Author: Caracal

Will the Taliban-IS Conflict Worsen in Afghanistan?

“Are our rulers betraying Islam?” This question looms ominously over every government in the Islamic world, from Morocco to Indonesia. It has the power to stir mobs, fuel unrest, and, in certain cases, bring down entire regimes. Whether in prosperous monarchies or fragile republics, no administration is immune to its weight. Curiously, not even the Taliban’s rule over the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan escapes its shadow. Afghanistan, a country founded on Islamic Sharia law and rejecting modern values, remains vulnerable to such threats. Among those threats is a call for even stricter adherence to the faith—most notably, from the Islamic State.

The Islamic State’s Khorasan wing, known as ISIS-K, remains active in Afghanistan despite losing the territory it once controlled. It retains personnel, leadership, conducts attacks, and spreads its ideology effectively, making it a formidable force in the region. However, the Taliban, now governing Afghanistan, does not maintain good relations with ISIS-K. Since seizing control in August 2021, following the U.S. withdrawal and the collapse of the Afghan National Army (ANA), the Taliban has been locked in a violent struggle against ISIS-K. Both groups compete for control of Afghanistan, a land they both view as a prized possession.

Meanwhile, ISIS-K seeks to establish the Khorasan Province as part of a broader Islamic State on Afghan soil. It aims to destabilize the Taliban regime, which it labels an “Apostate” and a “Western Puppet,” in a bid to reclaim influence and territory in Afghanistan. According to ISIS-K, they are the true flag-bearers of Islam. This rivalry sets the stage for yet another conflict in the war-torn country.

In a significant escalation of the conflict between the Taliban and ISIS, a suicide bomber killed Khalil Haqqani, the Taliban’s refugee minister, inside his ministry in Kabul yesterday. The attack, which also claimed the lives of six others, marks the Taliban’s most high-profile loss since regaining power in Afghanistan in 2021. Interior ministry sources reported that the blast occurred as Haqqani was leaving his office. According to a statement from ISIS’s “News Agency,” Amaq, one of its operatives waited outside the minister’s office and detonated explosives as Haqqani stepped out. A Taliban spokesperson confirmed that ISIS was responsible for the attack, as reported by Reuters. Given Haqqani’s prominence as a key figure in the Taliban, the movement will likely seek revenge for his killing. However, the Taliban will avoid an all-out hunt for ISIS, as this could undermine their support among some Islamist factions. Instead, they will likely act more strategically against ISIS. While ISIS strongholds are clearly marked, many are also linked to the Taliban.

ISIS-K is currently engaged in a prolonged, low-intensity conflict with the Taliban. While both groups fought against the United States, ISIS-K has primarily targeted Taliban forces. In contrast, the Taliban has made efforts, with debated effectiveness, to target ISIS-K militants through raids, protect foreign diplomats and investors from ISIS-K attacks, and downplay ISIS’s presence in Afghanistan. Despite their ongoing opposition, there have been occasional instances of cooperation between the two groups during the NATO war in Afghanistan, particularly in attacks on the minority Shia Hazara. In August 2017, the Taliban and ISIS-K jointly launched a major assault on Hazara villages in northern Afghanistan, killing dozens of men, women, and children in Sar-e Pol Province. The National Security Department of the former Afghan government repeatedly stated that the Haqqani network and the Taliban supported ISIS-K fighters. However, their relationship worsened starting in late 2022 and continued through 2023, when ISIS-K launched attacks on diplomats from China and Pakistan—two countries with warmer relations towards the Taliban. These attacks aimed to deter foreign recognition, investment, and support for the Taliban government by exposing its inability to provide security.

While the Taliban may be seen as a star in the Islamic world, having brought the United States to its knees, why are they still challenged by the Islamic State? Both share the same ideology, so the questions arise. But here comes the curse of the Islamic world. Who is Real Islam or true Islam is a heated topic and Muslim people always choose to fight to define it. And it flares up if there is no strong, tight governance. And it is not in Afghanistan. The country is still under tribal rule, the country remains entrenched in poverty, and young people are easily attracted to extremist ideologies. Thus, we must consider that the wars in Afghanistan will persist, and in this ongoing struggle, the Taliban may be seen as the “good guy” that the West supports. Maybe Python is better than Viper.

December 12, 2024
Turkey and Its Syria: A United Front Against the Kurds?

As Iran’s influence over northern Arab states wanes and Russia, once the region’s dominant power broker, finds itself severely diminished, Turkey—or Türkiye—has begun to reassert itself after a prolonged period of restraint. With its alliance solidified with Azerbaijan, Turkey has carved out a strategic foothold in Syria, where a coalition led by Ankara now commands key territories. In this reconfigured landscape, Turkey seems poised to wield the same influence in Syria that Iran once held under Assad. Yet Turkey’s ambitions in Syria go beyond expansionism. For Ankara, a stable, centralized Syrian government—free from Kurdish control—has become essential not only to securing regional dominance but to safeguarding its own national security.

Syria’s dominant rebel faction, which seized control of Damascus with Turkey’s blessing, has swiftly restored order to the city and appointed a new prime minister to head the country’s transitional government. Mohammad al-Bashir, the newly named premier, previously managed an administration in Idlib under the auspices of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the most formidable of the rebel groups now occupying Damascus and other critical cities. It is evident that the new government will closely align with Turkish interests, with Ankara’s primary objective being the removal of Kurdish forces, who currently control a significant portion of northern Syria.

