Yesterday condemned, today embraced

Donald Trump announced on May 13th 2025 that he plans to lift sanctions imposed on Syria since 2004, by virtue of Executive Order 13338, upgraded in 2011 (in addition to Syria's designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1979). Now that the Assad regime was toppled, Syria is being removed from the orbit of evil. 

Since 2011, the Syrian government and people have been cut off from the global economy, shunned from the banking system, crippled by trade restrictions, denied investment opportunities, and condemned to isolation owing to the oligarchic regime that was inherited by the now ousted Bashar Al Assad. Any compliance officer would raise the red flag the moment a company has any ties with Syria - not the regime, not the political sphere - but Syria. 

Yesterday, magically, the US realised that the Syrian baker does not actually represent global menace. SMEs do not stand for all evil. The collective punishment of the Syrian people for accepting the iron-fist rule of the Assad clan - for 45 years - does not sound reasonable anymore. Having impoverished and shut off a nation for half a century by arbitrary sanctions suddenly does not seem quite right.

Arbitrary decisions by individual leaders based on whims and visions is the sad reality of postmodern politics. Trump said that he made the decision after discussing the issue with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as well as with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It is unclear whether a magical potion was slipped into the Turkish coffee, or the Saudi qahwa. What is clear however is the nonsensical, contradictory, hypocritical policies followed by the US.

The last round of sanctions on Syria emerged in response to the Syrian civil war in 2011 with two main stated objectives: cessation of Syrian regime violence and introduction of political reforms. Over the course of the Syrian conflict, sanctions have evolved from targeting individuals and entities involved in regime violence towards a “de facto regime of comprehensive sanctions with an extra-territorial dimension targeting third-country individuals and entities that overlap with UN counter terrorism sanctions.” 

The morality and utility of sanctions imposed on Syria have been debated by academic and policy thinkers: Landis and Simon (2020) questioned the ‘pointless cruelty’ of US sanctions, stressing their failure in achieving their declared strategic objectives while ‘immiserating’ the Syrian people. Official Syrian data shows the economy more than halved in size between 2010 and 2022. The World Bank indicated an 83% contraction between 2010 and 2024. Syria was reclassified as a low-income country in 2018, with more than 90% of its near 25 million population living below the poverty line, as per UN agencies. Syria owes between $20 billion and $23 billion, whilst dwindling oil and tourism revenues slashed Syria's exports from $18.4 billion in 2010 to $1.8 billion in 2021. Key imports were paid for with illicit cash from sales of captagon, or from fuel smuggling. Conflict and drought reduced the number of farmers, damaged irrigation and cut access to seeds and fertilizers. In short, sanctions damaged the livelihood of Syrians, who still, to this day, do not fully understand why they were blamed for the actions of a ruling elite. 

Sudan has its own civil infighting, Myanmar, Libya, Yemen…the list of infighting and conflict is sadly long. And longer is the list of human rights violations, committed by allies and neighbours and households themselves. A young Syrian IT specialist would not understand why, for the past decade or so, was unable to tap into any funds. The Syrian farmer would not be able to phantom the logic behind such denial to access necessary resources. The Syrian doctor would not be able to forgive the death of her patient because sanctions prevented the repair of CT scanners owing to sanctions. 

Trump came in riding his white horse, freeing the Syrian national from the shackles of US sanctions. But just as arbitrary and unilateral this generous step is, as easily it is to be reversed at the personal whims and interests of a Trump-alike. The carrot and stick method did not work - but maybe the gentle pull of the bridle would.

Not joining the circus

“It’s not a complex thing to do. With the United States being in control of that piece of land — that fairly large piece of land — you’re going to have stability in the Middle East for the first time.” Donald Trump.

One can only imagine how a king would react to such ignorant words uttered before him, with the world watching. In addition to the feeling of embarrassment by association, the head of the Jordanian state must have been dumb-folded. Instead of sinking low, as a royal he chose the route of diplomacy and regal etiquette, and got media backlash for that. 

The February 2025 meeting between King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Donald Trump in the White House shed the light on the dangers of misinformed public perception, and expectations. Some hailed the monarch, and other criticized him for avoiding the use of stern, confrontational statements. The divide in reactions in the media is extremely clear and confirms the takeover of political binarism. One is either with or against, pro or contra, right or left. Such clarity of position is hailed in some circles, the same circles that praised the US President for speaking his mind and calling things as they are. The same circles that also cheer for revolutionary leaders and outspoken political figures who fear nothing and no one. 

Whilst there is indeed some longing for unapologetic justice and clear positions, politics does not function that way. The dark web of interests, power, alliances, dependence, agendas, weaknesses, and strengths render the gray, lukewarm world of slow diplomacy a necessity. 

The King of Jordan realised in his meeting that years of friendship with the US cannot, and must not, turn into animosity because of one deranged leader. The US is much more than Donald Trump and his policies, and if the latter is too near sighted to appreciate this friendship, then the former must remind him. And that is exactly what he did.

Jordan and the US enjoy long years of reciprocal benefits exchanged. Economic, diplomatic, and security ties link the two nations. Jordan needs the US, and the US - to a varying extent - also needs Jordan. Agreements were inked, missions were coordinated, and favors were exchanged for decades. This friendship cannot be forgone at the first mishap. King Abdullah could have used passionate statements of indignation, but he opted for patience and kind redirection of proposed plans. When asked whether Jordan would receive Palestinians displaced from Gaza, he clarified that he would do what is “best” for his country, and that Arabs would come up with a counter proposal. His answers were measured, poised, and inclusive of the opinion of other Arab states.

However, it should have ended there. There was no need for subsequent messages shared on social media and though Jordanian political figures. The position of Jordan is clear. The respect that the King has for Jordanians and Palestinians alike does not need affirmation and bold statements. The meeting could have ended as it did without the need for additional reassurances and confirmations. This route is followed by the likes of Trump, who constantly feel the urge to share, explain, and clear contradictions in their contradictory, non nonsensical statements.

