Category: Opinion

  • Will Pakistan’s Shias Meet the Same Fate as Its Other Minorities?

    Will Pakistan’s Shias Meet the Same Fate as Its Other Minorities?

    Pakistan, the first Islamic Republic, has gained notoriety for its treatment of minorities, who endure forced conversions, abductions of their daughters, killings, or imprisonment under harsh blasphemy laws. The country’s troubled history with minorities spans decades and has become institutionalized over time. Although divisions among communities were visible from its inception, the dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq, who ruled from 1977 to 1988, entrenched these divisions further. Under his rule, Pakistan’s laws became deeply rooted in Islamic principles. Zia’s Islamization policies enforced a strict Sunni interpretation of Islam, marginalizing other communities. These policies, combined with Islamic politics, deepened societal divisions and escalated violence against minorities.

    Persecution under Islamic laws initially targeted non-Muslims, such as Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians, who chose to remain in Pakistan despite warnings of potential dangers. However, discrimination soon extended to sects within Islam. The Ahmadiyya community faced brutal suppression, and in 1974, a constitutional amendment officially declared them “Non-Muslim,” effectively giving extremists a license to attack them.

    Shias, the largest religious minority group in Pakistan, have also been frequent targets of sectarian violence. The historical feud between Shias and Sunnis, rooted in centuries-old differences in religious practices, continues to fuel such violence. Extremists often view acts like killing each other as religious duties. In Pakistan’s Sunni-majority republic, Shias have faced systemic oppression and exclusion from the mainstream. Mosques are frequently bombed during religious festivals and other significant occasions, while Shia followers are pressured to conform to Sunni practices and teachings.

    Shias actively resisted movements that threatened their religious practices, including Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamization campaign, which they viewed as “Sunnification.” In July 1980, 25,000 Shias staged a famous protest in Islamabad against these laws. However, such protests only deepened hostilities. Despite their resistance, sectarian violence continued unabated, and deaths became a grim norm. Between 2001 and 2018, approximately 4,800 Shias were killed in sectarian violence

    After a brief period of increased political clashes taking center stage, the Sunni-Shia conflict is once again escalating in the Islamic Republic, particularly since the last parliamentary elections. In the latest development, around 300 families have fled sectarian violence in northwest Pakistan, as fresh clashes killed 32 people last Saturday. Sporadic fighting between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the mountainous Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which borders Afghanistan, has claimed the lives of about 150 people in recent months.  The independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) reported that 79 people died between July and October due to sectarian violence. The death toll is expected to rise as fighting between Shia and Sunni communities continues in multiple locations. The recent clashes, which left 32 dead—14 Sunnis and 18 Shias—occurred just two days after gunmen opened fire on two separate convoys of Shia Muslims traveling with a police escort in Kurram, killing 43 people and leaving 11 in critical condition, according to officials. On Friday evening, in Kurram, a once semi-autonomous region, Shia Muslims attacked several Sunni locations in retaliation. 

    The conflict is set to intensify in the coming days, with Shias likely to endure even greater suffering. Pakistan’s ineffective administration is ill-equipped to address the situation, and the increasing Sunnification of its politics, combined with the Taliban’s growing influence in the region, will exacerbate the persecution of Shias. The weakening Islamic Republic of Iran will further contribute to this crisis. 

    Pakistan, as an ally of the United States, has effectively masked these atrocities from global scrutiny by fabricating data and manipulating narratives to downplay the extent of persecution. As a result, the international community remains largely unaware of the true scale of injustices faced by minorities and marginalized sects in the country. However, Pakistan cannot advance or survive while promoting deeply entrenched sectarian divisions. Emphasizing Islamic fervor and anti-India rhetoric might briefly unite factions, but it does not provide a sustainable path forward.

  • Why Should India Consider Changing Its Capital?

    Why Should India Consider Changing Its Capital?

    Delhi is now a living nightmare. Apologies to the 1.4 billion people of India, but it must be said. As the capital territory of India, the world’s most populous country, and home to nearly 20 million residents, Delhi is one of the largest urban agglomerations on the planet. However, it has become an increasingly difficult place to live. The air pollution has reached a level where living there poses severe health risks, and the government has proven unable—or perhaps unwilling—to address the crisis effectively. 

    Delhi’s struggle with pollution is not a recent phenomenon; it has been grappling with this problem for years. Poor urban planning, combined with a rapidly expanding population, has only exacerbated the situation. Moreover, deep-rooted cultural practices and resistance to change have hindered the implementation of necessary pollution-control measures.

    Despite these challenges, Delhi remains the nerve center of India. It houses the military headquarters, judiciary, ministries, and numerous other vital institutions. People traveling from distant regions to work or seek services here must endure the city’s harsh conditions.

    This dire situation has prompted some political experts to propose a controversial idea: should India consider relocating the capital? Building a new, planned capital city—alongside other new towns—could be a step toward alleviating the pressure on Delhi and fostering sustainable development.

    The suggestion has not gained public traction or widespread endorsement, remaining largely confined to discussions among think tanks. It is expected to trigger significant backlash, as people fear it could negatively impact Delhi’s real estate market, businesses, and the overall importance of the national capital territory. This is one reason political parties have been reluctant to initiate such proposals.