The Kurds, an ethnic group long settled in the rugged highlands straddling the borders of Turkey and the Arab states, have endured centuries of persecution and repression at the hands of various occupiers. Though most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, they have faced suspicion from both Sunni and Shia communities alike. The colonial division of the Middle East by the British and French in the early twentieth century left the Kurdish homeland fractured, divided among four states, with Turkey claiming the largest share. From the outset, relations between the Kurds and Turks have been fraught with animosity. What began as a simmering conflict soon escalated, with Turkey deploying brutal tactics to suppress the Kurds, while Kurdish militant groups retaliated with attacks on Turkish cities. Despite these tensions, Turkey ultimately maintained control over the Kurdish population within its borders, though the Kurds, united by a pan-Kurdish identity, sought refuge in Syria and Iraq. As the central governments in both countries weakened, the Kurds expanded their influence, breathing new life into the vision of a pan-Kurdish state—one that has, predictably, caused unease in Ankara. Following the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, Kurdish forces found new strength, securing territory with the support of international allies united in the battle against the Islamic State.

Turkey’s attacks on the Kurds have remained relentless, even as the Kurds fought alongside international forces against the Islamic State. However, the conflict in Syria took an unexpected turn after the Syrian civil war, with the ousting of Assad and the rise of Turkish-backed militants in Damascus. This shift led to an intensification of Turkey’s assault on Kurdish forces. In northern Syria, Turkish airstrikes have continued to target Kurdish positions, while the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army has clashed with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who receive U.S. support. According to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 218 people were killed in just three days of fighting between these two forces in Manbij, northeast of Damascus.

A far more urgent concern is the potential downfall of the Kurdish militias, which could lead to the Islamic State’s resurgence. If these forces’ survival is threatened, the fate of the prisons—housing numerous ISIS fighters—will no longer be a priority. The collapse of these Kurdish-run prisons could trigger a dangerous wave of ISIS attacks, both within Syria and potentially beyond, creating a significant dilemma for the Trump administration.

Northeastern Syria is a region of remarkable ethnic diversity, home to significant Arab, Kurdish, and Assyrian populations, alongside smaller communities of Turkmen, Armenians, Circassians, and Yazidis. Contrary to common portrayals, it is not solely inhabited by Kurds. Supporters of the region’s administration argue that it functions as an officially secular polity with aspirations of direct democracy, grounded in the principles of democratic confederalism and libertarian socialism. These ideals promote decentralization, gender equality, environmental sustainability, social ecology, and pluralistic tolerance for religious, cultural, and political diversity—values reflected in its constitution, society, and political framework. The administration sees itself not as a separatist entity but as a model for a federalized Syria, advocating for decentralization rather than outright independence. Both partisan and non-partisan observers have praised the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) as the most democratic system in Syria, citing its open elections, commitment to human rights, and defense of minority and religious freedoms within the region.

The government in Damascus, however, is a stark contrast. The Sunni Islamist militants, who have proven their governance in the small northern-western part of the country, have left minorities deeply suffering under their rule, prompting comparisons to the Taliban’s Afghanistan. Despite the assurances from HTS leaders that they aim to create a government that upholds the rights of minorities and women, such claims are met with skepticism. Should Turkey and HTS succeed in establishing a legitimate government with a fair constitution, the Kurds may be compelled to join and accept Turkish dominance. However, if governance mirrors that of Idlib, where minorities suffered under harsh rule, the Kurds will likely resist, continuing the fight.

On most occasions, Turkey—and the Turkish-backed government now exerting control in Syria—will likely resort to military force to annex Kurdish territories, particularly in the wake of Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces, which has left the Kurdish military considerably weakened. Turkey perceives the Kurds as an ongoing threat to its strategic interests in Syria, and for Ankara, conflict appears to offer more leverage than peace. As a result, Turkey’s overarching goal to dominate Syria and dismantle the Kurdish region could spark more confrontations, further destabilizing an already fractured nation.

December 11, 2024
South Korea’s Political Drama to Add Up More Episodes

In recent decades, South Korea has risen to the status of a cultural superpower, its influence spreading across Asia and around the world. Once overshadowed by Western powers, it now stands as a formidable competitor to the United States. The worldwide success of its music, films, and television dramas has firmly secured the country’s place on the global stage, earning it admiration from audiences far and wide. The glamour surrounding South Korea has become the envy of many, with its cultural exports shaping trends and tastes across the globe. No amount of propaganda could replicate the magnetic pull of its entertainment industry. People across the world have embraced Korean culture, preferring its models, its fashion, and its ideals, transforming South Korea into a dreamland for a rapidly growing international community.

While South Korea may seem like a dreamland to the outside world, within its borders, the nation is increasingly mired in political turmoil, with repercussions that are undermining its economic stability and making life more challenging for its citizens. Once celebrated as a beacon of democracy and free speech—values long tied to the West—the country now grapples with toxic political dynamics that threaten to unravel the very fabric of its democratic ideals. The ruling party and opposition are locked in an unrelenting struggle, hindering efforts to enact policies that could counter the economic downturn, even as bitter disputes over the national budget exacerbate divisions. Last week, these tensions reached a dramatic crescendo when the president, in a shocking move, declared martial law. The decision was quickly blocked by parliament, with the opposition forcing the president to rescind it. What followed was a political spectacle that captured global attention, offering a stark contrast to the polished image South Korea has long projected.