Personally, I found a lot of merit and elegance in the King's exchanges with Trump. After all, when a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus. The Jordanian King did not, and will not, join the circus. 

Moral murder

YouTube channels dedicated to criminal investigations are enjoyable. The sophistication of the investigative tools and science behind forensic evidence are astounding. One case was particularly interesting, as it required the deployment of hundreds of officers, dozen detectives, thousands of volunteers, years of investigations, hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative cost, and cross-national cooperation and deployments to uncover the murderer of one woman. The murder was found and tried to ensure that justice is observed and that society is safe. Such manpower and resources were a necessary expense to root out bad citizens that commit a capital crime that cannot, in any shape or form, be forgiven. 

But armies kill thousands in one go, and no one is alarmed. There is no public outcry or a YouTube channel that summarises 15 years of investigations to capture the murderers and exile them from the virtuous society. Soldiers are trusted to act responsibly when having the tools, power, and freehand to end lives the way they see appropriate. The determining factor here is the key word of: morality. 

A November 2024 article published by the British Journal of Politics and International Relations discussed the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). This theory predicates that "ethical frameworks are a product of innate psychological systems which have evolved to help individuals navigate social life (Haidt and Joseph, 2004)". As such, despite vast differences across cultures, morality often has shared themes and similarities across populations, nested in the core of our intuitive ethics. 

Morality is understood to be the "code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people". But rationality is also a relative notion, and is determined by subjective factors and ideological interpretations of the world. For instance, Israel's Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, wrote on X that "2025 would be the year of sovereignty in Judea and Samaria”. The choice of the Jewish biblical name of the West Bank reflects the rationale followed by the Israeli politician. Biblical scripts dictate that the region is for Jews, must be owned by Jews, run by Jews, and governed by Jews. As such, it is not only biblically imperative, but morally compulsory to return these lands to those they were assigned to, even if by force, and even if that means the moral killing for civilians. Death is allowed if the moral duty is the driver. Settlers killing Palestinians is also justified, and does not require the deployment of police forces for an in-depth investigation, because the act was a result of a moral duty: that of restoring biblical lands to Jews.

The life of the woman who was unlawfully murdered had much more value than the lives of thousands who perished following military acts. Her life, and death, merited an entire show....the others only a headline. Her killer was labelled a dangerous murderer, the others are hailed as heros. 

The argument to make here is that whilst we tend to believe that we have a Moral Foundations Theory that glues humanity into one big basic system of beliefs based on shared morals, humans actually use morality to justify every immoral act, including murder. As long as society sees it as moral, then go ahead and kill. 

What a coincidence!

 

 "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt

Coincidence, serendipity, and seriality - as described by the coincidence collector Paul Kammerer - do not explain politics. Nor do they explain the media.

Several articles were published regarding an earthquake that hit Iran on October 5 and theories as to whether that was actually a nuclear test run by Iran. An earthquake, measuring 4.4 on the Richter scale, was recorded in Aradan County in Semnan Province. The timing of the seismic activity and the location "made people link it to Iran's nuclear programme and ask if the Islamic country was close to getting its own nuclear weapon" as per media articles. Although earthquakes are normal in that geographical area, the timing of the natural phenomena was put at doubt by a skeptic, conspiratorial,  and weary media coverage.

CIA Director William Burns said yesterday that there was no evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon. However, he also said that Iran only needs one week to amass enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The nuclear threat  - coupled with the ideological one - that Iran poses in the region is not news. Although the US is treading carefully and Israel following suit, as far as the nuclear issue is concerned, both governments will start crying wolf soon. 

At a time when the US is calling for ceasefire and containing escalations, it does not want to further implicate itself or Israel in the destruction of the region. Instead, and similar to what happened in Iraq over 20 years ago, the fears that were unsubstantiated will suddenly become merited owing to cleverly and patiently weaved messaging in international media outlets. Iran is supporting all of its proxies in the region and is adamant to press through a programme that has been questioned from the outset. An act against the regime is not only justified, but necessary. It is a question of time before it is fully embraced.

Israel's former premier is calling for striking Iran's nuclear sites. He sees the opportunity as ideal, as one more aggression against a nuclear fanatic land would be dwarfed against the atrocities committed in the region. The current Israeli most likely agrees behind closed doors, and a US government  - whichever one is elected - will also probably agree.  It is the role of the media to make us agree, and forget that coincidences in politics do not happen.

Post-truth politics

 

Since October 7, 2023, epistemicide by the media and online influencers has been on the rise. Epistemicide, which is the systematic destruction of rival forms of knowledge, is evident. The mass-murder of Gazans, and the destruction of their livelihoods, schools, communities, universities, heath centers, and cultural and religious centers all contribute to the death of Gazans as spokespeople and knowledge producers of their own history and being. Coupled with radical, misinformed social media influencers, attempting to both justify the Israeli aggression and negating any Gazan narrative, the process is gradual, but guaranteed. The process of denying existence as a nation, as a people, as a community with a distinguished and proper culture and history, and right to exist. It is a process that aims to eradicate the concept of non-citizen, as Gazans have been since 1948, where, in Tendayi Bloom’s words, the absence of citizenship and the livelihood of people despite the system are also being denied.

But the tragedy does not stop here. In comes post-truth politics, which in itself fuels false narratives and feeds public anxiety, distrust and suspicion. Most importantly, post-truth politics has become wishful, non-factual narrative. 

In the Trump-Harris debate held on September 10, 2024, the presidential candidates were asked about their policies towards resolving the Israel-Gaza conflict. And here, each candidate played the term rhetoric to the beat. 

