Thank you, Maral. You are quite correct. Every 6 months, you give me a wakeup call when I feel my morals start to drift. Excellent article, by the way! The smiling faces and deference that these Middle Eastern leaders are showing to President Trump reminds me of The Handmaid's Tale. The Commanders always clean up nice and act perfectly respectable to foreign dignitaries... and then go home to rape their handmaids in Gilead.
The Muslim leaders that were "cutting deals" with Trump while upholding Sharia law at home are no different. If Xi or Putin has big smiles for us, we immediately remind people of what their countries are actually like. Why don't we do that regarding Islamic countries?
For anybody out there that has an issue with Israel's governance right now (like me), please note that Israel missteps do not compare to brutal authoritarianism in the name of religion. Whether Christofascism or Kahanism or jihadism, it is bad news. But only one of those 3 are spreading across the Earth, taking over entire countries and increasing overall violence.
That last part always gets me. When a country falls to a foreign element and has new management installed, shouldn't that DECREASE the violence?! It's like, the war is over, so why are things even more violent than ever?
Hey Louis, thank you so much—I appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
Many had hoped that Trump would usher in a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. But that hope was an illusion, and the warning signs were always there. He is openly transactional, unapologetically dismissive of democracy promotion, and largely uninterested in liberal internationalism.
His approach—"deal-first, values-second"—may appear like a break from Bush's "freedom agenda" or Obama's naive multilateralism. But beneath the surface, it's not all that different. It's just louder, more reckless, and stripped of pretense.
Unfortunately, I think we're in for a very bumpy ride.
It's worth revisiting this a month later, after Israel's extraordinary strikes against the ayatollah regime and President Trump's full support.
There are no calls for restraint, no exhortation to cease fire. Trump recently said he encouraged Israel to continue and has accelerated weapons deliveries.
I don't think the ayatollahs in Teheran are happy with the results of the 2024 election.
A very brilliant piece, Maral , as usual. I had hoped that Trump would have thoroughly measured the risk of a nuclear Iran. But he seems to be more interested to show that he can strike a deal than to deal with substance of the threat. And indeed I feel that Americans never understand civilization issues. They keep thinking that the Iranians and in general the rest of the world think the same way we do. People in the West often think that bringing economic progress to these countries will solve conflicts. In France in past decades, the fast creeping islamization was diagnosed by political leaders as failure to integrate muslims though economic improvement. While not totally false, by and large this is a deep illusion, and a number of Europeans still follow this dreadful illusion. However in France the minister of Interior has pronounced recently and repeatedly the words Islamisation and Muslim Brothers, which would have been unthinkable two years ago. The book of the researcher Florence Bergeaud Blackler (who is now protected by the police 24/24) and the Domestic Security Entity DGSI shed a horrible light on the threat of radical islam and about how deeply France is already gangrened by the Muslim Brothers in all layers of society. My hope is that the war launched by Trump against wokism and islamism that work hand in hand in the US and in the world will bring this conquest of the West to a stop. I am not optimistic. But it makes our fignt all the most essential.
Maral, my first thought was this was harsh but as I digest this, esp with the sorry history of the Western meddling in the Middle East, I feel you were kind. The sheer stupidity, arrogance, hubris, hypocrisy, and short sightedness the West displays in 'playing the field' in the Middle East is just beyond compare, and will be eventually beyond repairs.
The one major side-effect we should highlight of our disastrous Middle Eastern yo-yo policy of friend-enemy-friend-enemy making is that we have now splattered most of the Western world with Islamists. Just like how operating on localized cancer metastasizes in the rest of the body and eventually kills it. Add our stupidity of such dealings with bigger stupidity of excuse-making for the intolerance and hatred for others that this vile religion inflicts on anyone, even their benefactors, and you have a sure fire formula of self destruction. Make no mistake, the West has allowed itself to be seeded with agents of this poisonous political ideology and it will eventually play out just like that grotesque scene in the original movie Alien where the crew member who had somehow ingested the baby Alien has his ribs burst open when the Alien is done mooching on its host and is ready to break free.
I prefer cautiously constructive optimism to eternal war directed by sclerotic, deeply invested factions on both sides. Pursuing the old policy must lead to domestic collapse. Both sides know this. Hence the effort to change course.
I initially contacted you re your video "We need to talk about Self-hating Jews". You inspired me to republish "Professor Gansa's Dream" in serial on Substack, as it addresses that very question. Thank you! I hope you are following. Best wishes to Maral Salmassi,
Dear Ms. Salmassi: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. From where I sit the enemy is Iran, Turkey, and Qatar. If embracing Mr. al-Sharaa will undercut these foes--as you state in your article--then it's the right move.