    Delhi was chosen as India’s capital centuries ago due to its strategic location for Indian emperors. At that time, India stretched from Afghanistan in the west to Assam in the east, and Delhi’s central position made it an ideal seat of power. In the modern era, while Delhi is no longer geographically central, the threats from northern enemy states and the financial constraints of relocating the capital prevented any change.

    However, today, pollution has emerged as the greatest challenge for Delhi. It has drawn criticism not only from foreign diplomats working in India’s capital but also from Indian judiciary members, bureaucrats, and think tanks, who struggle with the deteriorating living conditions in the city.

    As of Wednesday morning, Delhi’s air quality remained in the “Severe” category, with an average Air Quality Index (AQI) of 427, making it the most polluted city in India. Of the 38 air quality monitoring stations in the city, 12 reported AQI levels of 450 or higher.

    Compounding the situation, Delhi experienced its first below-normal minimum temperature of the season, dropping to 11.2 degrees Celsius on Wednesday. This followed a period of above-average temperatures since mid-October. The maximum temperature on Tuesday was recorded at 25.4 degrees Celsius, two degrees below normal. Cold westerly winds and clear skies have contributed to this drop in mercury levels.

    As winter approaches, the prospect of worsening pollution levels becomes increasingly likely, further exacerbating the already difficult living conditions in the city.

    The government has introduced various measures, such as banning crop burning—a practice tied to cultural rituals—restricting the use of firecrackers during festive seasons, and controlling motor vehicle emissions. However, these efforts have largely been in vain. Without a long-term strategy and widespread cooperation, meaningful change seems unlikely. In a bureaucratic country like India, such efforts are even harder to implement effectively.

    The difficulty in curbing pollution has fueled the idea of relocating the capital. While some suggest seasonal shifts, this is impractical for a nation with such a large bureaucracy and extensive ministries. Instead, a permanent change—or at least relocating certain ministries to other cities—has gained attention. Others propose creating a new, purpose-built capital, similar to Indonesia’s plan for its new administrative center.

    The idea comes with both positives and negatives. On the positive side, relocating the capital could significantly improve quality of life, and a new city could be planned efficiently from the ground up. For a country like India, the investment required is manageable, and the project would create numerous jobs. However, the negatives are substantial. The process would involve moving an enormous number of files, developing extensive infrastructure, and accommodating thousands of government employees and their families.

    Despite the challenges, the positives clearly outweigh the negatives. The lack of creativity in leadership, administrative inefficiency, and political hurdles remain significant barriers, but the government cannot afford to delay action indefinitely. The capital territory is metaphorically and literally burning, and decisive steps are urgently needed.

    Historically, there have been attempts to shift the administration away from Delhi. Sikandar Lodi moved it to Agra, Jahangir to Allahabad, Muhammad bin Tughlaq to Daulatabad, and the British to Calcutta. Yet, all these changes were short-lived, with the capital eventually returning to Delhi.

    Critics opposing the idea of a capital change argue against its feasibility, but careful planning can address their concerns. Several cities could be contenders for the new capital. However, given that every state in the northern belt faces similar crises, no city in the region currently offers a viable alternative for managing border tensions.

    Meanwhile, southern and coastal cities in India, which are comparatively less polluted, also present challenges. These cities are already overcrowded and lack the infrastructure to accommodate such a significant expansion. This suggests that India may need to build a new, purpose-planned city to serve as its capital. Post-independence, India has successfully developed several cities, including Chandigarh and Amaravati, demonstrating its capability to undertake such projects. However, the challenges will be significant.

    The next generation is likely to prioritize health over emotional attachments. After all, without clean air to breathe, there can be no emotions—and no life. Therefore, experts believe the Indian government will likely embrace this idea in the near future.

  • Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    Has Qatar Failed as a Mediator?

    In the Middle East, there are a lot of Islamic militant groups working in almost every country. To be free from the risk they offer, you need to be rich and an ally of the US. Qatar is one of them; it is rich and a US ally. But This Gulf country is more strict on Islamic laws, a demand of many militant groups in the region. They even follow Islamic way of labor practices that some critics liken to a form of slavery. Qatar’s fondness for Islamic rule has allowed various terrorist organizations to establish offices within its territory, including Hamas, the group that caused the ongoing war of Israel in Gaza. While most Western and Arab countries have shown little interest in supporting the Iran-backed militia, Qatar has often provided a haven for Hamas.

    While Hamas conducted a brutal terrorist attack in Israel and captured many hostages, Many political analysts believed that Qatar could help Hamas negotiate with Israel with the lives of hostages. However, as Israel prioritized war over negotiations, Qatar’s role in brokering a resolution favoring Hamas has diminished. Qatar tried for over a year to save Hamas. And now, after a year, it looks like they are getting out from the side of Hamas. This shift, coupled with Qatar’s realization that its controversial support for Hamas, has threatened its international image, which it built through massive investments, including bribes for securing the World Cup.

    Qatar has decided to step back from its mediation efforts and allow other parties to take over. The Qatari government informed the U.S., Israel, Hamas officials, and Egypt that it would no longer facilitate negotiations to halt the Gaza conflict, citing a lack of good faith among the parties involved. According to The Guardian, This decision followed a recent visit by a U.S. delegation, including CIA Director Bill Burns, for meetings in Doha that ended without progress.