Despite mounting calls for President Yoon’s resignation and the intense humiliation of his actions, the conservative, ruling People’s Power Party remained resolutely united. This steadfast support endured even after confusion erupted in the wake of his martial law declaration, which drew opposition from some senior figures within his own ranks. Still, the party held firm, ensuring Yoon’s position remained secure. Across South Korea, a wave of protests swept through the cities, punctuated by dramatic and even unsettling scenes—one notably saw citizens seizing soldiers’ weapons and turning them back against their enforcers. The opposition, solidified in its demand for Yoon’s removal, found its voice amplified by a media chorus stretching across the political spectrum, all calling for his resignation. Swiftly, they moved toward impeachment, a process that, at first, appeared poised for success, as public sentiment increasingly turned against the president.

However, in the next episode, which unfolded last Saturday, the impeachment process faltered in parliament. Despite the opposition’s strong majority, they were unable to secure the two-thirds vote required to impeach the president. The ruling party, steadfast in its support for Yoon, abstained, effectively blocking the motion and leaving the country’s political crisis unresolved.

Protests against President Yoon continue to escalate, now increasingly directed at the ruling lawmakers who failed to support his impeachment. Although the president narrowly avoided removal from office, his popularity has plummeted, with public opinion polls reflecting a sharp decline in support. Yoon now faces heavy restrictions, his future increasingly clouded by uncertainty. South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported on Monday that prosecutors had formally booked Yoon, initiating a criminal investigation. Meanwhile, opposition politicians have accused his party of orchestrating a second coup by blocking his impeachment following the botched declaration of martial law last week. Three opposition parties have filed a complaint against Yoon, his former defense minister Kim Yong-hyun, and martial law commander Park An-su, charging them with insurrection—a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment.

The next presidential election in South Korea is set for 2027. While conservative leaders have traditionally dominated the race, Yoon is not expected to secure a second term. The ruling party’s popularity, already in decline due to economic downturns—evident in the April parliamentary elections—has been further damaged by the martial law debacle. The liberal party, sensing an opportunity, is poised to capitalize. Despite the growing opposition, the ruling party remains unwavering in its support of Yoon, fully aware that an immediate election would spell political suicide. But the critical question persists: how can the president continue his term amid mounting restrictions, ongoing investigations, and a lack of support in a parliament where he no longer holds a majority? Meanwhile, the liberal party’s opposition is intensifying, signaling that dramatic twists and turns lie ahead as the 2027 election approaches.

December 10, 2024
Is Syria Entering a New Era of Peace?

After thirteen years of devastating civil war—claiming around 600,000 lives and displacing six million—rebels have seized Damascus, ending Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian regime. Once a symbol of unshakable power, Assad has fled, leaving behind a nation scarred by his rule and the violence that defined it. The Islamist coalition Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is now administrating Damascus. Their triumphant march through Syrian cities is marked by the hoisting of a new flag—a poignant echo of the 1930s nationalist movement against French colonial rule. This banner, now embraced by crowds and draped along Damascus’s streets, signifies more than a regime’s collapse; it is a declaration of an era’s end.

For decades, the Syrian Arab Republic operated less as a democratic state and more as a personal fiefdom under the Assad dynasty. Yet, as the dust settles, the flag’s promise of renewal carries an unspoken question: will this new chapter fulfill the dreams of a fractured nation, or will it lead to yet another uncharted and precarious path?

A fragile yet palpable sense of hope has begun to spread across Syria in the wake of Assad’s official ouster from the war—a moment that feels almost surreal to a population accustomed to despair. For those who once fled the carnage, enduring the indignities of life as migrants, the news signals the faintest possibility of a return, however uncertain, to a land they scarcely recognize. In liberated cities, the crackle of celebratory gunfire fills the air, and once-omnipresent statues of Assad are toppled with theatrical fervor. Rebels parade captured allies of the former regime through the streets, as the nation’s official flag—its somber hues now synonymous with repression—is replaced with the green-bannered emblem of the opposition. It is a victory both symbolic and intoxicating.

This moment is being hailed as another hard-won victory for the Arab Spring’s enduring mission to unseat entrenched dictatorships across the Arab world. Yet the cost of this triumph is staggering: thirteen years of relentless conflict, nearly half a million lives lost, and the displacement of more than half of the population—a scale of human suffering that defies comprehension. The rebels’ lightning-fast march from their stronghold in Idlib to Damascus, achieved in a mere two weeks, has drawn inevitable comparisons to the Taliban’s startlingly swift seizure of Kabul. In Syria’s case, the speed of the advance lays bare the hollowed-out power of Assad’s government and the waning influence of its embattled backers, Russia and Iran

Syria’s descent into chaos was never simply a civil war; it was a stage upon which global powers enacted their rivalries. The United States, Israel, and a constellation of Sunni states found themselves embroiled in a proxy confrontation against Russia and Iran, each seeking to reshape the region’s political contours to their advantage. Now, with reports suggesting that President Bashar al-Assad has fled to Russia alongside his family, the once formidable Russia-Iran axis seems on the brink of relinquishing its tenuous hold over Syria’s fractured state.