The enemy of your enemy is rarely your friend—especially not jihadists like Al Julani, whose henchmen are still murdering and raping minorities to this day.
What alternative do you propose? Keeping Syrians poor and hopeless is not likely to lead to good outcomes. You can't expect Syria to become Switzerland within the space of a few months. Providing a path forward, by lifting sanctions, is worth a try.
Insightful article with many items not covered in the media.
I would say that the objectives set by MBS for Syria, dislodging Iran and thwarting Turkey, are right on the money as the biggest threat from Assad's fall is that Turkey would take over where Iran left off.
The fact that an al-Qaeda veteran is used as the tool is distasteful but also realpolitik.
The faithful claim that Realpolitik, with all its cynical calculations and buzzwords, keeps us from war—balancing powers and interests, as they love to say.
But tell me: is what we’ve witnessed in the Middle East since 1979 not the resounding failure of Realpolitik?
Was installing fanatical, highly ideological zealots—men who dream of martyrdom and 72 virgins—part of this brilliant strategic calculus? Is that real enough for you?
They’ve slaughtered millions in the name of Jihad, inching ever closer to getting their apocalyptic hands on nuclear weapons. And yet, we’re told this is stability.
Have we already forgotten what Realpolitik, beginning with Brzezinski, has unleashed on the region?
The so-called “status quo” has barely known a single day of peace for decades.
And let’s not kid ourselves: Washington’s cynical game of transactional diplomacy has played no small part in this nightmare.
Trump is no exception—just a louder, more reckless version of the same delusion.
I will disagree: realpolitik put the Shah of Iran in power in 1954 and he was an anchor of stability for 25 years.
Realpolitik kept Mubarak in power in Egypt from 1981 until his downfall 30 years later; another anchor of stability.
Neither of these was remotely democratic but they were pro-Western and against jihadism. Both fell from power when the United States failed to intervene when they had domestic troubles, a mistake JFK did not make in 1963 when anti-Shah riots erupted in Shiraz.
Things went sour with Obama, who thought he could cleverly harness Iran's ayatollahs and with Israel, who thought they could use Hamas to counter-balance Fatah. Those were examples of going too far.
Realpolitik does involve a correct appreciation of the opponents. In the case of Iran, that includes the danger of its nuclear program and the impossibility of taming that regime.
They're not: realpolitik doesn't mean support for every single distasteful leader around. Only for those that will help Western interests.
For Syria the risks, among others, are that al-Jolani becomes a Turkish puppet, with Turkey a major supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. The alternative is to provide him a Saudi-US lifeline that keeps Turkish influence at bay.
Far from an ideal solution but better than giving Turkey free reign in Syria.
Nothing is permanent: Hafez al-Assad became Defense Minister as part of a coup led by Druze officers. Should that be a possibility again, al-Jolani will appreciate the meaning of "realpolitik".
You're naive if you think Jolani has abandoned his jihadist ambition for a Caliphate and a global Umma. It’s all there in the article. What people like you consistently fail to grasp about the Middle East is just how deeply entrenched ideology is.
This isn’t about politics as you know it—it's about theology, identity, and destiny. These zealots are driven by one thing: the global imposition of Sharia. They operate according to Islamic eschatology, not Western logic.
MBS is acting out of desperation because he understands the threat. He knows that without protection, Saudi Arabia will be their first target. It’s a gamble that, like every previous attempt to appease or redirect jihadism, will end in disaster. Just look at Afghanistan. Look at Iran.
I don't doubt Jolani has jihadist ambitions but what matters is capabilities, not intentions.
Jolani is not capable of creating a Caliphate. Turkey is much stronger and has similar, but Ottoman, ambitions. So efforts to pull away Turkey's Syrian puppets are valuable.
Of Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, clearly the latter is the weakest and it makes sense to help it against the two stronger ones.
The alternative is to leave Jolani no option but to fall in line with Turkey, his Syrian nationalist memories of Ottoman rule notwithstanding.
A useful example is Truman's decision in 1948 to supply weapons to Communist Yugoslavia after Tito broke with Stalin. It didn't change the character of the regime but did remove it from Russia's camp.
Another brilliantly thought out and executed piece by Maral.
Thank you, Toni!
Great analysis!
Thank you, Maral. You are quite correct. Every 6 months, you give me a wakeup call when I feel my morals start to drift. Excellent article, by the way! The smiling faces and deference that these Middle Eastern leaders are showing to President Trump reminds me of The Handmaid's Tale. The Commanders always clean up nice and act perfectly respectable to foreign dignitaries... and then go home to rape their handmaids in Gilead.