    Qatar concluded that both sides seemed more focused on political optics than on achieving genuine security solutions. This decision is a significant setback to mediation efforts, which had produced minimal results since a temporary ceasefire and limited hostage release deal nearly a year ago.

    Many believe Qatar is engaging in a strategic power play to raise its regional profile and bolster its importance in the eyes of the United States. With upcoming president Donald Trump expected to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia, Qatar seems uneasy with Saudi dominance in the region, despite the official reconciliation between the two countries.

    Though Israel shows little interest in ending the war,  Trump may eventually pursue negotiations, which could necessitate indirect talks with Hamas. Given Iran’s support for Hamas, it cannot serve as an impartial mediator, and it’s uncertain whether Turkey or Egypt would step into that role. In this context, Qatar could reemerge as the “Rescuer,” promoting itself as a responsible mediator. Al Jazeera, Qatar’s influential media outlet, could showcase Qatar’s efforts, reinforcing its image as a “Good Muslim Ally.”

    With a new U.S. administration set to take office in a couple of months, Qatar has indicated to American contacts that it would be open to resuming mediation if both sides demonstrate genuine interest in reaching a deal. Qatar tried a similar approach months ago, though it fell short of producing any results. This marks the second time Qatar has publicly warned it will not support stalled talks indefinitely.

    The Hamas office in Doha, established in 2012, has served as a critical communication channel  for over a decade, including during last year’s negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire and the release of more than 100 hostages. However, the October 7th attack by Hamas has severely damaged its reputation, and Qatar has faced growing criticism from Israel and segments of the U.S. political establishment for hosting the group.

    As a close U.S. ally that hosts a major American military base, Qatar has previously maintained a positive diplomatic relationship with Donald Trump during his first term. However, its perceived “double game” on terrorism and concerns over its human rights record have made Qatar increasingly unpopular among U.S. senators. Last Friday, a group of Republican senators urged Washington to seek the extradition of Hamas officials from Qatar and freeze their assets.

    These criticisms, especially regarding an initiative that Qatar launched at the U.S.’s request, have caused friction in Doha and influenced Qatar’s decision to distance itself from Hamas and mediation efforts. U.S. officials have reportedly briefed American media that Washington requested the closure of the Hamas office, although the Biden administration has not yet commented publicly on the matter.

    However, some Western and regional diplomats argue for keeping the Hamas office in Qatar, warning that pushing Hamas out would limit engagement with figures potentially open to compromise. Yet, Qatar’s continued support arguably empowers Hamas rather than encourages moderation. For Hamas, there is hope that Qatar might broker a deal with Israel, leveraging hostages, including women and children, to meet its demands. But Qatar has struggled to engage Israel effectively or include other mediators in negotiations, and it now appears uncertain about risking its international reputation for an organization closely tied to Iran.

    Meanwhile, with many key Hamas leaders lost, Hamas itself may be reconsidering its reliance on Qatar and is reportedly more inclined to look to long-standing allies like Turkey, who could be more effective in brokering a truce. Qatar’s wealth may have helped to uplift them in football, but they failed in the game of geopolitics in the Middle East they craved to win.

  • What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    What’s the Game Israel and Iran Are Playing?

    Over the past year, Israel’s conflict with Hamas has escalated into a broader confrontation with Iran. The Jewish state and the Islamic Republic have exchanged missiles and now trading hostile rhetoric. While many fear an all-out war involving multiple states, In reality, it looks like Israel and Iran show little genuine interest in such a conflict. Instead, both countries prefer maintaining tension and inflicting sporadic casualties without escalating to a full-scale war. They each appear very interested in the ‘game’ they’re playing.

    This ongoing rivalry—the geopolitical game between the two countries—dates back to Iran’s establishment as an Islamic Republic, a theocratic state with a declared intent to eliminate Israel. Iran views this as a holy duty, waging what it considers a sacred war through its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The struggle has been perpetuated, with death seen as a martyr’s reward. Meanwhile, Israel does not consider itself safe as long as Iran remains strong. While the tensions between these two countries have always been present, they avoided direct conflicts. However, over the past year, they have begun to engage in fighting directly against each other.

    Many across the globe, especially those with peaceful intentions, struggle to comprehend this intense conflict, which is far from an ordinary territorial or independence dispute. For Iran and its allies, it is a matter intertwined with faith, divinity, and existential beliefs. Meanwhile, Israel’s supporters advocate for survival and security. In the latest development, Israel launched fresh waves of missiles toward Iran. This move, in response to Iran’s barrage on Israel, was carefully measured to avoid severe escalation or interference with the upcoming U.S. presidential election. 

    The direct strikes in between Israel and Iran, avoiding proxies, began on April 1st when Israel targeted the Iranian consulate in Syria, resulting in the deaths of Iranian officials. In response, Iran launched missiles on April 13th, though most were intercepted by Israel’s defense system, which has become quite effective. Israel further humiliated Iran by killing Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran on July 31st, followed by the assassination of Iran’s leader’s closest ally and chief of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

    Iran felt compelled to retaliate to maintain its standing in the Islamic world, and on October 2nd, the International Day of Non-Violence, it launched missiles at Israeli cities, some of which breached Israel’s famous Iron Dome defense system, stunning Israeli forces. But On October 25th, Israeli missiles flew toward Iran.