Amid the shifting alliances and fractured ambitions of Syria’s long war, Turkey has emerged as the unequivocal victor in a geopolitical chess that drew in superpowers and regional actors alike. What began as a conflict shaped by American support for liberal factions and the staunch backing of Bashar al-Assad’s regime by Russia and Iran—complicated further by the shadowy maneuvers of Israel and the Sunni bloc—soon morphed into a theater where Ankara played a decisive hand. Faced with the dual pressures of a staggering migrant crisis and an emboldened Kurdish presence along its southern border, Turkey deftly repositioned itself from a peripheral participant to a central player, reshaping the war’s trajectory in ways that no other power could.

Under Turkey’s strategic direction, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—a Sunni Islamist organization deemed a terrorist group by the United States—cemented alliances with Turkish-backed factions, forging a cohesive and well-supported coalition. Operating from its stronghold in Idlib, HTS received Turkish logistical and tactical support, including training that bolstered its capacity to wage a coordinated campaign. As these forces advanced with astonishing speed, ultimately seizing control in Damascus, Turkey’s influence in Syria became unmistakable. This ascendancy not only underscores Ankara’s newfound leverage but also signals a revival of Turkey’s long-diminished prominence in the complex power dynamics of the Middle East.

Will the rebels’ triumph herald a lasting peace in Syria? The answer, steeped in the country’s deep-seated divisions, remains elusive. Even as the official government signals a willingness to cooperate with the rebel coalition and promises elections, skepticism pervades. A significant segment of the population—primarily Alawites and Shias—continues to rally behind Assad, their allegiance rooted in sectarian solidarity. Adding to the complexity is the Christian minority’s apprehension toward the Sunni Islamist factions that now dominate the coalition. Distrust runs deep, and it is far from certain that a religiously aligned organization can effectively navigate the intricacies of Syria’s fractured social fabric.

For the Sunni rebels, forging alliances with these wary communities poses a daunting challenge. Within their own coalition, cracks are already visible, with the specter of internal discord looming and threatening to unravel their fragile unity. Adding to the precariousness is the broader geopolitical chessboard. The risk of another civil war hangs heavy over this uneasy settlement. For now, the promise of peace remains as tenuous as ever, a fragile hope in a nation scarred by relentless conflict and irreconcilable divisions.

The fall of the Assad regime and the rise of a new administration in Damascus have been met with widespread approval across the globe. The United States and France, two of the West’s most prominent actors in Syria, have openly expressed support for the shift in power. Turkey, meanwhile, has welcomed the outcome, as has Saudi Arabia, which now champions the Sunni-led takeover. Israel, too, seems content, having played a role in Assad’s decline through its strikes on Hezbollah, and now looks favorably upon the prospect of a Sunni populist government in Damascus.

Despite the optimistic global response, a pressing question lingers: can Syria’s deeply divided population come together under the new administration? Should the proposed government adopt a Sunni Islamist constitution, could this herald yet another chapter of turmoil, akin to the upheavals that followed other Arab Spring uprisings? The answer remains uncertain, as the country’s fractures, both sectarian and political, threaten to undo even the most well-intentioned reforms.

December 9, 2024
How Tense Is the Political Climate in South Korea?

Western media often portray South Korea as a model success story in Asia. The nation thrives across multiple dimensions, a robust economy, a functioning democracy, and global cultural influence—drawing comparisons to the United States. Its steadfast alliance with the U.S. further strengthens this narrative. However, recent events have exposed cracks in this success story, particularly within South Korea’s political landscape. Polarization and volatility have reached toxic levels, posing serious challenges to the country’s democratic framework. The situation worsened when President Yoon made the controversial decision to declare martial law, seemingly on impulse, triggering widespread protests.

In democracies where voters elect the president and parliament separately, political rifts often arise when opposing parties control the two branches. This defines South Korea’s current political struggles.

President Yoon Suk Yeol, a conservative leader from the People Power Party, currently holds the presidency while facing a parliament led by the opposition Liberal Democratic Party. Although Yoon lacks a parliamentary majority, he has the authority to appoint the government, resulting in an administration run by his party, which is in the minority in parliament. Any decision made by the president or the ruling party requires parliamentary approval, but the opposition-dominated legislature consistently blocks their initiatives.

Yoon, relatively new to politics despite his reputation as a well-known prosecutor, struggles to navigate this challenging situation. Narrowly elected in 2022 as a candidate for a party founded just two years earlier, he has faced widespread criticism for his confrontational rhetoric and polarizing comments, particularly against the opposition. These actions have only deepened the political divide and fueled ongoing disruptions.

The political situation worsened as South Korea’s economy faltered, living conditions deteriorated, and wages stagnated, sparking ongoing protests such as the doctor’s strike. Many believe the growing divide between parliament and the president has hindered swift action to stabilize the economy and implement effective policies. Polls show that this dissatisfaction has impacted the president more than the opposition. Yoon’s People Power Party struggled to gain traction in the recent parliamentary election, leaving the opposition in a stronger position.

The president and parliament openly blamed each other for the country’s economic struggles, with both sides accusing the other of complicity. The rivalry extended beyond economic issues—Yoon accused the opposition of having ties to North Korea, while the opposition alleged he harbored admiration for imperial Japan, the country that once colonized Korea. Tensions escalated further as parliament slashed the government’s budget, and investigations into alleged corruption involving Yoon’s wife added to the political turmoil.

The situation reached a breaking point when Yoon declared martial law last Tuesday night, deploying the military to block opposition members from entering parliament and attempting to suppress dissent. After hours of confrontation, the opposition passed a resolution to lift martial law. By early morning, Yoon abruptly ended the decree. This dramatic series of events exposed the intensity of the rivalry between the president and the opposition, as well as the fragility and volatility of South Korea’s political system, on a single chaotic night.