The Muslim leaders that were "cutting deals" with Trump while upholding Sharia law at home are no different. If Xi or Putin has big smiles for us, we immediately remind people of what their countries are actually like. Why don't we do that regarding Islamic countries?
For anybody out there that has an issue with Israel's governance right now (like me), please note that Israel missteps do not compare to brutal authoritarianism in the name of religion. Whether Christofascism or Kahanism or jihadism, it is bad news. But only one of those 3 are spreading across the Earth, taking over entire countries and increasing overall violence.
That last part always gets me. When a country falls to a foreign element and has new management installed, shouldn't that DECREASE the violence?! It's like, the war is over, so why are things even more violent than ever?
Hey Louis, thank you so much—I appreciate your thoughtful feedback.
Many had hoped that Trump would usher in a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. But that hope was an illusion, and the warning signs were always there. He is openly transactional, unapologetically dismissive of democracy promotion, and largely uninterested in liberal internationalism.
His approach—"deal-first, values-second"—may appear like a break from Bush's "freedom agenda" or Obama's naive multilateralism. But beneath the surface, it's not all that different. It's just louder, more reckless, and stripped of pretense.
Unfortunately, I think we're in for a very bumpy ride.
Agreed 🥹
Loved this article, and will share.
Thank you, Michael.
Excellent piece. Straight to the point. No extra verbiage.
Marla is clear and thoughtful observer, who clearly describes her complicated subjects.
Will await your update to this piece with interest.
It's worth revisiting this a month later, after Israel's extraordinary strikes against the ayatollah regime and President Trump's full support.
There are no calls for restraint, no exhortation to cease fire. Trump recently said he encouraged Israel to continue and has accelerated weapons deliveries.
I don't think the ayatollahs in Teheran are happy with the results of the 2024 election.
A very brilliant piece, Maral , as usual. I had hoped that Trump would have thoroughly measured the risk of a nuclear Iran. But he seems to be more interested to show that he can strike a deal than to deal with substance of the threat. And indeed I feel that Americans never understand civilization issues. They keep thinking that the Iranians and in general the rest of the world think the same way we do. People in the West often think that bringing economic progress to these countries will solve conflicts. In France in past decades, the fast creeping islamization was diagnosed by political leaders as failure to integrate muslims though economic improvement. While not totally false, by and large this is a deep illusion, and a number of Europeans still follow this dreadful illusion. However in France the minister of Interior has pronounced recently and repeatedly the words Islamisation and Muslim Brothers, which would have been unthinkable two years ago. The book of the researcher Florence Bergeaud Blackler (who is now protected by the police 24/24) and the Domestic Security Entity DGSI shed a horrible light on the threat of radical islam and about how deeply France is already gangrened by the Muslim Brothers in all layers of society. My hope is that the war launched by Trump against wokism and islamism that work hand in hand in the US and in the world will bring this conquest of the West to a stop. I am not optimistic. But it makes our fignt all the most essential.
Maral, my first thought was this was harsh but as I digest this, esp with the sorry history of the Western meddling in the Middle East, I feel you were kind. The sheer stupidity, arrogance, hubris, hypocrisy, and short sightedness the West displays in 'playing the field' in the Middle East is just beyond compare, and will be eventually beyond repairs.
The one major side-effect we should highlight of our disastrous Middle Eastern yo-yo policy of friend-enemy-friend-enemy making is that we have now splattered most of the Western world with Islamists. Just like how operating on localized cancer metastasizes in the rest of the body and eventually kills it. Add our stupidity of such dealings with bigger stupidity of excuse-making for the intolerance and hatred for others that this vile religion inflicts on anyone, even their benefactors, and you have a sure fire formula of self destruction. Make no mistake, the West has allowed itself to be seeded with agents of this poisonous political ideology and it will eventually play out just like that grotesque scene in the original movie Alien where the crew member who had somehow ingested the baby Alien has his ribs burst open when the Alien is done mooching on its host and is ready to break free.
Brilliant insights, thank you.
Excellent analysis, Maral. Very well written.
BS"D
I prefer cautiously constructive optimism to eternal war directed by sclerotic, deeply invested factions on both sides. Pursuing the old policy must lead to domestic collapse. Both sides know this. Hence the effort to change course.
I initially contacted you re your video "We need to talk about Self-hating Jews". You inspired me to republish "Professor Gansa's Dream" in serial on Substack, as it addresses that very question. Thank you! I hope you are following. Best wishes to Maral Salmassi,
Peter
redheiferpress.company.site
….in other words it’s a full-on disaster. As an American, that’s discouraging in the extreme. And sad.