    Interestingly, although there is always fear that missile exchanges could lead to heavy casualties and escalate tensions to the brink of World War III, as noted by X pundits, nothing has happened. Business continues as usual, which raises suspicions of a conspiracy suggesting that there may be some understanding between the two countries, despite the geographical distance and potential U.S. interference to de-escalate tensions.

    There are reasons to believe that there may be a covert understanding between Israel and Iran, as both states appear to benefit significantly from the ongoing tensions. Israel’s government was on the brink of collapse, with key political figures facing corruption trials, while Iran faced a severe internal political crisis between Islamic conservatives and Persians. Initially, the war between Israel and Hamas, and now Israel and Iran, has effectively prevented the collapse of Netanyahu’s government. Hamas’s brutal attack served to unify a deeply divided Israeli society, restoring the country’s prominence on the international stage—a space it had almost faded from as Saudi Arabia rose to prominence in the region.

    Iran, too, has gained from this conflict. The country has managed to unite its deeply divided populace through anti-Israel sentiment, seen by many within the Muslim community as a religious obligation. Across the Islamic world, Iran is perceived as a strong supporter of Gaza and Palestine, bolstering its regional standing. By demonstrating an ability to counter Israel’s missiles, Iran projects itself as a powerful force. Notably, Gulf countries seem more inclined toward cooperation with Iran, as recent statements from the Gulf countries express solidarity with Iran’s territorial integrity following missile attacks. Given that both countries appear to derive considerable benefits from the conflict, the likelihood of de-escalation in the Middle East seems increasingly slim.

    While both Israel and Iran seem to be playing a deadly game that appears to bring them close to open conflict, with missiles flying between them yet causing minimal real harm, several neighboring countries are bearing the brunt—such as Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iraq in the future. These countries, which lack the influence or capability to mount any resistance, are the true casualties in this conflict. If it escalates into a full-scale war, as some pundits predict, these nations will suffer the most. Meanwhile, the U.S. as a ‘referee’ and the U.N. as a ‘sideline referee’ seem ineffective. Worldwide onlookers, watching this heated game, divide themselves between supporters from the global left and Muslim communities on one side and right-wing factions on the other. Both sides eagerly cheer on social media, voicing their support with rage.

  • Is Now the Time to End the War?

    Is Now the Time to End the War?

    Israel has finally killed Yahya Sinwar, the man behind the notorious October 7th attack that stunned both Israel and the world. This attack triggered Israel’s war of revenge, resulting in the deaths of thousands in Gaza and extending into Lebanon and Syria. It also allowed Israel to spread its version of the story worldwide—a success for Sinwar. Israel ensured the targeted elimination of Hamas leaders, even those who sought refuge in safe havens. One by one, Israel eliminated their targets, and by the end of the year, no prominent figures remained on their early hit list. With Israel proving its dominance in the region and its opponents greatly weakened, is it time to end the war?

    Following the deadly attack on October 7th, Israel initiated a counteroffensive with the goal of eliminating threats from Hamas and the Gaza Strip, specifically targeting those responsible for the attack that killed more than 1,200 Israeli civilians. However, as now Israel killed  higher numbers than those inflicted by Hamas. Some Palestinian sources estimate the death toll to be around 40,000, although Israel contests this figure. And Over the past year, Hamas has significantly weakened in the Gaza Strip. Its network of tunnels—which once gave it an advantage—is being destroyed, and most of its major leaders have been killed. No one believes Hamas is capable of mounting a serious threat now, but Israel is not ready to stop.

    Given the religious dimensions of this conflict, both Israel and the Axis of Resistance—comprising the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—consider it their duty to continue fighting and eliminating one another. However, amid this ongoing warfare, countless innocent lives are impacted, becoming collateral damage in what is often described as a holy rivalry.

    Israel is now escalating its response to secure a safer northern border by targeting Hezbollah, another key member of the Axis of Resistance and a major ally of Iran in the region. Several missile strikes have continued even after the confirmed killing of Hamas leaders. It is clear that Israel is now targeting the entire Axis of Resistance. In addition to Hezbollah’s base in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen are considered potential targets for Israel’s immediate strikes. Iran’s infamous October 1 missile response is still anticipated.

    Israel has a reason to show the world that they are not safe unless they eliminate the threats. The October 7th attack by Hamas demonstrated this vulnerability to the world. Israel has also realized that the Arab world is unlikely to unite against them, and Hamas’ actions have generated considerable pro-Israel sentiment in the West, despite some opposition from left-wing and Islamist groups. Domestically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have received a significant boost from the war, recovering from last year’s political struggles, even though Netanyahu still faces corruption charges.

    So, the answer to the question is clear: if Israel is benefiting from the war, why would they stop the process now?

    But the pressure is high from Western leaders. U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister, and the French President, all calling for the death of Sinwar to be converted into an opportunity to seize the war. The mood is similar in the Arab world as well, and within Israel, reports indicate that there are protests urging an end to the war to save the hostages held by Hamas. However, Netanyahu has said No. Israel has its reasons for this stance. Any pause in Israel’s actions would help Hezbollah and other groups, including Iran, to structurally rebuild their organizations and prepare for the next attack. They have all united for this goal: to eliminate the Jewish state.

    It cannot be denied that Hamas may even rise again from the ashes of Gaza with the help of Iran, as they view it as a global Muslim duty. They can easily recruit and continue their efforts. The last video of Sinwar portraying him as a martyr has attracted many Muslim youths around the world.