The night and following day were marked by widespread calls for President Yoon’s resignation, with the international community largely expecting it. However, the situation grew more complex. While members of the ruling party condemned the imposition of martial law, they opposed the president’s resignation. Meanwhile, massive public protests flooded the streets, and the opposition began impeachment proceedings. Although the opposition holds a parliamentary majority, some twists and turns are expected if he is not ready to agree to the procedure.

Despite the ruling party’s opposition to impeachment, the opposition remains confident it will pass. All eyes are now on President Yoon, with speculation about how he will respond—whether with restraint or another impulsive action. The main opposition Democratic Party has scheduled an impeachment vote for Saturday evening. Meanwhile, the national police have launched an investigation into Yoon after opposition leaders and activists filed allegations of insurrection. The political climate in South Korea is intensely heated this winter, with protests from both sides and the potential for more dramatic actions, echoing the chaos of the night South Korea fell under martial law. Kim Jong Un will likely enjoy this K-drama.

December 6, 2024
How long will Syria remain a battleground?

After Sunni Islamist rebels captured Aleppo, the Syrian civil war once again grabbed international attention. The conflict, which began in 2011 between Syria’s official government under authoritarian leader Bashar al-Assad and the opposition, has now lasted almost 14 years, claiming nearly 600,000 lives and displacing at least 10 million people. It has filled headlines at various points over the years and shows no signs of slowing down. The civil war in Syria has undoubtedly become one of the biggest disasters in the 21st century and a significant benchmark in modern warfare. While, on the surface, the war appears to be a power struggle between Assad and the opposition, a closer examination reveals a deeper dynamic. The war involves numerous parties, each pursuing its own interests, and Syria has become a battleground for various countries.

President Bashar al-Assad’s Ba’athist government receives political and military support from its Shia partner, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its long-time ally, Russia, another authoritarian regime. The Lebanese Hezbollah group, the Palestinian PFLP-GC, and other factions also actively back the regime. Since September 30, 2015, Russia has deployed military assets in Syria, conducting a major air campaign against anti-government forces at Assad’s request. The U.S. and its regional allies have criticized Russia’s military actions. However, these regional allies soon pursued their own interests in the war. In November 2015, Turkey, a U.S. ally, clashed with Russia over alleged airspace violations and Russian bombings of areas in Syria that were supported by Turkey’s anti-government factions. Meanwhile, the United States did not align with Turkey and ran its own operations.

The Syrian opposition, represented politically by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial, logistical, and sometimes military support from Sunni-majority states allied with the U.S., particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-majority group fighting against Assad in northern Syria, receive military and logistical support from NATO countries, except Turkey, due to their historic rivalry. Instead of helping them, Turkey fights the SDF and has captured a significant amount of territory from them.

Besides the superpowers and their factions, from 2014 to October 2017, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a group internationally recognized as a terrorist organization, controlled a significant portion of Syria’s territory. During this period, Western nations, including the U.S., Russia, Britain, and France, conducted direct military actions against ISIL in Syria and Iraq. Now, ISIL has shrunk to only a few desert pockets.

As of December 2024, five key countries are directing the war in Syria: the United States, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Israel. Despite its war in Ukraine, Russia remains a staunch supporter of Assad’s regime. Even after Islamist advances in Aleppo, Russia continues to send support to Assad, signaling its long-term plans in the region. By the summer of 2023, Russia had maintained 20 military bases and 85 other military points in Syria, with plans to enhance infrastructure to strengthen its military presence and capabilities.

As Iran seeks to cement Shia dominance in Syria, engage in a power struggle with Israel, and ensure Assad’s regime remains strong, it actively supports Shia militants in Syria. Neighboring Lebanon and Iraq, though not directly involved, serve as havens for militants, effectively acting as breeding grounds for various Shia armed groups.

The United States remains present in Syria, albeit with reduced involvement compared to earlier years. It operates a small portion near the Jordanian and Iraqi borders and supports rebel factions in the region. The U.S. maintains strong ties with Kurdish forces, now the second-largest military group in Syria, who control significant territory in the northeast.

Turkey, a NATO member and nominal U.S. ally, pursues its own agenda in Syria. Opposed to both Assad and the Kurds, Turkey has seized and controls large areas in northern Syria, creating a buffer zone. Turkish forces have clashed with Kurdish groups, and Ankara reportedly has ties to Sunni Islamist factions, including HTS, which recently captured Aleppo. Turkey’s primary goal is to establish a Sunni, anti-Kurdish opposition presence in the region.

Israel remains highly active in Syria, viewing Iranian involvement in the country as a direct threat. Israeli forces frequently target Iranian officials and Hezbollah members operating in Syria, particularly those linked to attacks on Israel. If opportunities arise, Israel may also seek to expand its territorial control in the region.

What is the future of the Syrian civil war? When will it end? How long will it last?

The answer is that it will continue. Syria has already collapsed, but the war will persist as long as foreign powers maintain their interests in Syria. A complete takeover by Assad, as seen in the past, is unlikely. Russia and Iran, Assad’s key allies, are deeply entangled in other wars and face significant financial strains, limiting their ability to recapture all the territory back.

The United States, under leadership like Trump’s, is unlikely to deploy troops actively to support the rebels against Russia and Iran. However, the U.S. will not entirely abandon the Opposition and Kurds, as they align with American interests in the region.

