To achieve lasting cessation of hostilities, three core issues must be resolved – and resolved fully, not cosmetically.

Some of my friends keep asking me: “What’s going to happen this July and August?” And I tell them: guys, who do you think I am? A psychic? You think I’ve got a crystal ball stashed in my office?

No. I’m just a simple business owner based in the GCC. I don’t claim supernatural insight. But I do try to form slightly more informed opinions than the average person, mostly because I’ve been observing this region’s conflicts since I was nine years old. At this point, it’s practically an occupational hazard.

So here’s the breakdown:

The fundamentals for a permanent ceasefire in the region simply do not exist yet. And no, this isn’t just about Iran and Israel. This is about Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, the Iraqi militias, and the enormous American military buildup underway. You cannot solve the symptoms while the disease is metastasizing.

To achieve lasting cessation of hostilities, three core issues must be resolved – and resolved fully, not cosmetically.

1. Nuclear Enrichment Must Stop – On Iranian Soil

Even after suspected Israeli strikes crippled parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Tehran still retains: the knowledge, the will, and likely the determination to restart enrichment. That’s not speculation; that’s their posture.

Unless there’s a complete, verifiable, internationally inspected cessation of enrichment on Iranian soil, there’s no foundation for trust. No amount of diplomacy can paper over that risk.

2. Ballistic Missiles Must Be Dismantled

We’re not talking about short-range battlefield rockets.

We’re talking: MRBMs (Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles), IRBMs (Intermediate-Range), ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles)

These aren’t for defence – they’re for deterrence and leverage. And the regime is fiercely protective of them. But if these remain, no ceasefire will ever be permanent. Full dismantlement isn’t optional; it’s mandatory.

3. The Proxy Network Must Be Demobilized

This is the elephant in the room: Iran’s proxy ecosystem – roughly 700,000 fighters across 90+ militias.

The core pillars: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, the Popular Mobilization Forces and others in Iraq.

These groups are not just “regional influencers.” They are armed non-state actors that destabilize multiple sovereign countries. And Iran’s biggest mistake in recent years? Using the Houthis to interfere with global trade and Red Sea shipping.

That crossed a red line.

Local or regional disruption is one thing. Interfering with global supply chains triggered the wrath of far more powerful actors.

Right now, Iran’s posture on these three issues is clear: The nuclear issue? They’re playing games. The missile program? They’re playing hardball. The proxy militias? They’re playing deaf.

But time is running out.

According to sources, the deadline being floated to Tehran is July 15 – by which time they must commit, in principle and in writing, to addressing all three issues within 90 days of structured talks.

What happens if they don’t? Hostilities will resume. Sanctions will increase. Isolation will deepen.

And this time, the regime’s internal fractures may not survive the pressure.

So where are we now? We are in a pause, not peace. The upcoming Oslo backchannel talks may set the tone. EU/GCC might act as the broker. But resolve must replace deflection.

Until then, forgive me for being a bit jaded. After all these years, every time there’s a “breakthrough,” I find myself thinking: “Ah yes, another war. Meh. Seen this movie before.”

Let’s see if this one has a different ending.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Iran can’t export its revolution to a quiet region. It needs the noise, the chaos, the funerals, the flames. And Hamas delivers.

If you’re one of those people who chants “From the river to the sea” and dreams of abolishing Israel altogether – scattering its people to the wind – then I’ll save you some time: this post isn’t for you.

You’re not interested in peace. You’re not interested in history. You’re interested in fantasy. So block me. Mute me. Move along.

But if you’re still here, let me walk you through a bit of actual history. Because I’m tired of the shallow takes that say “It didn’t start on October 7.”

Yes. We know.

But guess what? It also didn’t start in 1967. Or in 1948. Or 1929. Or 1882.

We can keep going, all the way back to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE if you really want. But that’s not a productive exercise. It’s a trap — a game of historical one-upmanship no one ever wins.

Let’s stick to modern, actionable history.

Because if you’re really asking when this phase of the conflict began, the answer is 1987 – the year Hamas was born.