    So for Israel and the Israeli government, it would be a blunder to stop the war based on the demands of Western states, and they are now in a position where it is not easy to do so. Everyone knows that even a break would only set the stage for the next war.

    For Iran, stopping the war could be beneficial, but it would also reopen existing problems within the state. They cannot bind their people with hatred toward Israel forever. Therefore, the likelihood of the continuation of the war is higher than that of a ceasefire. The war could potentially stretch for more years, ultimately concluding with the end of one state—either Israel or the Islamic Republic. The chance of ending the second one seems greater.

  • A Year That Redefined the Middle East

    A Year That Redefined the Middle East

    It has been a year since Hamas, the organization that controls Gaza, carried out a cross-border attack on Israel. The brutal attack on October 7, 2023, drastically reshaped the politics of the Middle East. The old narrative of a united Islamic front against Jews has faded, shrinking into a conflict between Shia Muslims and Jews, while Sunni Muslim governments have largely withdrawn, appearing more aligned with Israel. Hamas’s attack, likely an Iranian attempt to disrupt the growing relationship between Saudi Arabia, a leading Sunni state, and Israel, seems to have clearly backfired. It shifted the narrative from portraying Palestinians as victims of a cruel Israel to one where Israel is seen as needing counterattacks for security. Deeply humiliated by the unexpected assault from Iran’s proxy, Hamas, Israel is now in full retaliation mode—not just against Hamas, but targeting all Shia militant groups, with Iran as the ultimate focus.

    The Hamas attack is now being commemorated worldwide on its anniversary. Today, many events and rallies are taking place globally to remember the largest massacre of Jews since World War II. More than 1,200 men, women, and children were killed that day in a country built to guarantee their safety. Another 250 people—including a nine-month-old baby—were taken hostage. Many remain captive, and some may never return home.

    Following the Hamas attacks, Israel received considerable global sympathy. The country has since leveraged this support to embark on a mission to eliminate all threats surrounding its borders. Additionally, the attacks successfully united a nation that had been deeply divided over internal politics. Prime Minister Netanyahu, a shrewd and seasoned politician, has skillfully capitalized on the situation.

    At the same time, many pro-Palestinian and anti-war rallies are taking place on the anniversary of Hamas’s attack on Israel. Many supporters view Hamas’s actions as revolutionary and believe they should be commemorated. Interestingly, these pro-Palestinian rallies are widely seen in Europe and parts of Southeast Asia, while countries like India and those in the GCC have remained largely absent

    These rallies condemn Israel, which is now punishing Gaza and Lebanon. They argue that Israel’s right to defend itself does not allow it to violate the laws of war. Protesters are outraged by the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, which, according to Gaza’s health authorities, has killed over 41,500 Palestinians, most of them women, children, and infants—though Israel disputes these figures. Survivors are displaced, starving, and desperate, as the humanitarian crisis deepens with Israel continuing its war. Additionally, around 2,000 people have been reported dead in Lebanon, with deaths also reported in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran in relation to the conflict.

    Destruction and bloodshed in the Middle East are expected to continue, with strong fears that the region is sliding deeper into war. What began with Hamas and Hezbollah has now clearly escalated to involve Iran. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the conflict is primarily between Israel and Iran, with less focus needed on groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis.

    The war on social media, which spreads misinformation and hate, has become more visible over the years and is likely to intensify in the coming days. Over the past year, we’ve witnessed a decline in the reliability of traditional media regarding the Israel-Iran proxy conflict, often labeled as liberal, left-wing, or pro-Islamic by critics online.

    When analyzing the October 7th attack and its aftermath, it is clear that the Middle East no longer resembles the previous era, when Palestine united not just Arab nations but Muslims worldwide. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—once vocal opponents of Israel—seem disengaged now. Many had expected these governments to rally behind Hamas, but that support has significantly faded in recent months.

    In global politics, Israel has regained its importance and is enjoying a stronger position. Another political shift is evident: while Europe, with its large Muslim population, is witnessing more pro-Palestinian rallies, Asia, which used to be the epicenter of such movements, now appears more pro-Israel, especially in countries like India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This conflict between Israel and Iran also highlights a unipolar world, with Russia and China appearing weaker in international politics. Most importantly, the Palestinian dream—the global Muslim dream of Palestinian statehood—seems to be fading.

  • How Does Iran Grant Israel a License for Direct Attack?

    How Does Iran Grant Israel a License for Direct Attack?

    There is no room for talks, compromises, or peace in the ongoing “Holy War” between Israel and Iran. The conflict has escalated far beyond the initial Israel-Hamas confrontation and Israel’s retaliatory actions following the October 7th Hamas attack. It has now transformed into a broader war between Jews and Shiite Muslims, rooted in centuries of conflict. There had been hope that the leaders of Israel and Iran would avoid direct confrontation, recognizing the massive regional repercussions, and that the fighting would remain limited to their proxies. However, recent missile attacks by Iran on Israel have raised fears that both countries are preparing for an all-out war.

    While Israel and Iran do not share a direct border, the conflict would likely involve air strikes, with both sides seeking maximum destruction. Such a war would likely be more devastating than previous Israel-Arab wars. It is fair to say the Islamic Republic of Iran is at greater risk, as Israel has demonstrated its ability to eliminate enemies, even from a distance, through strategically planned operations. By engaging in direct conflict, Iran’s Islamic Republic is digging its own grave, much like Hamas did.