Meanwhile, Turkey will remain a major player, continuing its support for HTS and other anti-Kurd factions. The conflict is evolving into a three-way war, with Assad’s official army, supported by Russia and Iranian-backed Shia militias, on one side; Kurdish forces and U.S.-backed militias on another; and HTS, Turkey, and Sunni militias on the third.

These factions will continue to clash, ensuring that Syria endures more bloodshed and tears in the years ahead.

December 5, 2024
How Yoon’s Mad Night Revived an ’80s Vibe in South Korea

The dramatic! That is the perfect word to describe what happened in South Korea yesterday—a confusing political drama that surpasses even the best Korean dramas. The so-called ‘evil president’ seized power, orchestrating a coup under the guise of military law. He executed his plan with precision.

To restore democracy, parliament needed to convene, and opposition lawmakers had to pass a resolution. Security forces sealed off the National Assembly, helicopters landed on its roof, and troops briefly entered the building, seemingly to prevent lawmakers from gathering. However, despite numerous clashes and overcoming significant barriers, 190 lawmakers managed to enter the assembly. They voted unanimously to reject Yoon’s declaration and demanded that martial law be lifted.

What a story! Thrilling, awe-inspiring, and, with a satisfying “The End”. But it wasn’t as smooth as it sounds when it actually happened.

South Korea, officially known as the Republic of Korea, distinguishes itself from North Korea, the People’s Democratic Republic, through its commitment to democracy. South Koreans take pride in being both a republic and a democracy. Although South Korea has been a republic since 1948, it only emerged as a stable democracy with the inauguration of Roh Tae-woo in 1988, after 40 years of military rule. Before this shift, South Korea’s democracy closely resembled the flawed systems seen in many other Asian countries. Millennials and younger generations, who never experienced this authoritarian era, have only known a stable democratic society. Yet, events under Yoon’s leadership have brought back an uncanny echo of the 1980s, offering them a glimpse of a past they never lived through.

President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Tuesday night, accusing the opposition of being forces that threaten the country’s democracy, a common tactic used by authoritarian regimes to consolidate power. Following his dramatic television address, a six-point decree from the new martial law commander, Army Chief Gen. Park An-su, was issued. The decree banned political activities and parties, prohibited “False Propaganda,” and banned strikes and gatherings that could incite social unrest. The decree also placed all media outlets under martial law authority and ordered all medical staff, including striking doctors, to return to work within 48 hours. Yoon stated he was acting to protect the country’s liberal democracy from threats by anti-state elements and North Korea, though he provided little detail.

The declaration was immediately condemned by both the opposition and the leader of Yoon’s own party. The leader of Yoon’s conservative People Power Party called the decision to impose martial law a mistake. Lee Jae-myung, the opposition leader who narrowly lost to Yoon in the 2022 presidential election, described the announcement as illegal and unconstitutional. South Korea’s main opposition party, led by Lee, denounced the move as essentially a coup d’état. Six hours later, Yoon backed down, or was forced to back down, lifting the order in the face of united opposition. After six hours of declaring martial law at 4:30AM, Yoon announced that troops would return to their barracks, and the order would be lifted following a cabinet meeting.

What is the real cause behind Yoon’s actions? So far, his statements have reflected typical authoritarian rhetoric. He faced backlash in the recent parliamentary elections, where the opposition party gained a majority. It seems that he did not expect or accept this outcome, and the growing divide between him and parliament created significant tension. The announcement of martial law likely stemmed from these differences, along with a deepening budget dispute between Yoon and the opposition Democratic Party. This struggle led to widespread public disapproval and followed a dramatic drop in Yoon’s approval rating to 19% in the latest Gallup poll, with significant dissatisfaction over his handling of the economy and ongoing controversies involving his wife, Kim Keon-hee. This explanation seems more plausible than the false claims he made.

It’s only a matter of time before Yoon steps down, as public opposition intensifies. Recent reports indicate that opposition parties have initiated impeachment proceedings in parliament, and even if Yoon’s own conservative People Power Party were to stand by him, they lack the numbers in the legislature. His dramatic actions have likely set the stage for his eventual downfall.

What can happen in a single night? South Koreans woke up to find the country had plunged into martial law, resembling a coup, only to return to normal by morning—a stunning turn of events. What a night it was.

December 4, 2024
A Fragile State: Bangladesh’s Deepening Divide

Bangladesh, like many republics in the Islamic world, seems to be descending into complete anarchy and escalating communal conflict. A popular uprising in August, driven by calls for “true democracy,” toppled the secular government, and the “Revolutionaries” gradually paved the way for an Islamic populist regime. This familiar pattern recalls the Arab Spring. Today, Bangladesh is under the control of an interim government with significant Islamist influence, actively dismantling the progress achieved by its secular predecessors. The interim leadership, which views neighboring India as an enemy, has allowed the Hindu community in the state to become a target. Minorities, labeled as threats by the Islamists, face escalating persecution. Their leaders are imprisoned on trumped-up charges, and even Muslims who dare to defend Hindu rights are targeted. As a state forged from a blend of irreconcilable ideologies, Bangladesh now stands under grave threat, with the deepening divide between communities and politics intensifying.

Born out of tensions between India and Pakistan, Bangladesh has long been caught in a tug of war between these two nations. Domestic politics have been shaped by parties aligned either with India or Pakistan. While the government in Dhaka has generally supported India, Islamist and Pakistan-backed parties have stirred turmoil, and vice versa. In the past decade, Sheikh Hasina, supported by India, led the administration and targeted Islamists, many of whom ended up in prison. Under her leadership, the country experienced rapid economic growth and became a model for development. However, much like the Arab Spring, anti-Hasina forces reignited Islamic politics to unite the people. As left-wing groups joined the movement, Hasina lost control and fled to India. The people celebrated her downfall, intruding into her official residence and taking her personal belongings, including her underwear. Hasina’s flight to India angered both Islamists and left-wing groups, fueling even more animosity toward India. While Pakistan has remained less active, its Islamist political factions have exploited this anger to their advantage. As a result, Bangladesh’s identity—a unique blend of Islamic and Bengali identity that once defined the country—now seems overshadowed by a growing Islamic identity. Islamists are turning against the foundational principles of Bangladesh, rejecting the vision of those who fought for independence from Pakistan and championed a nationalism rooted in Bengali identity, not Islamic unity. The interim government now aims to establish a new identity, erasing the legacy of India’s support in the struggle for independence, the founding leaders, and the founding political party. This marks the end of old Bangladesh and the emergence of a new Bangladesh that has no past.

It is clear that an Islamic Bangladesh is on the horizon, sparking tensions over the treatment of minorities, particularly the Hindu community and its relationship with India. The Hindu community, once supported by the Hasina government, served as a bridge between India and Bangladesh. With the Islamists coming to power, the community now fears they will be targeted and persecuted. Reports of violence against Hindus during the protests that led to Hasina’s ouster were widespread. Initially, it seemed that the interim government, formed under Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus with guidance from the West, had brought things under control and would protect minorities. However, that peace was short-lived. As people’s lives descended into greater turmoil under the new leadership, minorities once again became targets, with many believing they are anti-national. Hindu leaders and organizations in the country are increasingly targeted, and the arrest of prominent figure and leader of the Hindu organization ISKCON, Chinmoy Krishna Das, further escalated tensions.

The interim government is drafting new policies and a constitution before the elections that will shape Bangladesh’s future. It is clear that more Islamic elements will be included, despite the current constitution recognizing Islam as the state religion while adopting secularism as a policy. The call to remove secularism has already gained traction. Anti-Hasina protests are driving the interim government, and prolonging its rule will likely ignite riots against them. Jamaat-e-Islami, strengthened after Hasina’s ouster, aims to establish an Islamic republic. Khaleda Zia, the former prime minister, is likely to try to regain power, while left-wing student movements, influenced by the West, may push for another revolution. Bangla nationalists remain active and could revive their efforts if the interim government fails. If the persecution of Hindus continues, India may intervene. Tough days lie ahead for Bangladesh, and uniting all these factions will be a significant challenge. Without that unity, Bangladesh faces the threat of collapse.

December 3, 2024
EVM Rigging or Directionlessness: What’s Troubling the Indian National Congress?

Six months ago, the Indian National Congress, often called Congress—the grand old party of Indian politics—found itself celebrating a rare achievement in the past decade. It wasn’t a return to power in New Delhi, but the party’s first success in ten years at securing the minimum number of seats needed to claim the position of Leader of the Opposition. This modest victory, celebrated as a triumph, underscored the dramatic decline of a party that once ruled India with commanding majorities.

Since Narendra Modi and his BJP took power in 2014, the Congress party, often called the Gandhi dynasty party, has steadily declined. The party’s flaws became glaringly evident after it lost power, yet its leaders ignored them. Instead of introspecting, they focused on accusing the BJP of malpractice, alleging Election Commission bias, and claiming voting machine tampering. By failing to address internal shortcomings, they repeatedly lost elections at both national and local levels.

The Indian National Congress, along with its regional allies, benefited from the anti-incumbency wave against the ruling party, which had been in power for the past decade, during the last parliamentary elections in June. They secured 99 out of 543 seats, earning the position of Leader of the Opposition and a cabinet rank However, shortly after, crucial state assembly elections—including those in Jammu and Kashmir and Maharashtra—took place. The results deeply disappointed Congress, revealing challenges that went beyond the BJP and Modi.

In the state elections held after the parliamentary elections, surveys predicted a favorable outcome for Congress, but the party failed to translate this into seats. In Jammu and Kashmir, where the BJP lacks significant influence, Congress underperformed, losing six seats compared to the previous election, while its alliance partner made a remarkable jump from 15 to 47 seats. In Haryana, despite strong performance in the parliamentary elections and favorable survey predictions, Congress squandered the opportunity and lost to the BJP.

In Jharkhand, the alliance partner JMM gained seats and formed the government, but Congress failed to improve its tally. In Maharashtra, India’s wealthiest state, where Congress led in the last parliamentary election, the BJP dominated the assembly elections. Even Congress’s alliance partners could not save the party there. After these defeats, Congress leaders intensified their accusations against the BJP, alleging election malpractice, including tampering with electronic voting machines, in an attempt to explain their losses in the state elections.

The Election Commission, BJP, and even Congress’s alliance parties disagree with the claims. The Supreme Court of India has also confirmed that the process is safe, to the best of its knowledge. Interestingly, only the Indian National Congress suffered in the recent state elections, while all other major state parties, including those that opposed the BJP, benefitted. This situation is forcing Congress to reflect on itself and wake up to reality.

