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.