1987: The Real Turning Point

That’s when this went from a difficult national conflict to a proxy war fueled by forces far beyond Palestine.

Hamas was not established as a national liberation movement for the Palestinians. No.

It was created as a spoiler. A saboteur.

And yes, it deliberately modeled itself on its slightly older sibling – Hezbollah in Lebanon – which had formally announced itself just two years earlier, in 1985.

At first, Hezbollah wasn’t even called Hezbollah.

Its name? Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya fi Lubnan – the Islamic Resistance Movement in Lebanon.

Then came Hamas in Gaza – using the exact same name: Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya. Just dropping the “Lebanon” bit.

Coincidence?

Not at all.

Hezbollah was birthed and bred by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood, yes – but the branch of the Brotherhood that had cozied up to Iran and the Ayatollahs since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

So, while one was Shia and the other Sunni, they shared something far more important: a common purpose – to destroy any chance of peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

1993: Peace Threatens the Project

Fast forward a few years. 1993 – Oslo Accords.

Yasser Arafat and the PLO accepted the existence of Israel and launched a peace process, starting in Madrid (1991) and culminating in Oslo. But peace was a threat – not to Palestinians, but to the Iranian project.

So what did Hamas do? It unleashed a campaign of suicide bombings and terror attacks, all designed to torpedo the peace process. At the same time, Hamas leaders – Ahmad Yassin, al-Rantisi, al-Zahar, Khaled Meshaal – went on visits to Tehran.

They met Khamenei, praised Khomeini, and declared him the “spiritual father” of their movement. There’s video. Look it up.

They weren’t subtle. Because this was never just about resisting Israeli occupation. It was about resisting any resolution that didn’t come through endless war – war that Iran could weaponise.

2005: Withdrawal From Gaza

Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005. No more settlers. No more military presence. It was a gesture – maybe imperfect – but a major step.

What did Hamas do? They used Gaza as a base to wage war – not just against Israel, but against the Palestinian Authority.

In 2007, they staged a bloody coup, executed Fatah officials, and turned Gaza into a warlord fiefdom. They didn’t want unity. They didn’t want diplomacy. They wanted hegemony — and they wanted it under the patronage of Tehran. To create an IRGC forward base against Israel.

2009, 2014, and Onwards: Every Time There’s Hope, Hamas Kills It.

Every single time peace was back on the table – with the PA, with the US, with regional actors – Hamas would launch rockets, escalate violence, provoke war.

Why? Because their very existence depends on permanent conflict. They don’t want peace. They want a perpetual state of siege. Because peace would mean relevance lost.

Iran can’t export its revolution to a quiet region. It needs the noise, the chaos, the funerals, the flames. And Hamas delivers.

2023: October 7 – A Calculated Explosion

Now to the point everyone pretends is the beginning. October 7 was not an eruption of spontaneous rage. It wasn’t the product of an “intolerable status quo.” For over a year before that, things were relatively quiet.

What was happening? Israel and Saudi Arabia were inching closer. That would have transformed the region – and likely brought real gains for the Palestinians, too.

But Iran saw danger. A Middle East at peace is a Middle East that doesn’t need Iran.

So what did Hamas do? They unleashed an act so horrific, so medieval, so brutal – designed not just to provoke Israel, but to make regional peace politically impossible.

It worked. At least for now.

Let’s Be Real

Hamas is not a rational actor. Not a state. Not a government. Not a liberation movement.

It is the Gaza branch of the IRGC. It thrives on cycles of retaliation. It fuels martyrdom to recruit more children for its suicidal cause.

It exists to keep Palestinians forever stateless, forever stuck, forever pawns in a larger game. So yes, it didn’t start on October 7.

But for the phase we’re living through now – the phase of Iranian sabotage masquerading as Palestinian resistance – the real start date was 1987.

Unless, of course, you don’t believe Israel should exist at all. In which case, your argument isn’t about justice. It’s about abolitionism, ethnic cleansing, and historical erasure.

But here’s the thing: The UN created Israel. And unless the UN unanimously votes to dissolve it (spoiler: they won’t), then yes – it exists. It’s not going anywhere.