Trump’s answer was a fictional, back-to-the-future, and painfully predictable “this would not have happened under my watch”. A non-answer that gaslights spectators and tricks them into believing that the suffering, injustice, and dehumanization of Gazans would not have led to any new forms of resistance (irrespective of its effectiveness or soundness). Had he been president, Gazans and Israelis would have held hands and rejoiced their neighborly ties under the Mediterranean rainbow. Such inflated ego that embarrassingly allows its bearer to believe that an audience would be reassured that a genocide would end if he were allowed to travel back in time, is sadly not shocking today.

Then came in Harris with another post-truth political maneuver. Harris insisted on a cease-fire agreement and a two state solution. She either lacked the courage or the brains to realize that Israel decided no, and voted no, on both issues. Claiming that her approach to end the conflict is by inking a deal to stop all aggression and establishing a Palestinian state is also gas-lighting an American public. It is time for hard truths, for finger pointing, for brutal honesty.

At present, Palestinians seem to be locked in between a media army that manipulates ignorant and biased actors to spread half-truths and deny truths, and politicians who are delusional and drowning in rhetoric that anything they say is completely void of meaning, inspiration, or goal. Whilst this is happening, a literal army is eradicating an entire body of culture, and uprooting its people in every possible mean.

Epistemicide is happening, and we are watching. And some are clapping. But Gazans are not, and will not, be erased.

Meaning through Conspiracy

Strategy, according to Liddell Hart, as inspired by Sun Tzu, is the art of distributing and employing military means to fulfill the ends of policy. The ends of policy were not a military responsibility but rather handed down from the level of grand strategy, where all instruments of policy were weighed, one against the other, and where it was necessary to look beyond the war to the subsequent peace. It remains unclear what the exact policy that Israeli policy makers are championing, as it shifts and reorganizes professed priorities continuously. Yet, what appears to the average spectator is that 15,000 deaths and 45,000 casualties is collateral damage Israel is willing to accept as part of its policy, its strategy, and end goal. Of what and why? To free hostages? Rid Gazans from tyrants? Achieve security in the immediate vicinity? Crush "human animals" and nuke them? Which is it?

The conflicting statements by Israeli officials and the brutal actions taken by the military feed into the three main conspiracy theories that attempt to give meaning to what policymakers might be thinking:

1. Israel is destroying the enclave’s infrastructure so they can benefit from the natural gas reserves in a field discovered in 2000. The Gaza Marine natural gas field, located offshore the strip is estimated to hold 32 billion cubic meters of natural gas. It was never developed because of Israel’s objections, fearing that revenues would end up in Hamas’ pockets. Now the opportunity presented itself on a silver plate.

2. Israel is emptying the northern part of the strip to pave the way for the Ben Gurion Canal, which would connect the Gulf of Aqaba (Eilat) in the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea and would pass through Israel and end in the Gaza Strip. Note that on October 20, 2020, the Israeli state-owned company Europe Asia Pipeline Company and the Emirati company MED-RED Land Bridge signed an agreement on the use of the Eilat-Ashkelon oil pipeline to transport oil from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, but work on the canal never kicked off. The current Israeli re-occupation of the Gaza Strip came as a gift to revive the project.

3. A clean cut genocide. Gaza would be emptied from Arabs, and Egypt - which recently was promised a 9 billion investment plan and debt talks - would host expelled Gazans. As such, the Israeli premier would bolster his position and the Gaza problem would be swept under the carpet in a Machiavellian regional plan that (behold) included Israeli and Hamas coordination.

 

Such conspiracies need not be true. They only need to make sense. The issue here is not what Israel wants, it is actually what the spectator expects as a justification of the unjustifiable. The reasons of Israel can be one and many, and its strategy is coping and changing as geopolitical developments require such revision. Israel will and did negotiate with Hamas, and it will as it did resume to kill indiscriminately. Nothing is definite, nor is it just, or with meaning, or entirely rational. And so is the policy behind the strategy employed. 

Humans are barely rational creatures who instead respond to messages that tug on their emotions and "feel" as much as they "see" the world. What has been seen and felt must now be understood. To steal a quote from a friend, "for the same things people see different things". But, whichever side of the struggle - even those siding with neither - the images are vivid and real and shared and cant be unseen. The brutality must have a justification that makes more sense than what either side is claiming to achieve. Such senselessness has led to the adoption of conspiracy theories to give the strife some meaning on a timeline of start and end. A why and therefore. A closure to a perceived ugly beginning and middle. A sad attempt of using conspiracies to explain the inexplicable. Hope to find logic in a senseless strategy. A quest for a grand finale.

Yet in the words of Hilary Mantel: "There are no endings. If you think so you are deceived as to their nature. They are all beginnings. Here is one."

Better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven

That is what Satan said, when he (presumably) stood undaunted and remained a dedicated opponent to the tyranny of Heaven. Reigning, irrespective of the underlying conditions, is the essence of sovereignty, which still echoes loudly in most parts of the world. No level of economic distress or isolation could dilute its intensity. Poverty can be and is endured, if not even embraced, by many nations that do not fear an empty belly. 

On September 22, China offered to help reconstruct Syria with he formation of a strategic partnership. Chinese leader Xi Jinping's diction was carefully selected: “China supports Syria’s opposition to foreign interference, unilateral bullying … and will support Syria’s reconstruction.” Western sanctions on Syria have been steadily tightened since the beginning of the a civil war in 2011 with a crackdown on protests and went on to kill hundreds of thousands of people and displace millions. Essentially,  the 2020 Caesar Act freezes the assets of anyone dealing with the country. This translates into lack of foreign investment, deteriorating infrastructure and industry, and increased levels if poverty and social strife. Indeed, the dire economic situation has triggered protests, which were quenched with state aid, eventual indifference and inertia, and lending hands from the anti-bullies. 

Starvation as a war strategy

The soft approach of economic sanctions instead of a military intervention has solid strategic foundations and moral basis - albeit fully utilitarian. Instead of barrels that kill indiscriminately, sanctions in theory target political systems and weaken the system from within. Sanctions allow for a long, quiet peaceful war whose casualties are not those with bullet-ridden corpses, but that of starved skeletons. It is a cheaper war, a more moral one, a war that is accepted by the empathetic public, one that adheres to the Paris Accords. It is the generally accepted approach to rectify a deviating behaviours is one based on economic sanctions. 