Congress no longer has a clear political direction. Once the flag bearer of socialism in India, with cadres who upheld socialism and secularism, it has now lost its way. Its current politics revolves around worshipping the Gandhi family and courting Muslim votes. Congress has seen three generations of the Gandhi family hold the position of prime minister and head of government. But people have now decided that enough is enough. Making Rahul Gandhi the prime minister is not their responsibility, especially since he hasn’t proven himself capable, even in his own assembly seats. Narendra Modi has consistently upheld his image as a man of the common people and demonstrated his capability at various levels of administration, excelling as the chief minister of Gujarat. In contrast, Rahul Gandhi is unwilling to build his credentials from the ground up; instead, he directly targets the prime ministership, just like his predecessors. Modi has skillfully used this contrast to frame the election as a choice between the common man and the royal family.

Congress lacks leadership at different levels. The party no longer has quality leaders because it has punished and sidelined anyone who posed a threat to the Nehru-Gandhi family’s dominance, shrinking into a group of worshippers of the Gandhi family who have no connection with the people. Meanwhile, the BJP is cultivating and grooming second and third-tier leaders.

Congress’s poor election management remains a significant problem. In a diverse country like India, with various vote banks and a caste-driven system, effective election management is essential. The BJP excels in this aspect, designing strong campaigns and implementing strategies to secure victories. For instance, the BJP has managed to win in Muslim-majority seats, even though Muslims are not traditionally part of its vote bank. By using strategies to divide the Muslim community and consolidating the Hindu vote bank, the BJP has achieved success.

In contrast, Congress believes that Muslims will consistently support them out of fear of the BJP and Narendra Modi. However, other parties are now vying for Muslim votes, causing a split in support. Meanwhile, Congress’s heavy focus on Muslim-centric policies has alienated Hindu voters, further eroding its support.

It is clear that Congress is losing its base. Once firmly rooted in Indian soil, the party has seen its foundation overtaken by the Bharatiya Janata Party and local parties. Ten years out of power have made this shift easier. Today, elections have become a contest between the BJP and local parties, while Congress’s significance continues to diminish.

In a democracy, a party must offer meaningful politics to the people, rather than simply blaming the ruling party or promising freebies. While this approach has worked in some areas, Congress cannot compete with the BJP in the long term without redefining its politics. Furthermore, whether Congress wins or loses, the absence of another truly national party that spans from north to south and east to west threatens Indian democracy. A parliament dominated by a single party could soon become a reality, and that would be the biggest disaster for the democracy of the Republic of India.

December 2, 2024
Resurgence of Syria’s Rebel Islamists: Trouble Brewing Again?

The Syrian civil war is once again drawing global attention as Islamist groups in northwest Syria conquer Aleppo by defeating the official Syrian army. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Islamist militant group leading the Syrian Salvage Government from Idlib, has announced its victory and shared images from Aleppo, Syria’s historic and second-largest city. Although HTS is not directly affiliated with the former Islamic State, its victory in Aleppo has raised global concerns about Syria potentially falling under renewed Islamist rule, reviving the horrific memories of the Islamic State.

The Sunni Islamist faction HTS views this advancement as a major victory over the Shia-dominated Assad regime and his sponsors, Iran and Russia. Taking Aleppo is not only a strategic victory for the rebels but also an emotional one. The city has been a focal point in Syria’s civil war for over a decade. The 2016 battle for Aleppo, in which Assad’s forces recaptured the city, turned the civil war in his favor. Now, Aleppo is once again under the control of Islamists. Many people are fleeing Aleppo, fearing that Islamist factions could revive the horrors of ISIS’s reign. They consider Assad’s oppressive rule a lesser evil compared to the horror that Islamist control would bring.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a major offensive earlier this week. Within three days, they reached Aleppo, exposing the weakness of the official army’s defense. This marked the first time in four years that insurgents captured territory around the city’s outskirts. On Friday afternoon, Turkish media reported that jihadists and allied factions had seized significant portions of Aleppo. In response, Syrian government forces based in Damascus launched at least 125 airstrikes and shelled rebel-controlled areas in Idlib and western Aleppo. However, there has been no significant progress in their favor.

Damascus expects more Russian military equipment to help it navigate the current situation. However, doubts persist due to Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine, where it faces shortages of ammunition and personnel. While Russia itself is relying on North Korean soldiers to reinforce its forces in Ukraine, questions arise about how much assistance it can offer Syria. Iran and Hezbollah, Assad’s key allies, have also suffered significant setbacks in their conflict with Israel, which has caused heavy losses. Although they recently brokered a ceasefire, the lull allowed Syria’s Salvation Government to seize the opportunity to act. Meanwhile, Palestine supporters on social media are accusing Israel, the United States, Turkey, and HTS of forming a possible alliance.

HTS’s capture of Aleppo has escalated the civil war, which began in 2011 and continues to tear Syria apart. The war is likely to see further developments, possibly becoming a battleground for world powers. Currently, the rebels cannot unite with other groups against Damascus due to ideological differences. HTS may team up with Turkey and its groups within Syria to confront the Kurds, who control significant territory. This shift could overshadow the ongoing struggle between the rebels and the Assad regime.

The future of Syria likely involves a divided nation with shifting borders. HTS, the militants in Idlib, have tried to demonstrate their ability to govern but face accusations of suppressing dissent and relying heavily on dwindling international aid to meet civilians’ needs. For now, the militants are more focused on expanding the battlefield than on addressing the people’s needs and The people of Syria find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.

December 2, 2024