Dear Ms. Salmassi: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. From where I sit the enemy is Iran, Turkey, and Qatar. If embracing Mr. al-Sharaa will undercut these foes--as you state in your article--then it's the right move.
The enemy of your enemy is rarely your friend—especially not jihadists like Al Julani, whose henchmen are still murdering and raping minorities to this day.
What alternative do you propose? Keeping Syrians poor and hopeless is not likely to lead to good outcomes. You can't expect Syria to become Switzerland within the space of a few months. Providing a path forward, by lifting sanctions, is worth a try.
Insightful article with many items not covered in the media.
I would say that the objectives set by MBS for Syria, dislodging Iran and thwarting Turkey, are right on the money as the biggest threat from Assad's fall is that Turkey would take over where Iran left off.
The fact that an al-Qaeda veteran is used as the tool is distasteful but also realpolitik.
The faithful claim that Realpolitik, with all its cynical calculations and buzzwords, keeps us from war—balancing powers and interests, as they love to say.
But tell me: is what we’ve witnessed in the Middle East since 1979 not the resounding failure of Realpolitik?
Was installing fanatical, highly ideological zealots—men who dream of martyrdom and 72 virgins—part of this brilliant strategic calculus? Is that real enough for you?
They’ve slaughtered millions in the name of Jihad, inching ever closer to getting their apocalyptic hands on nuclear weapons. And yet, we’re told this is stability.
Have we already forgotten what Realpolitik, beginning with Brzezinski, has unleashed on the region?
The so-called “status quo” has barely known a single day of peace for decades.
And let’s not kid ourselves: Washington’s cynical game of transactional diplomacy has played no small part in this nightmare.
Trump is no exception—just a louder, more reckless version of the same delusion.
I will disagree: realpolitik put the Shah of Iran in power in 1954 and he was an anchor of stability for 25 years.
Realpolitik kept Mubarak in power in Egypt from 1981 until his downfall 30 years later; another anchor of stability.
Neither of these was remotely democratic but they were pro-Western and against jihadism. Both fell from power when the United States failed to intervene when they had domestic troubles, a mistake JFK did not make in 1963 when anti-Shah riots erupted in Shiraz.
Things went sour with Obama, who thought he could cleverly harness Iran's ayatollahs and with Israel, who thought they could use Hamas to counter-balance Fatah. Those were examples of going too far.
Realpolitik does involve a correct appreciation of the opponents. In the case of Iran, that includes the danger of its nuclear program and the impossibility of taming that regime.
How is the Shah, or even Mubarak, comparable with Al Jolani?
They're not: realpolitik doesn't mean support for every single distasteful leader around. Only for those that will help Western interests.
For Syria the risks, among others, are that al-Jolani becomes a Turkish puppet, with Turkey a major supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. The alternative is to provide him a Saudi-US lifeline that keeps Turkish influence at bay.
Far from an ideal solution but better than giving Turkey free reign in Syria.
Nothing is permanent: Hafez al-Assad became Defense Minister as part of a coup led by Druze officers. Should that be a possibility again, al-Jolani will appreciate the meaning of "realpolitik".
You're naive if you think Jolani has abandoned his jihadist ambition for a Caliphate and a global Umma. It’s all there in the article. What people like you consistently fail to grasp about the Middle East is just how deeply entrenched ideology is.
This isn’t about politics as you know it—it's about theology, identity, and destiny. These zealots are driven by one thing: the global imposition of Sharia. They operate according to Islamic eschatology, not Western logic.
MBS is acting out of desperation because he understands the threat. He knows that without protection, Saudi Arabia will be their first target. It’s a gamble that, like every previous attempt to appease or redirect jihadism, will end in disaster. Just look at Afghanistan. Look at Iran.
I don't doubt Jolani has jihadist ambitions but what matters is capabilities, not intentions.
Jolani is not capable of creating a Caliphate. Turkey is much stronger and has similar, but Ottoman, ambitions. So efforts to pull away Turkey's Syrian puppets are valuable.
Of Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia, clearly the latter is the weakest and it makes sense to help it against the two stronger ones.
The alternative is to leave Jolani no option but to fall in line with Turkey, his Syrian nationalist memories of Ottoman rule notwithstanding.
A useful example is Truman's decision in 1948 to supply weapons to Communist Yugoslavia after Tito broke with Stalin. It didn't change the character of the regime but did remove it from Russia's camp.