The logic is simple: cripple the economy from within, and soon friends and family will leave. But do they really?  Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and Syria are examples of how such a policy failed epically. Syrians still support the incumbent president; Iran is still a dictatorial-theocracy going ahead with its nuclear program; Russia is pressing on with its regional program; Iraq long survived sanctions and only succumbed following a military intervention, and communist rhetoric still guides Cubans. What sanctions do is penalize citizens for long periods of time, in a lesser-evil-diplomatic cover of cruel collective punishment. Sanctions lead to starvation, poverty, dependence, desperation, and sub-development. Such "peaceful" crisis management is anything but peaceful: it is full of menace and mass punishment in the name of avoiding military intervention. 

A direct, diplomatic solution is a better alternative to the carrot and stick approach. Sanctions are not an effective solution. The world is not safer with these sanctions. In fact, disagreeing governments and companies worldwide have become experts an evading sanctions by using proxy companies, shell firms, hiding UBO information, and selecting complex maritime routes to facilitate "illegal" trade. 

While the public assumes the burden of sanctions, political elites are bolstered, having mastered the art of eschewing sanctions via its alliances with sympathizing regimes. Such economic strife only means further dependence and submission to autocratic regimes that hold whatever remaining carrots allowed. Saliently, nationalistic tendencies and patriotism gain popularity to maintain national dignity. History has proven time and again that sovereignty trumps convenience, and that ideologies remain a strong guiding principle to ordinary people. A life of ruling in hell is better than one of servitude in heaven resonates ever more now with the public, whose moderate positions are necessarily radicalized following injustice, poverty, and inability to satisfy basic needs. 

To conclude, a strategy of a quiet war based on sanctions is weak, ineffective, and counterproductive. Key strategist Field Marshal Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke observed that "strategy is but a system of expediencies".  This cannot be more accurate today.

Tunisians voted....somehow

Tunisian voters began casting their votes in a second round of parliamentary elections that took place last month.  The mayhem and political turmoil that Tunisia has been through do not promise a safe retraction to democracy. The new parliament will have very few powers, as it cannot, for example, dismiss the president or hold him accountable. The president has priority in proposing bills. The new constitution does not require that the government appointed by the president obtain the confidence of parliament. The participation rate is the main measure of the success of the election, which the opposition boycotts in light of the political and economic crisis afflicting the country. The electoral campaign appeared lackluster, as a limited number of electoral banners hung in the streets and on the roads presenting candidates, most of whom are unknown to the Tunisian public.

In an attempt to introduce them in a better way, the Independent High Authority for Elections sought to organize debates between them, which were broadcast on state television during the hours of high viewing rates at night.

262 candidates are competing for 131 seats in the new parliament (out of 161), during elections that represent the final stage of a road map imposed by President Kais Saied, the most prominent feature of which is the establishment of a strengthened presidential system similar to the pre-revolutionary version of Tunisia.

The Independent High Authority for Elections announced that the turnout in the second round of the elections remains low.  A mere 11% of the electorate had voted on Sunday, with critics of President Kais Saied saying the empty polling stations were evidence of public disdain for his agenda and seizure of powers.The political upheaval in Tunisia is accompanied by an economic impasse, exacerbated by the failure of crucial negotiations with the International Monetary Fund to obtain a loan of about two billion dollars.

Observers believe that the only glimmer of hope for this crisis is the "rescue initiative" launched by the "Tunisian General Labor Union", the "Tunisian League for Human Rights", the "National Organization of Lawyers" and the "Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights" in order to submit proposals that they will present to Saeed. out of the crisis.

Youssef Cherif, director of Columbia Global Centers in Tunis, told AFP “this parliament will have very little legitimacy, and the president, who is all-powerful thanks to the 2022 constitution, will be able to control it as he sees fit”. 

It is hard to imagine whether the 11% figure would promise a representative parliament. Yet again, a 100% figure wouldn't, unfortunately, either. 

The freedom of the pike is death to the minnows

In philosophy, freedom is usually examined as a property of the will. It is as an ethical ideal or normative principle, perhaps as the most vital such principle. In its simplest sense, freedom means to do as one wishes or act as one chooses. As John Locke defined it, it is the freedom to life, freedom, and property.

Only anarchists, who reject all forms of political authority as unnecessary and undesirable, are prepared to endorse unlimited freedom. A license is agreed as a necessary vice. The question remains is regarding which freedoms are we willing to approve, and which ones are we justified in curtailing.

John Stuart Mill departed from utilitarianism and recognized individuality, proposing a clear distinction between ‘self-regarding’ actions and ‘other regarding’ actions. When harm is involved, then a license is necessary. Which begs the question: what is harm? Physical or moral?

It is argued that governments should similarly be restricted to a ‘minimal’ role, amounting in practice to little more than the maintenance of domestic order and personal security. This vision is shared by many liberals and neoliberals, in what is known as negative liberty. For this reason, advocates of negative freedom have usually supported the minimal state.

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin referred to negative liberty and positive liberty. The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something, whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something. Negative freedom is freedom of choice: the freedom of the consumer to choose what to buy, the freedom of the worker to choose a job or profession, the freedom of a producer to choose what to make and who to employ. Positive freedom however polices restrictions to impediments to freedom. It helps citizens help themselves to be free.

In light of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, can the question of negative and positive liberty be used as an excused that justified Kremlin’s invasion of its neighbour? Can the rhetoric of freeing a nation that is denied political and jurisdictional rapprochement with its soviet predecessor, and freeing its people from neo-liberal abuse and modern enslavement be employed as philosophical notions of a nation that reminisces about a glorious past?

