In the third world, particularly in the countries of the Middle East and Afghanistan, atrocious wars have occurred in the wake of the Second World War, prompting various analyses within numerous factions. Politicians attribute the wars in their countries to the transformation of these countries into the battlefields of giant powers over existing natural resources or based on their country’s valuable geopolitical area in the region. However, in another area, there are religious groups who, according to their analysis, consider the reason for the war to be religious hostilities that have been going on between the two spectrums of infidelity and Islam throughout the history of caliphates and empires. In these countries, these groups frequently encourage the youth to participate in the wars and side with a group that has revolted under religious slogans and is fighting to achieve their mythic life and government.
However, in the modern age, are these wars rooted in religious issues or the policies and interests of great powers based on natural resources and geopolitics?
A cursory look at the wars before Islam and taking into account the conflicts that occurred between Jews and Christians over Jerusalem shows that most of them were rooted in religion. It can be said that the incidents stemmed from the religious perceptions between these two spectrums. Christians believe that Jesus was crucified in this place and therefore it is considered a holy place for them. In the wars and campaigns of Christians to this land, the popes encouraged their soldiers to fight in Jerusalem. They instructed their soldiers that whoever partook in a war, would become either a martyr and directly go to heaven or survive and enjoy further conquest and victory, acquiring more booty. These concepts caused the Christians to overcome the Jews in the Battle of Jerusalem and take control of it. It is also believed that these consecrations might have been used as a tool to gain and conquer the land of Jerusalem throughout history.
Following the establishment of Christians in this area, Islam emerged, turning it into one of the holy places of Muslims. Muslims believe that Jerusalem was their first Qibla, from where the Prophet of Islam went to heaven after 10 years. Even during the caliphate of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, a hadith was narrated in which the Prophet fervently recommended traveling to Mecca, Medina, and Bayt al-Maqdis. Therefore, Jerusalem is the third holiest place for Muslims. This was because Muslims triumphed in conquering Jerusalem during the caliphate of Umar, the second caliph. According to a treaty, Umar assured the Christians that they and their holy places would be protected. So far, it is clear that the wars were based on religious perceptions and policies rather than ethnicity.
With the border divisions of the countries and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the world entered a new phase of war, which was World War I and World War II. The reason for these wars was not religious and sectarian perceptions and motivations but were instigated based on the interests of political and national parties, based on which winning and losing were determined. The motives of the battles in the West and the countries involved in the world war were not religious or sectarian; perhaps it went back to the Renaissance, which took place in Europe in the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries keeping religion away from interfering in these conflicts.
Following the consolidation of the borders, the defeat of colonialism and exploitation, the end of the First and Second World Wars, and the establishment of organizations such as the European Union, the United Nations, the Human Rights Organization, and others, new proxy wars broke out in backward countries and the third world, which are still ongoing. Triggering these wars naturally includes national interests and has turned underdeveloped countries into a field of competition and proxy conflict between the world’s first and second-tier rivals. Anyone can realize this situation with a simple contemplation.
From the Vietnam War, lasting from 1955 to 1975 and ultimately leading to the defeat of the United States, to the Guatemala War, which was instigated by the United States at the request of the United Fruit Company, all wars were based on narcissistic and profit-seeking policies. This issue was also reflected in the entry of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan and the confrontation of the Mujahideen with that country. It is accurate that the people of Afghanistan were fighting for the freedom of their country in the lower ranks, but it was based on the war between America and the former Soviet Union.
Historically, it has been evident that one month after the beginning of the Soviet invasion, the American National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, personally went to Pakistan and said to the local Mujahideen in the vicinity of the Afghan border near the Khyber Pass: “We are aware of your firm belief in God and we are confident that your battle will prosper. That land belongs to you and one day you will return to it as your struggle will lead to victory and you will find your homes and mosques again. Your goal is right and God is with you.”
Jimmy Carter, the president of the United States at the time, believed that “Soviet aggression” could not be an isolated event in the sphere of Soviet geographical influence, citing that it was a concealed threat against the influence of the United States in the Persian Gulf. America was also concerned about Soviet access to the Indian Ocean by making an arrangement with Pakistan. In any case, in that war, the former Soviet Union was defeated and disintegrated by the United States, making the world unipolar. This was the compensation for the defeat that America suffered from the Soviet Union in the Vietnam War.
Looking at the current war in the Middle East, we find that there is no war based on religion in the current world. If the war in Yemen against the Houthis takes place with the contribution of Saudi Arabia, and if the war in Syria takes place with the collaboration of Iran, they all have a political and national profit-seeking aspect. During Saddam’s war in Iraq against Kuwait, all the Arab politicians of other countries wanted the American attack on Iraq even chanting according to the jurisprudence rules that “should a duty not be fulfilled except by a matter, that matter becomes a duty.” That is, Saddam’s defeat and his withdrawal from the attack on Kuwait was necessary, and this was conditioned on the intervention of military powers such as the United Nations and the United States. America needed to attack Saddam, which it did. Indeed, jurisprudence rules and religious views are effective at the beginning and end of these wars, but behind the scenes, the main goals are the material and spiritual interests of political actors and countries in the region and the world.
If we delve into today’s war between Palestine and Israel, we can observe the involvement of other countries, particularly the United States, and Iran on the other side. Some people in Gaza may think that they are waging Jihad against Israel, but this “Jihad” is based on the interests of the factions and countries involved. If the US wants to warn the countries of the Middle East through Israel, Iran necessarily has its proxy groups around this region, which it uses to threaten the interests of Israel and the US.
It is the matter of political interests that defines the border between anti-Israeli groups and even defines their relationship with the Gulf countries. For example, due to Hamas’s financial and weaponry dependence on Iran, no Arab country is willing to help this group, despite Gaza being in the worst conditions of war and insecurity. Saudi Arabia does not support a group that works to the advantage of Iran.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, wars may be labeled as religious to stir the sentiments of warm-blooded Muslim youth in poor countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and others, but the truth is that these battles are void of religious support and are considered proxy battles of regional and international powers. Why are there no such revolutionary slogans among the youth of Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar? It is because modern concepts of nationality have been taught to them in their curricula and education, and they know that after the division of countries based on nationality, everyone should think about the progress of their country. Additionally, if there is interference outside the country, it should be done through legal and moral mechanisms by governments within the framework of international laws.
The way forward is not going back to the past. The promotion of contemporary knowledge can lead to the mastery of technology, profession, industry, politics, and culture, and the cultured nation is privileged with wide capabilities. The promotion of contemporary knowledge makes it needless to seek assistance from regional and global powers. We are living in an age where a quiet battle between natural intelligence and artificial intelligence has taken place and robots are gradually taking the field from humans. In such an era, the slogans of going back to the past and launching wars for this purpose cannot have any logical justification.