    Israel, it seems, had been waiting for the right moment – perhaps even wanting a provocation from Hamas, one that would justify its long-standing desire to eliminate the group. When Hamas launched its attack, with its sheer scale and brazen style, it gave Israel the pretext to escalate its response to a new and more intense level. Around this time last year, Israel was in a precarious position. The nation’s political landscape was fractured, with deep divisions tearing at the fabric of its government. Protests rippled across the country, aimed squarely at its leaders. Internationally, too, Israel was grappling with a diminished standing as Saudi Arabia emerged as a rising regional power, frequently outpacing Israel in garnering the favor of the United States. Sensing an opportunity, Hamas sought to capitalize on Israel’s weakened position, launching the terrorist attack on October 7th. But what was likely intended to further destabilize Israel instead offered the nation an opportunity to unite and strike back with renewed force.

    Now, nearly a year later, Israel is in a position of triumph. They have regained their place at the center of international politics, reaffirming their status as the United States top ally in the region. Domestically, they are more unified despite earlier divisions, and they have successfully eliminated key leaders of their enemies. Hamas and Hezbollah lost their top figures, Ismael Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, while these leaders remain in hiding. Israel’s military success, along with its strategic use of information warfare via the internet, has garnered global support in an unprecedented way.

    However, the real challenge for Israel comes from the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose theocratic government believes that eliminating Israel is their duty. Iran doesn’t intervene directly but leads the clashes through proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has previously launched missiles in solidarity with its suffering proxies, responding to the humiliation faced from Israel, but these attempts failed. Meanwhile, Israel, which takes every step more cunningly in this war, is waiting for a motive for a direct strike on Iran.

    Recently, on October 1st, a day before the Jewish New Year and the International Day of Non-Violence, Iran launched another missile barrage on Israel and supported an attack by Hamas. While the success rate was low, it stunned both Israel and the world. Iran may feel it succeeded in demonstrating its capabilities to the international community, but in reality, it has given Israel the opportunity to increase pressure and mount further attacks on Iran, much like how Hamas’s actions led Israel to invade Gaza. Israel can now present itself as being targeted by Iran, positioning its retaliatory actions as necessary for its self-defense.

    The fear of an all-out war or escalation between Israel and Iran and their respective allies is at an all-time high. Iran’s recent actions are indicative of its frustration. The Islamic Republic’s most significant leverage is its role as the protector of Islam, and any questioning of that role could result in a loss of grip on power. Should Iran lose this grip, it could lead to the downfall of Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other organizations backed by Iran, making it imperative for the regime to demonstrate strength to the world. However, this situation now provides Israel with a license to target even Tehran. Israel possesses an almost insurmountable advantage over Iran in long-distance aerial attacks, advanced technology, and espionage. 

    Many believe that the Islamic Republic of Iran, with its diverse ethnic backgrounds and internal cultural divisions, presents a vulnerable target for Israeli intelligence, which could weaken the country strategically before a full-scale war ever becomes necessary. Through carefully planned moves, Israel could potentially destabilize Iran, reducing the need for a large-scale conflict. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Islamic Republic of Iran is now a key target for Israel. 

  • Will the China-Backed Canal Reduce Cambodia’s Reliance on Vietnam?

    Will the China-Backed Canal Reduce Cambodia’s Reliance on Vietnam?

    For decades, Cambodia has regarded Vietnam with a wary eye, an undercurrent of suspicion flowing through its society. Across the country’s diverse social fabric, a significant portion of the population nurses a deep-seated animosity toward its eastern neighbor, blaming Vietnam for a host of domestic troubles. This long-standing resentment has crystallized into a widely held belief that the Vietnamese are not only untrustworthy but capable of malevolent deeds.

    The friction between the two nations is not confined to old grievances; it festers in the present. Border disputes linger unresolved, and the presence of Vietnamese immigrants within Cambodia’s borders stirs anxieties of a more existential nature. Some Cambodians fear that these immigrants could become pawns in a broader Vietnamese strategy to exert dominance over the country. This rising tide of anti-Vietnamese sentiment is fed by a variety of factors – both historical and contemporary – and has recently manifested in protests across Phnom Penh. These demonstrations are but the latest iteration of a familiar political strategy, wherein leaders, sensing an opportunity, stoke fears of foreign encroachment to rally popular support.

    Despite this animosity, Cambodia’s political and economic structures remain deeply intertwined with Vietnam, especially in trade and business. The Mekong River, Cambodia’s lifeline and vital for agriculture and the transportation of goods and people, flows into Vietnam and eventually opens to the sea, making Cambodia dependent on Vietnamese ports for maritime access. This reliance gives Vietnam significant leverage in its dealings with Cambodia. Although Cambodia has its own coastline and ports, the challenging terrain makes the Mekong River a more practical route for transporting goods and facilitating commerce.

    Reducing this dependence has long been a goal for Cambodian policymakers. In pursuit of this objective, the government has proposed a costly project to reroute the Mekong River to the Cambodian coast via a canal. However, securing funding for such a massive undertaking has proven challenging. The only nation willing to assist Cambodia is China, known for financing projects in countries with limited capacity for repayment. China has expressed interest in the canal project, even considering the potential disruptions it may cause to Vietnamese ports – an intriguing dilemma, especially given China’s close relationship with Vietnam.