And Hamas knows it. They just can’t admit it. Because if they did, they’d have to do something they were never built for: Govern. Negotiate. Build a future.

And that – for them and for their Ayatollahs patrons in Tehran – is the real nightmare.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The strikes didn’t just destroy facilities, they shattered illusions.

It has finally happened, the inevitable, the writing long scrawled on the wall now seared into reality. With twelve bunker-busting bombs and thirty cruise missiles, the United States brought to ruin what took the Islamic Republic of Iran two decades and over a trillion dollars to build: its nuclear crown jewel. Its trophy. Its last card on the global stage.

The strikes didn’t just destroy facilities, they shattered illusions. What came crashing down wasn’t merely a set of centrifuges or underground bunkers. It was the pride of a regime that had gambled its people’s future on the delusion of strategic supremacy, and lost.

As an amateur student of history and a humble observer of geopolitics, I can say this with some confidence: we are now watching the final act of the Islamic Republic unfold. The fall may not be instantaneous, but it is now inevitable.

The Dominoes Are Already Falling

Paradoxically, the more the regime fights – especially if it expands its conflict to include U.S. bases or threatens GCC nations – the more it may temporarily delay its own demise. War creates chaos. Chaos suppresses mobilization. Ordinary Iranians – weary, disconnected, and desperate for stability – will wait for the guns to fall silent before daring to rise.

But rise they will.

As with Serbia under Milosevic, the aftermath matters. People need time to digest the sheer scale of their leaders’ incompetence. Once the smoke clears, Iranians will be confronted with the stark truth: the entire nuclear program was a catastrophic, generational waste.

The regime claimed that its repression, foreign interventions, and economic sacrifices were justified to achieve national security and regional prestige. Instead, it propped up Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis – to the tune of $250 to $300 billion – only to watch each of these proxies collapse or become irrelevant.

What remains? Just the wreckage of a dream that became a nightmare. The Iranian people endured crushing sanctions – costing their economy an estimated $1 to $1.6 trillion. All for what? For a nuclear program that is now a smoldering crater.

The House Always Wins

To understand the scale of betrayal, imagine a family dynamic.

The regime is the abusive, gambling-addicted father. He had wealth. He had options. He could have used his resources to build a comfortable life for his family, modern schools, good healthcare, beautiful homes. Instead, he dragged them into a cramped, stifling existence. He mortgaged the house, sold their future, and gambled everything away in the dim-lit halls of Vegas – metaphorically speaking.

For two decades, he told his family, “I know what I’m doing. Just a little more sacrifice, and we’ll win it all back.” But he forgot one thing: this world is America’s casino. And in Vegas – the house always wins.

Now the father returns home, broke, humiliated, with nothing to show for the years of lies and suffering. And the family? They look at him with a mix of contempt, rage, and sorrow. They grab what they can – pots, pans, vases — and they beat him into the fate he most deserves: death by a thousand cuts.

This is not fantasy. It’s a metaphor for a popular uprising. The only path left. And it will come – once the air clears, once the internet returns, once the people can see what has happened with their own eyes.

The Silence Before the Storm

The only lifeline left for the regime is to keep some form of conflict alive – not enough to provoke total war, but just enough to keep its own people afraid. As long as fear holds the streets, the regime can breathe. Barely.

But the end is written. The Islamic Republic, as we know it, cannot survive this.

This summer will be decisive. Not just for Iran – but for generations of Iranians. The dream of the Islamic Republic has turned to ash. And in its place, something new will rise – if the people are given even a sliver of peace.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

A nation that simultaneously hosts Al-Qaeda, sponsors Hezbollah, and floods the region with ballistic missiles is knocking on the nuclear door. This isn’t paranoia.

It began like any other Tuesday in New York City. Office workers clutching their Starbucks cups, subways packed with commuters, hot dog carts rolling open. Downtown Manhattan was alive with the pulse of a global metropolis.

