Spare the Middle East your civilisation

The sheer volume of unhinged Orientalism and greed being thrown at us over the past year is staggering

“If I stopped now, after coming all this way—well, they’d call me an idiot!” thought Pakhom, the peasant who believed that more land would bring him peace and joy. He already had what he needed, but it was never enough. But really, how much land does a man need? He never thought of it that way. He just wanted more—more for less. Always more, always less effort.

As for what happens to Pakhom in the end, you’ll have to ask Tolstoy. The greed that consumed him, the temptations he fell for—he couldn’t see the danger because he was blinded by the ideal, he had built, so carelessly and frankly, foolishly. What happens to him in some obscure Russian land in the mid-19th century is Tolstoy’s concern. We, however, should focus on the Pakhoms of today.

Netanyahu and his far-right cabinet continue their military campaigns in Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon. They seem determined to eliminate Hezbollah, as if that will somehow solve their “problems” in the long run. Then, the next goal: take down the regime in Iran. Why? Because Iran is the ultimate enemy threatening Israel’s existence. And because, "if he stopped now, after coming all this way—they’d call him an idiot!"

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and Netanyahu’s good friend (who once lent him his childhood bed, according to the NYT), believes that ‘killing Nasrallah was the most important event in the Middle East since the Abraham Accords. He argues ‘that anyone calling for a ceasefire in the North is wrong—there’s no turning back for Israel.’ And he’s not alone. Many in Israel and the U.S. agree with this view.

The rationale sounds noble enough: free the people of Lebanon from Hezbollah, and the country will prosper. The Saudis will open the floodgates of aid, and the Sunnis, Christians, and Druze will breathe a sigh of relief.

Since October 7, Iran has emerged as a primary target. Many argue that Iran is leveraging the conflict in Gaza to expand its regional influence, weaken Israel, undermine U.S. interests, and reshape the Middle East to its advantage. If unchecked, this growing influence could have severe consequences for Israel, the region, and the global economy.

So, the argument goes: As we deal with Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Yemen, why not go straight to the source? Eliminate the Iranian regime, and the order of chaos it creates will vanish. Their proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen will disappear. The Iranian people will be better off without the Islamist thugs in power. The axis of evil will crumble, and the Saudis and Emiratis will rejoice, finally standing as the uncontested patrons of the Muslim world.

This is the narrative, right?!

Netanyahu, in his public scolding of French President Macron (who dared to consider arms sanctions against Israel), helpfully clarified what he believes these wars are truly about: a battle between civilization and barbarism. Almost a year ago, he had framed this conflict as a struggle between the "children of light" and "children of darkness," a statement followed by one of his ministers labelling Palestinians as "human animals." This rhetoric, as we vividly recall, encapsulates his broader narrative.

Meanwhile, former US President Donald Trump claimed that Gaza "could be better than Monaco. The best water, the best everything. It’s got, it is the best, I’ve said it for years." Jared Kushner, a few months earlier, had praisedthe "value of Gaza’s waterfront properties." Clearly, this family has a vision for the Middle East—and masallah, they’re laying it out plainly, so we’re reminded of what we already know.

The sheer volume of unhinged Orientalism and greed being thrown at us over the past year is staggering. So, could we please ask that you spare the Middle East your notions of “civilization” and “democracy.”

BECAUSE:

• You can’t bring something you don’t possess in the first place! You have zero accountability and moral superiority. In a similar vein, it’s astonishing that we still have to reiterate these basic truths. This is exactly what Said meant when he spoke of the cyclical nature of Orientalism. So, once again: Western modernity is as much about war, imperialism, and genocide as it is about democracy, prosperity, empowerment, and the rule of law. If the former are exceptions in the West, they must also be considered exceptions in the Middle East. No? The lack of independent judiciary and the reign of tyrants are not inherent to the region. By reducing it to such stereotypes, the Middle East’s significant contributions to global civilization are overlooked, and colonial and postcolonial impacts are conveniently ignored. But let’s be clear—many of the modern crises in the Middle East are Western-made. Plain and simple.

• The worst thing you can do for dissidents in Iran or opposition groups in Lebanon is to meddle in their affairs. Interference delegitimizes any future movement against the theocratic regime in Iran or Hezbollah’s parallel state in Lebanon. If Netanyahu “politely asks” the people of these countries to overthrow their regimes, it only strengthens the very forces they seek to overthrow. Do you get it? Of course you do. You just don’t care.

• Everyone—especially the millions across the Middle East—remembers what happened to two legitimate, secular leaders: Mossadegh in Iran and Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt during the 1950s. If you’ve forgotten, let Prof. Fawaz Gerges remind you:

‘Iran’s first democratic government was toppled by a CIA-backed coup in 1953. Three years later, America humiliated Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser in order to undermine him and eventually oust him, triggering the Suez Crisis, which almost precipitated a world war. These two incidents struck Middle Easterners just at the moment of hope for their region, making the blow all the more dramatic and destructive.

When genuinely patriotic leaders, like Mossadegh and Nasser emerged, their desires for meaningful independence and modernization were branded as disguised communism. While this approach was used in other regions, when it came to the Middle East, US leaders rationalized their neo-imperial mission by asserting that Islam and Arab culture were incompatible with democracy. What emerged from this was a policy of backing authoritarian strongmen in the name of stability, which has become a cardinal rule of how Western governments deal with the Middle East today. Unable to quench it appetite for oil and control over the world economy, the American republic made a conscious choice to become an informal empire – and in the process damaged American democracy and the world. But Western powers became dependent on an undemocratic Middle East.’¹

• In the same spirit: The brilliant historian Ervand Abrahamian dug into 1,000 pages of declassified U.S. documents from 2017, laying bare the reality: Mossadegh’s overthrow was far more about oil than any so-called fear of Communism. Furthermore, Abrahamian argues that it was the Shah’s long-standing illegitimacy, rooted in that coup, that ultimately led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979.²

•  You cannot cherry-pick your context. It’s either the full context or no context at all. You don’t get to begin with “Hezbollah was firing rockets” or even with October 7. As brutal as Hamas’ attack was on October 7, the story doesn’t start there. Recognizing that doesn’t excuse the violence of Hamas or Hezbollah—it’s just the first honest step toward resolving the conflict. But is that truly what any leader in this quagmire desires? That is the real question.

1. Fawaz A. Gerges, What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East, Yale University Press, 2024, p.17-18.)

2. Ervand Abrahamian, Oil Crisis in Iran: From Nationalism to Coup d’Etat, Cambridge University Press, 2021.