    The canal, commonly known as the Funan Techno Canal and officially named the Tonle Bassac Navigation Road and Logistics System Project, will span 180 km. The project aims to connect Phnom Penh with Cambodia’s only deep-sea port in Sihanoukville and the newly developed port in Kampot. The plan includes the construction of three dams with sluices and eleven bridges. The estimated completion date is 2028, with a projected cost of $1.7 billion, entirely funded by the China Road and Bridge Corporation. The canal will be developed under a build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract, with hopes of reducing reliance on Vietnamese ports, particularly Cai Mep. Unsurprisingly, Vietnam has raised environmental concerns regarding the project, but Cambodia is determined to move forward. The canal’s groundbreaking ceremony took place on August 5, 2024.

    Photo Credit: Radio Free Asia

    The canal offers enormous opportunities for Cambodia by providing crucial access to the sea, which is essential for economic growth. With this project, Cambodian businesses will gain direct access to maritime routes, significantly reducing costs. The areas surrounding the canal are expected to experience a surge in investment, leading to further infrastructure development that will undoubtedly boost the economy. Cambodia is already a favored partner of China, and reports indicate that developing infrastructure will create more investment opportunities in the country, signaling a potential influx of foreign capital.

    Politically, the leaders who have brought this project to fruition are likely to be celebrated as heroes, particularly for fulfilling a generational demand to reduce Cambodia’s dependence on Vietnam. President Hun Sen, whose administration has championed this ambitious initiative, envisions it as a cornerstone of his legacy – not as a leader besmirched by corruption, but as the architect of a transformative achievement for Cambodia. The canal is also anticipated to alter the region’s geopolitical landscape, fostering a greater separation between Cambodia and Vietnam. In a recent speech, Prime Minister Hun Manet underscored that the canal – his father’s brainchild – will not only boost the economy but also enhance Cambodia’s independence, promote trade, industry, and agriculture, and ensure efficient water management.

    However, this project also carries significant risks. The massive investment from China, coupled with interest rates that Cambodia may struggle to repay, could further bind the country to Chinese influence. This dependence on Chinese policies and products might lead to a challenging economic situation, with Cambodia potentially falling into a debt trap similar to those experienced by Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Consequently, much of the revenue generated by the project may ultimately flow back to China.

    Projects involving transboundary rivers are often mired in disputes, driven by conflicting national interests. While the canal promises substantial benefits for Cambodia, it simultaneously poses risks for Vietnam, likely exacerbating tensions between the two countries. As a partner to both, China may find itself in the delicate position of mediating the issue, seeking to navigate the complexities without drawing in external parties. Yet, it is evident that this canal has the potential to alter the political and economic dynamics of the region.

  • Why Is Putin Seeking Mediation from China and India in the War?

    Why Is Putin Seeking Mediation from China and India in the War?

    The Russia-Ukraine war is now in a stalemate, with neither side able to advance. Russia, once seen as the Goliath aiming to capture Ukraine, is now humiliated, unable to move forward, while Ukraine has even crossed into Russian territory. What many expected to be an easy victory for Russia, with the war ending in a few months, has turned into a protracted conflict, and no one expects a quick resolution – unless Putin resorts to nuclear weapons, launching the endgame. This unexpected prolongation is a challenge for all involved, but it affects Russia more than Ukraine.

    Ukraine has already endured massive losses, with many of its men killed, its women fleeing to the West, and its buildings reduced to rubble. However, they remain resilient, bolstered by Western money and munitions. Russia, on the other hand, is under heavy Western sanctions and losing its strength. While not fully economically collapsed, its economy is suffering and becoming increasingly reliant on China and other allies. Meanwhile, countries that once followed the Kremlin are now recognizing its weakness and beginning to distance themselves. All of this highlights that Russia is the biggest loser in this war, and though they need to end it, their pride remains an obstacle.

    Extensive discussions were held between Putin and Western leaders to avoid war. However, a confident Putin seemed intent on humiliating them, and we all remember how Macron was belittled during his meeting with Putin in Moscow. Putin initiated the war, but no one anticipated this outcome. Ukraine is fighting fiercely, and Western nations remain steadfast in their support.

    Initially, Putin disregarded peace talks and negotiations, but now he appears ready to end the war. Interestingly, he is not engaging with Western leaders, but instead reaching out to countries like Brazil, China, and India – key BRICS nations, except for South Africa – who are attempting to establish an alternative power bloc. Putin mentioned a preliminary agreement reached between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators in the early weeks of the war during talks in Istanbul, which was never implemented, as a potential basis for new negotiations. However, it seems neither side is proposing a realistic plan they can agree on, raising doubts about Putin’s true intentions.

    Zelenski is now more confident and is reportedly planning larger operations following the incursion near Kursk. It is expected that the current U.S. Vice President, Kamala Harris, will become the next president, so there will likely be no significant policy change regarding support for Ukraine. Putin’s recent moves may be aimed at shifting the narrative, portraying Ukraine as the aggressor and Russia as willing to settle.