And then – impact. A sudden, blinding flash. A thunderous shockwave that rippled through the Financial District. Glass shatters. Skyscrapers buckle. Heat, fire, and smoke engulf the city’s core. In the span of seconds, hundreds of thousands lie dead or dying. The heart of global finance has just suffered the unthinkable: a nuclear detonation on American soil.

Two hours later, the world reels in horror .. and then comes the voice.

From Yemen, the leader of Al-Qaeda claims responsibility: “We have avenged Osama bin Laden, 17 years to the day since his death.” The language is familiar, fanatical, self-righteous, and soaked in blood.

But the bomb wasn’t a missile dropped from a plane. It was a compact, modified nuclear device designed for ground-level devastation. The kind of weapon that slips through borders. The kind of weapon small enough to be trafficked, not deployed by a state, but handed off to a proxy.

Let’s be clear: this hypothetical scenario isn’t a scene from a dystopian thriller. It’s a logical outcome of a world where we allow the Islamic Republic of Iran – arguably the most prolific state sponsor of terrorism on earth – to acquire nuclear weapons.

The Real Threat: Nuclear Terror by Proxy

For over 40 years, Iran’s regime has constructed a vast transnational web of extremist militias and terrorist proxies. Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Houthis in Yemen. Hamas in Gaza. Dozens of Iraqi militias. Thousands of mercenary fighters in Syria drawn from Afghan and Pakistani Shia brigades like Fatemiyoun and Zainabiyoun. Even elements of Al-Qaeda – yes, Sunni extremists – have long found refuge and quiet collaboration inside Iran.

Let that sink in.

A nation that simultaneously hosts Al-Qaeda, sponsors Hezbollah, and floods the region with ballistic missiles is knocking on the nuclear door. This isn’t paranoia. This is pattern recognition.

Iran doesn’t need to fire a nuclear missile to destroy a city. All it needs is a warhead small enough to fit in a shipping container, a diplomatic pouch, or a convoy in Syria. It hands that weapon to a proxy with a martyr complex and an agenda, and the world becomes a hostage to deniability.

Can You Live With That?

Critics of preemptive action argue, “This is not our war.” They ask, “Why should America or Israel – or anyone – intervene?”

Let me ask instead: Can you live with the consequences of inaction?

Because the Islamic Republic is not just building a deterrent. It’s building leverage. It’s building bargaining chips that will be auctioned off to whichever proxy serves its interests, whether for strategic gain, ideological revenge, or chaos for chaos’ sake.

Iran’s investment into this project is staggering:

• Over $150 billion spent on building the nuclear infrastructure.

• Another $250 billion on the defense architecture surrounding it – proxy militias, missile systems, drone networks.

• And at least $600 billion in lost oil revenues and economic damage from sanctions.

That’s a trillion-dollar nuclear program. And no rational actor sinks a trillion dollars into something they plan to dismantle through polite negotiation.

Anyone who believes Iran will trade that for sanctions relief lives in a fairy tale. Worse, they put the rest of us at existential risk.

Iran is Not North Korea. It’s Not Pakistan. It’s Worse.

North Korea is a prison state. Dangerous, yes, but largely contained.

Pakistan is unstable, but its nukes are nationally controlled and subject to intense scrutiny by international players.

Iran is something else entirely. It is a state with an asymmetric warfare doctrine built around arming and unleashing militias. It has already handed out precision-guided missiles to non-state actors, missiles more advanced than anything fielded by major regional armies like Turkey or Egypt.

If they’ve already done this with missiles, what makes you think they’d hesitate to do it with nukes?

This Is Not Alarmism. This Is Experience Talking.

I say this not as a pundit, but as someone who spent years embedded in the world of counterterrorism. I have tracked the terror finance pipelines, followed the Iranian Quds Force as they armed and trained proxy death squads, and investigated their ties to narcotics smuggling, arms trafficking, and organized crime. I’ve seen firsthand what this regime is capable of, and it is far worse than most policymakers dare admit.

The Inevitable Question: What Must Be Done?

If we know what Iran is, if we know what it wants, and if we understand what it is willing to do, then why are we still debating whether action is necessary?

This is not about Israel. This is not about the U.S. This is about civilizational self-preservation.