The contested concept of freedom lies at the heart of the issue. Whichever band one decides to side, neither is fully observing the core of freedom: people’s choice. The moment that freedom was delegated to a higher power, its strength has been muzzled and blended into different shades of freedom. At present, negative or positive, Ukrainians are suffering the exploitation of “freedom”: freedom to join the free world, or freedom to join the free nation. Ironically, they are not offered the freedom to explore any other option.

Fourth Face of Power

 

Politics is power. Quite simply, power is politics, politics is power. As Ball notes, `power is arguably the single most important organising concept in social and political theory'.

The concept of power links it to the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes referred to as power to. The concept of power has long been studied by political thinkers: For Machiavelli, power is an end in itself, and whatever means are necessary for a prince to acquire and maintain political power are justified. Thomas Hobbes however saw that competition for goods of life becomes a struggle for power because without power one cannot retain what one has acquired. One cannot retain power without acquiring more power. German sociologist Max Webber linked power of authority and rules, and focused on structures and bureaucracy. Robert Dahl continues Weber’s approach, both in the definition of power and in the attribution of it to a concrete human factor.  In “The Concept of Power” (1957), Dahl developed a formal definition of power, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. Dahl treated power as the ability to influence the decision-making process, an approach he believed to be both objective and quantifiable.

Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed a model as a response to Dahl—the two faces of power (way decisions are made, and ways that they are not made). For example, on what basis can ‘key’ decisions, which are studied, be distinguished from ‘routine’ ones, which are ignored. Bachrach and Baratz described non-decision-making as the ‘second face of power. Although Bachrach and Baratz accepted that power is reflected in the decision-making process, they insisted that ‘to the extent that a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power’

In the 1970s, Steven Lukes (1974) developed Bachrach and Baratz’s approach further. His devised the three dimension of power. In the first face, the decision making process, A’s power over B is manifested to the extent that A can make B do something which B would not have done had it not been for A. In the second face, agenda setting, certain subjects or participants are excluded from the process. In addition to the resources of the first dimension, the people with power mobilize game rules which work in their favor, at others’ expense. Decision-making may be prevented by the exertion of force, the threat of sanctions, or the mobilization of bias which creates a negative approach to the subject.

The third, latent dimension that of the true interests, explains that B does things that he would not have done had it not been for A because A influences, determines and shapes B’s will. Media, advertisement, political campaigns, education, mass action and others are but example of the subtle influence of public opinion.

Nowadays, we see a fourth face of power: the ability to embrace ambivalence and accept shallow truths. A headline is enough of information; a quick YouTube animated video can provide a sound justification for a policy; beautifully worded accusations masked with humanitarian values are adopted; and complete ambivalence to events - whether near or far – are perfectly acceptable.

Political power currently rests on that four face – a dangerous, lonely, and self-destructive facade.

Pick your meal

President Joe Biden succeeded in overthrowing Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in an American democratic manner and through a no-confidence vote against his government. Two determining votes sealed the deal. The opposition bloc led by Shahbaz Sharif, the older brother of Nawaz Sharif, who was convicted of corruption and money laundering, and was released due to his deteriorating health conditions, saw this as a golden opportunity.

The biggest sin committed by Imran Khan in the eyes of the United States, and President Biden is his support for Taliban's resistance against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, his close political and economic relations with China, and his refusal to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Pakistan's refusal to normalise relations with Israel added another layer of dismay. 

Similar to most countries in the region, Pakistan has re-considered its alliances. It has strengthened its relations with the "axis of resistance" led by Iran, and rejected a request to send forces to participate in the Yemen war under the banner of the Saudi-Emirati coalition. 

By leading the “Instance” movement and raising the slogan of change and the founding of the new Pakistan, Khan and his allies were able to win the majority in the 2018 elections and form a coalition government. The American war on President Imran Khan began in the last years of the administration of President Donald Trump, because he refused to “use” Pakistan’s military and security capabilities to fight the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, and to save the American “NATO” from defeat. The first punitive retaliatory step began by stopping aid. The second step came in inciting the Pakistani separatist movements and supporting their military activities: the Baluchi movement and the Pakistani Pashtun Taliban, and above all, the “Islamic State” organization “ISIS” in Pakistan.

Proxy wars have taken on a new dimension following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Former President George W. Bush has few quotes that merit citing; however, one rings ever so true: You are either with us, or against us. There is no room for partiality or Swiss chocolate neutrality: it is either Russian Vodka, or a barbequed cheese burger. 

That ship has sailed

 

"Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society". Michel Foucault

An Iranian ship carrying fuel reached Lebanon a few days ago after passing through Syrian territorial waters and unloading on Syrian lands. Parades of gasoline-filled trucks entered Lebanon amidst an ambiance of delight and relief. Hezbollah emerged ever-so-defiant and victorious, and a sigh of relief could be heard across the tiny nation.

The arrival of Iranian fuel shipments to Lebanon coincides with the US congressional statement that the US sought to resolve the Lebanese fuel crisis, whilst reiterating the importance of its “no Iranian oil” policy.  Months of economic downturn and fuel shortages have left the country at a brisk of complete collapse. Beirut has been struggling to survive an economic crisis that has seen prices skyrocket and the local currency devalue over 10 times in two years. The Lebanese have lost count of the reasons responsible for their economic hardship. International forces have issued a series of recommendations and action points that would help the Lebanese people resolve the economic and political crises, all of which falling short of an actual, imminent, tangible, and realistic solution. Hezbollah has certainly pointed this out, and has worked on securing Iranian oil to salvage the Lebanese economy, albeit  Washington’s concerns.

The U.S. did not stand arm-folded, and pushed its Iraqi and Egyptian partners to export oil and gas to crisis-ridden-Lebanon. The U.S. message is crystal clear: we can control the oil intake, if you listen to us. Hezbollah’s message was louder and clearer: we need not listen. We have our allies.   

This political backlash involves a number of countries that already suffer from their own internal problems: a sanctions-crippled Iran; a torn Syrian nation; an impoverished Egyptian economy; and a perpetually sectarian Iraqi scene. The political dynamics and proxy confrontations masked by the oil-rescue do not mean a single thing to Lebanese people: that ship has literally sailed – pun intended.

The overland delivery through neighbouring Syria violates U.S. sanctions imposed on Tehran, and the U.S. was livid. However, futile are the US calls to ban imports from Iran, and equally void are the Lebanese premier’s complaints about Hezbollah’s aggression on "national sovereignty". The Lebanese people need their oil, even if it were offered by the devil himself. The proxy wars have become boring, and predictable. Nothing worse can be inflicted on the Lebanese nation and its weak government. Hezbollah’s move came as no surprise to anyone: it has already taken over Lebanese foreign policy and defence policy, it plays a role in banking, controls the port and airport, and has just marked its place in regional trade and the internal market.

Washington is left in an awkward position following this stunt. Owing to the seriousness of Lebanon’s humanitarian and energy disaster, the U.S. may choose to overlook the fuel imports, irrespective whether the ships docked in Lebanon, Syria, or the moon. This option risks making the U.S. seem inconsistent and in violation of its own rules of imposing sanctions on countries that deal with Iran – but leaves a better taste in people’s mouths. Alternatively, the U.S. can impose sanctions on Lebanon, which would only embolden Hezbollah and its regional allies, and stir public opinion against a cold-hearted U.S policy. The U.S. will have to bite its tongue this time, and see how long Iran can afford such generosity.

Even if Iran’s shipment comes at an incredibly high price for a sanctioned and weakened Tehran, the political message was heard. The solution is temporary, mainly because the core of the problem is not the lack of fuel, but the lack of currency to buy it; but it is still a solution. And what the Lebanese citizen will remember this night is that they can switch on the light when it gets dark, thanks to Iran. They will have enough dark nights to listen to as many speeches about the tunnel’s lighted end.

But You Love Me

 

The great German sociologist and political economist Max Weber defined three types of legitimate authority: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. Whether any form exists in its purest form is questionable, as each of the types can rely on the other two for support and further legitimisation.

Such types were identified by Weber at the turn of the century, with the rapid changes that happened in the industrial and economic spheres that impacted the political scene. Questions about authority, legitimacy, and efficiency accompanied the developments that Europe was witnessing, conciliating with them the forms of governments populating across the continent and its vicinity.

In the 21 century, it is hard to believe that charismatic rule – as a source of legitimate authority – is still considered a valid source. A sole valid source. Most leaders in the Middle East beg to differ.

One example is that of the Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr who announced in July 2021 that he – in his persona - will boycott Iraq’s parliamentary elections scheduled for October 2021. al-Sadr, who has millions of followers, decided unilaterally to jeopardise the stability of an unstable country by questioning the legitimacy of the future house and government.

The political stunt is not new: decrying corruption and boycotting elections were meant to make political gains, and distract the public from deeply rooted corruption that he himself has been involved in, whether directly or indirectly through the political bloc - Sayroon coalition that holds 54 of 329 seats in the parliament (the largest bloc if I may add).

Whilst it is easy to deflect blame and warn Iraqis about “..being hostage to injustice and tragedy...where Iraq’s fate may fall victim to local, regional and international policies,”, rational observers can map the ineffective and corrupt policies followed by the Sadrists themselves. A fire spread through a coronavirus ward at a hospital in the southern town of Nasiriyah due to a lack of safety measures, which resulted in about 100 deaths. Ibn al-Khatib Hospital in Baghdad also witnessed a similar incident about two months ago, resulting in more than 100 casualties. Ministries where Sadrists or their allies hold power account for between one-third and one-half of Iraq’s USD 90 billion draft budget for 2021. Electricity shortages are common, whereas over the last few weeks the southern provinces have witnessed up to 90% of electricity shortages. Why did this resignation and indignation happen at the time? Who is he blaming for the mismanagement? And how can a decision of boycotting an election solve the problem?

Sentimentalism is a dangerous business, let alone if politicised, and if politicised in a place like the Middle East. Many are the region’s leaders who exploit their public appeal and charisma as a fully-acceptable source of legitimacy and power. In this specific case, al-Sadr was a young cleric in his late 20s after the country was invaded by the U.S. in 2003. He inherited his father’s reputation and made it a point to live up to the charisma his father enjoyed – a routinisation of charismatic authority into a traditional one.  Instead of translating this charisma and popular acceptance into a political movement that is truly responsible before the people, that is efficient enough to rebuild the country, the ambitions fell short of becoming a popularity contest among an ethnically and religiously divided country.

The early elections called by Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi were one of the main demands of the anti-government protest movement that swept Iraq in October 2019. Adel Abdul Mahdi, the former Premier, resigned under pressure from tens of thousands of protesters fed up with the political establishment and Iranian influence in Iraq’s government. These elections were a chance to form a democratically elected government that responded to demands. al-Sadr decided otherwise, and made a dramatic theatrical statement that encouraged hundreds of Sadrists to gather in various cities in southern Iraq and burn their electoral cards.

There is a chance the elections could be postponed if al-Sadr does not participate, due to the small number of participants and the potential boycotting of political movements affiliated with the protesters. What that means and what it would achieve is not clear  - but at least some will sleep in a dark dark night, dreaming about dreamy al-Sadr.

Till Peace Do Us Part

 

President George Bush was famously quoted for a phrase he did not coin but one that summed up his presidency style: 'You are either with us or against us'. This logic applies in international relations, and is evident in the Middle East, were there is no place for neutrality.

Since 2014, Hamas and Israel have been building new regional alliances in an effort to balance the unbalanced. Hamas turned to wealthy Qatar for funds, Iran for weapons, and Turkey for political support. Meanwhile, and under the auspices of Donald Trump, Israel found new allies in the Arab world by signing the Abraham Accords with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. You either support Hamas, or Israel, not both. Unless you are Egypt.

Egypt was the first country in the Arab world to sign a peace deal with Israel. Its economic ties with Israel cannot be denied, and the agreement on several files that affect the interests of both countries have brought the two neighbors closer. At the same time, Egypt maintained a relationship with Hamas, allowing it some jail-free time, passage of contraband, and brokering deals when international powers decided to remain silent. Both Hamas and Israel benefit from the common friend.

However, this friendship has its own self-driven purposes. First, Egypt capitalizes on catastrophes to cement friendships. Egypt stepped in as a hero in 2014 to broker the truce that ended the Gaza war. Relations with Hamas improved in 2017, only after the Islamist group broke its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt rose to the occasion again after it managed to broker a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in the May 2021 clashes. Cairo makes sure that its role becomes ever so crucial when there is trouble in the house, jumping in as a counsellor, sometimes fair, and sometimes obviously taking sides. In the last intervention, it went a step beyond its coy role and had its Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strongly worded statement condemning Israeli authorities after they stormed Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque and attacked locals and worshipers. The statement also called on Israel to stop any practices that violate the sanctity of the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Islamic and Christian identity of Jerusalem. Rarely does one see a relevant, development oriented role that was not crisis-resolving-related.

Second, Egypt is well aware of the importance of maintaining its diplomatic weight in the region, and the Israeli-Hamas card is the best card to play. The regional map is constantly shifting, and the latest development of the reconciliation of the Gulf house, the wave of normalization agreements between Israel and other Arab states, and a hostile south that is pressing on with controversial water projects. In order to ensure that its role remain relevant and its voice heard by international powers, it needs to keep an upper hand in the Palestinian – Israeli saga. The May 2021 example by brokering a truce in the Gaza Strip has thrust it into the diplomatic spotlight, overshadowing all other regional attempt of mediation.

Egypt will remain pivotal in the region as long as the two sides remain at war. This way it will ensure that it will preserve its diplomatic strength that serve its interests. Israel and Hamas are grateful to share Egypt. It has indeed befriended both, but is a friend of neither.

People and Nations, Nations and People

 

Joseph Ernest Renan: L’essence d’une nation est une plebiscite de tous le jours

People and nations, are we talking about the same thing? The use of the two terms is at times interchangeable, sometimes inadvertently, but mostly purposefully.

“People”, as a group, refers to the political totality of a group individuals living together and share a political destiny. The term encloses all the members of a given political community. The diversity and homogeneity is not a determining factor: the political aims are. The transformation of feudally-controlled regions into a consolidated state between the 16^th and 17^th century was accompanied by the crystallization of a common political identity of the individuals residing in the centralized, modern state, irrespective of the cultural, linguistic, or geographical differences.

A nation however transcends the political and economic boundaries of a state and the people. People convert into a nation because they are made conscious of their own and specific cultural identity and want to confirm their existence as an independent and concrete unit. People become a nation after an act of consciousness, and not in an irrational and casual manner.

Indeed, nationalism is an artificial rather than natural phenomenon that surfaced in the 18^th century. Nationalism was accepted as a central and indispensable component on the modern state. Countries across Europe started unifying on the basis of nation, such as Germany and Italy. The "nation state" was a model adopted in post-Ottoman regions, many of which attempted to unite under the national rational, but failed amidst imperialist arrangements.

It is clear that a nation is not the state. The nation is a group of people who, owing to common grounds such as culture and history, form a common sociological identity that aims (in general) at being a specific political unit. The moment that this specific sociological unit becomes a political unit, a nation states emerges.

The world as we see it today is composed of state-less nations, and multi-national states. States preceded nations, and nations preceded states. People have the right to identify themselves with a given nation or not. And they also have the right for self-determination and self-governance. 

The arguments centered on nationalism are commonly used against both Palestinians and Israelis in their right to establish their own nation-state. The arguments either refuse such claims or support these rights, albeit on false grounds. It does not matter whether Jewish tribes inhabited the lands west River Jordan thousands of years ago, or that religious texts bound Jews with that land, or that a long history of persecution was enough to earn the Jewsih people a safe plot they call their own. These people who identify themselves as a separate nation have now existed in the land known as Israel for a considerable period of time. Regardless of the grounds, they have every right to identify themselves as a separate nation, and to form a nation-state. Balfour Declaration or not, they have a right not to be part of a larger, all encompassing, multi-national government. The same logic must apply to Palestinians. Palestinians must not feel obliged to identify with an Arab nation that falsely transforms all Arab countries into their potential homeland. Palestinians, like Israelis, identify themselves as  a separate nation that shares history, culture, religion, language, and strife. They are equally free to establish their own separate nation-state, and not to be part of a larger, all-encompassing government.

People are free to become a nation, and to stop being one. No limits should be placed on what people decide as criteria to transform into a nation. As dangerous as this lesser evil is on stability, prosperity, development, tolerance, and international convergence, its denial has been proven much more perilous.  Thus, for the Israeli and Palestinian nations, the two states solution (a fair one) is the only solution available, until people from either side decide to redefine their national identity and just be people.

 

Shame on me if you fool me twice

 

The Vienna nuclear negotiations between the six major countries and Iran have collapsed, and subsequently so did the prospect of reaching a settlement regarding the nuclear program. Yet again, the Middle East region is at a cross roads with two options: a regional war, or Iran joining the global nuclear club.

There are main developments that must be taken into account if we are to stabilize the Middle Eastern regional scene.

Israel has recently reiterated that it will do everything necessary to ensure that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and it will continue countering extremists that jeopardise the Middle East’s stability and regional peace.

Ali Khamenei, the Iranian Supreme Leader, meanwhile, sent the Army Commander, Major General Abdel Rahim Mousavi, a message in which the former stressed that the army must be present in the field and ready to carry out the tasks assigned to it. This coincided with the disclosure of General Yusef Qurbani that Iran has the largest helicopter fleet in the Middle East.

Saliently, Hezbollah took emergency measures to prepare for the worst, including the collapse of the Lebanese state, and the possibility of an explosion of war, including distributing supply cards, drug depots, and foodstuffs, and equipping tanks to store fuel coming from Iran.

Most of the parties in the Middle East region, if not all, are currently living in a state of anxiety and confusion, coupled with financial demise amidst the international financial crisis. The U.S is also embroiled with its own confrontations with Russia, moving back troops to Germany, processing alternatives to secure the Black Sea, and addressing its options in the South China Sea.

The rules of engagement are changing, and the map of allies in the region are changing as well. Iran might as well press ahead with its programme and utilize the international mayhem to its benefit. Negotiating a deal that the U.S. has once brokered and then tore unilaterally only taught Iran this lesson: shame on you if you fooled me once but shame on me if you fooled me twice. Is Iran willing to go to war for its programme? Only time will tell. 

Only the Weak

US President Donald Trump yet again employed his mediocre showmanship skills in his infection – or lack thereof-with the Corona virus. The issue of whether this was a publicity stunt or a reality is debatable, but what is not is the underlying message that is being sent: welfare states are for the weak.

In the first scenario of this whole charade, Trump might have actually caught the virus. He stayed in the hospital for less than four days, during which he claimed that he was carrying out his duties as president. In addition to the sympathy gained among voters, and the glorification of his image as a hero who defeated this dreaded virus, his message was clear: the virus not deadly, do not close down businesses, do not fund the health system, and do not reinforce any of the pillars of a welfare state that provides and cares for its citizens. He craftily failed to mention that the virus does not affect everyone in the same intensity, and that being a billionaire in office with entire hospital facilities and medical teams at his service, as well as assistants to support his family and run his business whilst away contributed to his rapid healing.

In the second scenario, he lied about the virus to gain support and to fool the public into believing that the corona measures are excessive. Again, with this scenario, the welfare state is ridiculed.

The US and the rest of the world have inadvertently faced an incredibly important question amidst the Corona virus lock-down and the mayhem it brought with it. The question concerns the form of governments that are best equipped to deal with a catastrophe. When faced with hardships, which course of action should we choose? Is it survival for the fittest? Is a social response based on shared responsibility? Should the working class subject itself to threats of a looming viral infection whilst the capitalist class remain protected behind disinfected glass? Should the centre reign and the periphery abide?

Opportunists such as Trump seize any opportunity to push their agenda and influence public opinion. In this case, the welfare state with all the disadvantages it has on the wealthy class came under direct attack by a system that equates equality with weakness, and support with defeat. It feeds primitive urges of believing in the survival of fittest, whilst dithering before the helplessness of the weaker. The real threat that this virus is posing is not its infection of our bodies, but of our morals. If the slightest sense of victory is sensed by the healthy, blessed, or rich, then the opportunists have indeed won.

Piece or Peace?

A peace deal is an agreement between nations to stop fighting. Commercial, cultural, economic, and physical types of war should see an end after inking such a deal. In short: stop fighting.

Therefore, one would be confused to hear that the UAE and Israel have normalised relations and are on the road to signing a peace deal. Were the relations strained? Were the two countries fighting? What peace deal are they talking about?

The UAE and Israel have long been cooperating in the realms of business and research. Since the 9/11 attacks, Dubai in particular has been adamant about saving face and improving its cyber-security. A regional partner that is worthy of such cooperation is certainly not Yemen or any regional country engulfed in its own internal crises and commitment to its reputation as the third world. No. Israel proved to be a reliable partner than can deliver.  The cooperation has since grown, with investments taking place and companies established in the business hubs of the rich Emirates. Diplomatic missions followed suit, and relations prospered and flourished.

The latest chapter of neighbourly cooperation was the COVID-19 vaccine research partnership that saw the two nations joining in hands – in public - for the larger good.  Notwithstanding Israel’s demolishment of Palestinian testing centres, medical facilities, and residential houses amidst the international health crisis, and the ongoing starvation of Gazans – these two nations have been praised for trying to save the humanity from the virus.

No one was attacking the UAE for such partnership. It was free to do as it wishes and enter into as many alliances as deemed appropriate, which is the right of any sovereign country. Abu Dhabi has insisted that it has the full right for self-determination and national decision making – forgetting however how it is meddling in Yemen, Libya, and Sudan. So why is it that the UAE decided to formalise the relations? The unholy matrimony was fine; why complicate things and stir Arab sentiments?

 The UAE claimed that this decision will help Palestinians. It will thwart – albeit temporarily- Israel’s decision to annex parts of the West Bank. In other words, the public announcement of “truce” and “normalisation” is a sacrifice made by the Emirates towards fellow Palestinians, whereby this sign of good faith has successfully halted – again temporarily – the brazen, unethical annexation. Both UAE’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Israel’s Premier reminded the world that the annexation will stop for now. This translates to:

1.       We know the annexation is wrong. If it were right we would have gone through with it anyhow.

2.       We are penalising Palestinians for the decision of Arab countries not to normalise relations with Tel Aviv. The penalty is annexation.

3.       The peace deal drawn is 2002 is void, as the condition of normalising relations only if two states are formed was a bluff.

4.       We think people are idiots and cannot see that the whole point is to support upcoming elections in both the USA and Israel, and market the UAE as an international hub of commerce and technology, or/and a regional player in peaceful mediation that employs culture and business as a road for peace (a much needed approach in all honesty).

Had the UAE simply been honest about why its peaceful relations with Israel would bring benefits to itself and perhaps the region as a whole the injury of the ever-so-indignant Arab community would have been easier to swallow than the accompanying insult. Expecting the gratitude of the Palestinian community for freezing the annexation is an act of shameless absurdity. Ink as many deals as you wish – but please leave the Palestinians out of it.