israel’s citizens are treated as equals.

Tagged : / / / / / / /

Introduction: The What and The Why

by Mirrors For The PrinceUncategorized1 Comment on Introduction: The What and The Why

Welcome to my blog, “Mirrors for the Prince.” I hope you enjoy yourself and, more importantly, I hope you find the content informative and educational.

Before explaining what this blog is about, I wanted to explain its name. About 1,100 years ago civil servants and ministers wrote books intended to provide practical advice to their rulers regarding how best to govern. This genre of literary work was referred to by an Arabic phrase that translates to “Mirrors for Princes” since these books were meant to encourage rulers to engage in the sort of self-reflection that would help them be better leaders.  The purpose of this blog is also to advise the current rulers of the Muslim world based on my experiences as a lawyer, veteran, and civil servant to help them be better leaders. The title “Mirrors For The Prince” therefore struck me as an equally relevant and fitting name since each article I publish is intended to function as a mirror the rulers of the Muslim world can use to help them reflect on the governments they have created. As with most of the ideas that will be presented here, the title is a fusion of Islamic and Western ideas since it also references one of the Western world’s seminal works of political thought, Machiavelli’s The Prince.  

As I said, this blog is meant to provide advice to the rulers of the Muslim world regarding what sort of policies they should pursue if they are at all interested in reversing the seemingly permanent state of weakness that has enveloped their nations. It is not an attempt to predict what they will do but to suggest what they should do. The goal is to try and spark the re-birth that the Muslim world so desperately needs by suggesting new policies that can substantially increase its power. The policies currently pursued by its rulers have resulted in the total military, political, economic, and technological domination of the Muslim world by the West, Russia, and China. The resulting instability has caused widespread poverty and warfare which has, in turn, caused the deaths of countless innocents.   

Though this blog will mostly express itself in the language of politics, economics, and history, it is truly concerned with questions of morality and basic human decency since its main goal is ending the marginalization of millions of innocent people who are suffering from violence and poverty. The analysis and ideas presented here are offered with a view towards finally creating the political and economic conditions necessary to end the suffering of these innocents. To that end, I will strive to provide the most objective and logical advice I can.   

Unfortunately, I am not confident my intended audience will heed my advice. As such, I will occasionally provide what limited advice I can to my fellow Muslims. I hope that some of my ideas will be well received by them. Ultimately, even if it’s a distorted representation, governments are still a reflection of their people. The ineffective governments of many Muslim countries therefore reflect poorly upon both their people and their rulers. As a community, Muslims must continue to search for answers to the deep-rooted issues within our societies that have affected our ability to develop and modernize. Please note that I suggest we need to modernize, not Westernize. The only way for Muslims to move forward is to begin relying on our Islamic values but in a manner that is consistent with the demands of modernity and evolution.  As such, my advice will be geared towards suggesting ideas that can allow Muslims to modernize and finally develop the technical, economic and military capabilities to protect themselves from the aggression and conquest they have been subject to over the past few centuries. My policy recommendations are based upon the idea that the excessive concentration of power by central governments leads to unjust policies that are mainly designed to further the interests of tiny groups of elites. Consequently, most of my ideas will relate to how best to diffuse power to the masses of the Muslim world so that they can determine which policies would benefit them. The underlying assumption being that political power leads to economic empowerment. The idea is to give the people of the Muslim world the power to create better lives for themselves without the undue influence of elites or outsiders who do not have any regard for the suffering their policies cause.   

I am uniquely qualified to offer my perspective because, in my professional capacity, I am tasked with critically examining relevant facts in relation to legal standards in order to determine the appropriate outcome without any pre-determined biases or preferences. Though it does not relate to the specific topics addressed here, my job emphasizes the sort of neutral and impartial analysis that allows me to objectively discuss a variety of subjects. We will see if these skills are equally applicable to the analysis of facts in relation to the theories of international relations, history, philosophy, and other various military and social sciences that govern the relations between nations and the power of nations that will be discussed here. Understanding the laws that govern how nations interact with each other is important because global peace and stability rests upon the ability of nations to work together for the betterment of the entire human species. Our technological abilities have now reached the point that humans have the potential to render the entire planet uninhabitable and devoid of life either through war or environmental destruction. It is time to come together, as a species, to develop the institutions and resources that will be needed to meet the challenges of the future. We cannot accomplish this by dividing ourselves into tribes and then condemning those outside of our tribe to poverty and underdevelopment. We must learn to work together.   

With respect to the Muslim world, this begins with a critical analysis of the relevant factors that have led to its decline combined with devising practical solutions grounded in the philosophy that humans must strive to be better and help each other. Humans have the capacity for both good and evil so we must work towards creating political institutions that reflect this reality by incentivizing our leaders to work for good and creating checks on their evil impulses. Many of the destructive elements in human societies result from our never-ending need to violently confront one another over the acquisition of resources, which is a fancy (I think) way of saying: people are greedy! And it needs to stop. Instead of pursuing selfish policies that only consider narrow and short-sighted interests, people and the nations we have divided ourselves into must learn to live in peace and work together to help all of us meet the demands of the future. Unfortunately, given the current trends in population growth, resource consumption, and technological development we are not on a path that will lead to a prosperous future. We need to correct course before it is too late, and I hope my ideas will be taken with these considerations in mind.   

Our governments have forgotten the basic concepts of human decency and morality that must govern the relationships between all people. Criticism of government policies that do not conform to these ideals is meant to spur reform, not express hatred. One should not assume that criticism equals a lack of affection. It is quite the opposite. In the same way that I correct my children’s bad behavior out of love, I am also trying to correct the bad behavior of both Muslims and the West by pointing out the injustices committed by both groups. Having grown up in the US, I am both Muslim and American and am loyal to both identities. As such, my advice is intended to help both groups be better.  

My ideas are based on both Islamic and Western political thought and values. For example, my views are pan-Islamic in the sense that I argue for the unity of Muslims working together on the basis of their shared Islamic identity. But this argument is also supported by Samuel Huntington’s theory of civilizational based international competition. When I refer to the need for Muslim nations to act as brothers, I am euphemistically alluding to the need for alliances among Muslim nations but in Islamic terms, not Western terms. This is intentional because it is important to describe these ideas from an Islamic perspective since it is Islamic values that will drive such relationships. Similarly, when I argue for the creation of democratic political institutions in the Muslim world that follow Western models this is also based on Islamic notions of consultative decision making and the democratic precedents of the Rashidun.  

The Muslim world has been consumed by weakness and stagnation and it is time to correct these issues. I realize it may seem presumptuous on my part to offer such advice, particularly since I grew up in the US. Though living as a minority in the US is not always easy, overall, I feel blessed to have grown up in a country that (imperfections aside) has allowed me to live my life as I see fit. Growing up in the West has given me the freedom to develop my worldviews and the intellectual justifications for these views without limitation or restriction. It has allowed me to develop the ideas that will be presented on this blog free from constraints on my ability to express myself. There are too many Muslim countries today that prevent their people from expressing themselves under penalty of torture, imprisonment, and death. I feel lucky that I was able to find refuge in the US. Even though I have managed to build a prosperous and happy life for myself here, I also feel a duty to try and help others create their own refuges. Since bringing the world’s billion plus Muslims here is not a realistic option, the only remaining choice is to help them build better nations for themselves. All my advice and suggestions are based on this goal.   

 
Enjoy! 

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / /