The Middle East has been witnessing some dramatic changes, and the overall landscape is expected to change. After the Arab Spring and the rise of ISIS in Middle Eastern countries, which were mostly used as proxies by the United States (US) and Western powers, Syria is moving towards a new form of government headed by the new Syrian de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, who heads Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
The Arab Spring has changed the shape of the Middle East. Western-backed leaders fell one by one through revolts and uprisings; the majority of these leaders were installed in various Arab countries with the consent or willingness of the US. However, when the Middle Eastern landscape changed, these leaders, who had held power for decades, became a possible threat to Washington and were subsequently eliminated one by one.
The horrific era of ISIS in the Middle East ruined the historic roots of Islamic civilization, culture, and architecture, credit goes to Washington’s long-term agenda for the Middle East, while engaging the oil-rich region in a divide-and-rule strategy and proxy wars.
Bashar al-Assad, who resisted the U.S., had a great chance to form a transition government after he achieved a meaningful victory, and he started traveling to various Middle Eastern states to improve ties. However, he failed and finally had to flee the country in disgrace. He had a chance to hand over the throne with grace and sideline, but things didn’t turn out.
Once again, the Middle East is grappling with a new style of development model, but this time, those hardliners, who were labeled by the U.S. as terrorists and had the bounty money on their heads waived off in days, now dressed in suits and ties but still hesitate to shake hands with the opposite gender, are trying to become the role model.
Will the U.S.’s new approach towards Syria and, overall, various war-torn Middle Eastern countries work? The overall impression of these hardliners is not acceptable to the people. However, they are just making their space, having a model of less bad governance. People have two choices: choose the worst one or choose the least bad. So obviously, the less worst are benefiting from being less evil; however, there might not be much time lapse before the transition from less bad to extremely bad.
Reforming radical Islamists and convincing them of a more moderate style of governance is not easy; they have been strongly indoctrinated with hardline dogmas that are hard to align with today’s world. For instance, in Afghanistan, the restrictions on girls’ education and the strict rules imposed by the Taliban are draconian. Women are big contributors to the economy, and in today’s world, their role cannot be removed. But the Taliban implemented policies that turned women into commodities. If one wants to make the whole society ignorant, radicalized, and make hard the girl’s access to education and society becomes the blind followers of any radical and conservative belief.
Banning education for girls is a method to stop society from progressing and it is easy to rule. To wash the minds with ideologies can be done by keeping societies out of education and new learnings.
Middle Eastern and some African nations may experience more such kinds of de facto governments to whitewash the ‘Jihadist Extremism’ governance style with their new softened doctrine. However, these Jihadist proxies are so divided and have factions that any offshoot can stand up against the others to challenge its authority. So, this mass of proxies, in the result of any collision, would further volatile the situation and increase people’s suffering.
After Syria’s recent radical revolt, it has been widely predicted that the implications of such kinds of proxies coming into power would not serve the people’s interests but would implement the roadmap for their creators. However, the fates of these proxies are in the hands of their sponsors for their next target to achieve.