    China’s involvement will not be effective with Ukraine, as China remains firmly aligned with Russia and the Kremlin won’t find much common ground with Brazil despite its leftist president. India, which maintains strong relationships with both Russia and the West, is another potential mediator suggested by Russia. India has shown its neutrality through visits by Prime Minister Modi and other officials to both Russia and Ukraine. Modi’s criticism of the war during his visit to Moscow was well-received in the West. However, the chances of India intervening are slim, as India is one of the few countries benefiting from the war, securing cheaper oil and gas from Russia. India’s foreign minister has stated that this is a bilateral issue, and India would only help with peace talks if requested, otherwise it will not interfere.

    So, It is clear that neither China, India, nor Brazil are likely to intervene. Putin is likely aware of this, making his actions a strategic move to convince both the Russian public and the world that Russia is not responsible for prolonging the war and is willing to negotiate.

    As the war stretches into its third year, the Russia-Ukraine conflict increasingly resembles a personal battle between Putin and Zelensky. Both leaders, unwilling to compromise and driven by their egos, seem inclined to prolong the war, despite the suffering and losses on both sides. Peace talks could tarnish their images, and Putin cannot imagine conceding to Zelensky. However, as Russia begins to suffer more, they may deflect blame and place it on Ukraine. The invitations to India and China can be seen as part of this strategy to shift the narrative.

  • How Taiwan Uses History to Resist Reunification

    How Taiwan Uses History to Resist Reunification

    Taiwan and China both lay claim to an ancient Chinese heritage that stretches back through the centuries. Despite diverging historical narratives, each asserts itself as the real China. Officially, they are both still called China – Mainland China as the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan as the Republic of China. Mainland China, guided by the legacy of the Qing Dynasty, claims dominion over regions like Tibet and stakes territorial claims in India and other neighboring countries. This reflects the Communist Party’s sweeping vision of a Greater China – a concept of reunification that aspires to blend both historical and contemporary claims into a unified Chinese identity.

    The vision of a “Greater China” introduces a particular strain for Taiwan, often reduced to the moniker “Chinese Taipei,” a term that subtly undermines its sovereignty. In response, Taiwan has deftly turned the narrative, casting doubt on the very premise of China’s ambitions. How, Taiwan asks, can Beijing champion the idea of reunification while ignoring the territories historically ceded to Russia? If reclaiming lost lands is truly China’s goal, then shouldn’t those lands – seized under humiliating treaties – be part of the equation? Yet, with Beijing and Moscow bound in their modern-day geopolitical dance, this seems unlikely. Taiwan’s position is both sharp and simple: can the dream of Greater China hold weight when it conveniently omits Russia’s territorial gains?

    Taiwan has skillfully reframed the territorial question in a way that could subtly disturb the carefully cultivated alliance between China and Russia. In a recent interview, President Lai Ching-te posed a provocative challenge: if the Chinese Communist Party were truly committed to the principle of territorial integrity, why has it not sought the return of land lost to Russia? Lai, who assumed office in January, pointed to the Treaty of Aigun and the 1860 convention that saw China cede vast swaths of territory – including present-day Vladivostok – to its northern neighbor. And yet, Beijing remains conspicuously silent on the matter.

    Despite the historical loss of territory, Chinese officials have continued to attend Russian economic forums in Vladivostok, a city once part of China’s vast imperial expanse. President Lai implied that this silence on the Russian front casts doubt on Beijing’s proclaimed commitment to territorial integrity. The fixation on Taiwan, he argued, is less about reunification and more about geopolitical ambition. Taiwan’s position within the first island chain of the Pacific would provide the Chinese Communist Party with unparalleled strategic leverage, offering control over critical maritime routes and a commanding presence in the Taiwan Strait.

    Under Xi Jinping’s rule, the Chinese Communist Party has steadfastly maintained that Taiwan is a renegade province, governed by what it calls illegal separatists. Xi’s vision for reunification involves the eventual annexation of Taiwan, a goal rooted in Beijing’s claim that the island has always been part of China, only to be lost to Japan during the country’s so-called century of humiliation. For the CCP, Taiwan stands as the final frontier in its mission to restore China’s territorial integrity.

    In a sharp critique, Taiwan accuses the CCP of prioritizing its ideological kinship with Moscow over its historical roots. This counter-narrative positions the Republic of China – Taiwan – as the rightful steward of Chinese heritage, while casting Communist China as a Soviet creation that continues to cultivate its ties with Russia. The implication is clear: the CCP’s ambitions are geopolitical, not historical, and its fidelity to China’s ancient legacy is, at best, an afterthought.

    Lai’s comment can be viewed through multiple lenses, as it strikes at the heart of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) claims to territorial integrity, the historic narrative of a Greater China, and the sentiment among those who long for reunification. But perhaps more strategically, Lai is targeting the delicate relationship between China and Russia – a bond that, for now, appears unshakable. Economically, politically, and strategically, these two nations act in concert, with China helping to soften the blow of Western sanctions on Russia, and Russia lending support to China’s geopolitical maneuvers. Both countries, their modern borders shaped by 19th-century wars and treaties, seem to present a unified front. 

    Yet, by invoking these historical accords, Taiwan is making a shrewd move. Lai’s remarks could plant the seeds of discord between China and Russia, forcing them to confront uncomfortable questions about their past and potentially weakening their current alliance. The subtle reminder of past territorial losses to Russia – territories that Beijing has quietly overlooked – could stir old wounds and reveal fractures in their partnership that both governments have long worked to conceal.