If Martians could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, I’d support them. If the penguins of Antarctica could stop it, I’d cheer them on.

It doesn’t matter who does it. The only question is whether we allow a regime that has turned the Middle East into a graveyard of proxy wars and failed states to possess the ultimate weapon of coercion.

If we do, then the next detonation will not be hypothetical. And the legacy of those who hesitated – presidents, prime ministers, pundits, and diplomats – will be eternal shame.

Because when the skies of Manhattan turn to fire, it will be too late to say: We should have acted.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view. The Featured Image is Grok Generated.

Let me be blunt: granting nuclear weapons to such a regime is the height of international irresponsibility.

It is increasingly evident that the Iranian leadership – particularly the Ayatollahs in Tehran – are dangerously misreading the current mood in both the White House and Tel Aviv. Iran now possesses nearly 410 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60% – enough fissile material for 9 to 10 nuclear devices. Even more alarming are recent implosion tests, unmistakably linked to preparations for nuclear weapons testing.

According to multiple intelligence sources, Iran is poised to reach full breakthrough capability by September 1st.

Let’s not forget: this is a self-inflicted crisis. Tehran flatly rejected a previous offer by President Trump’s administration to supply low-cost nuclear fuel and assist in building peaceful nuclear power infrastructure, an offer that could have secured Iran’s energy future. Instead, Iran insists on retaining its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium and refuses to cap enrichment at the internationally accepted 3.67%. In their latest counteroffer, they made it clear: no limits, no rollback, and no transparency.

The West had drawn a clear red line months ago. Iran was given a four-month window – from February 15 to June 15 – to reach a final agreement. That deadline is now upon us, and Tehran’s response suggests either catastrophic miscalculation or willful provocation. They are betting they can bluff their way to a nuclear test.

Let’s be clear: implosion tests are not for civilian purposes. These are military preparations. The idea that the world should accept Iran as a de facto nuclear state – just as it has with North Korea, India, or Pakistan – is dangerously flawed.

Why? Because Iran is not a conventional state actor. Unlike the others, the Islamic Republic has spent decades arming non-state actors (Houthis, Hezbollah, militias in Iraq and Syria) with sovereign weapons systems such as medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs). These are weapons that even Turkey, a NATO member with the second-largest army in the alliance, does not possess.

Iran has exported MRBMs with ranges of 2,200–2,500 km to its proxies in Yemen. These missiles have been used not just against one target, but against three sovereign states: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE. This reckless transfer of strategic weaponry to terrorist actors demonstrates that the regime in Tehran cannot be trusted with nuclear arms. They could transfer such weapons to third party non-state actors for deniability!

Let me be blunt: granting nuclear weapons to such a regime is the height of international irresponsibility. The consequences will not be limited to regional instability, they will define a new era of proxy nuclear terror.

Therefore, the choice is clear. Either we accept a nuclear-armed Iran that arms its proxies with sovereign weapons, or we act – militarily – before the point of no return. A war now, though painful, may be the only way to prevent a far greater future catastrophe.

Whether through a U.S. strike, an Israeli operation, or a coordinated joint action, military intervention is now not just likely, it is inevitable. Tehran is playing a high-stakes game of brinkmanship, and time has all but run out.

We are at two minutes to midnight.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Aimen Dean

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre.

In light of recent misinterpretations of my comments, I feel compelled to clarify my stance on several key issues. Some have accused me of supporting jihadist groups in Syria or endorsing acts of ethnic cleansing and massacres against the Alawite minority on the Syrian coast. These claims are entirely unfounded, and I want to set the record straight.

Consistent Principles on War and Self-Defense

From the very beginning, I have consistently supported the right of nations to defend themselves against aggression. In 2001, I fully backed the United States’ decision to retaliate against al-Qaeda and the Taliban following the 9/11 attacks because it was a justified response to an unprovoked act of war. However, I did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as Iraq posed no imminent threat at the time.

Similarly, when Hamas launched its attacks on October 7, 2023, I unequivocally supported Israel’s right to defend itself, just as I supported Israel’s actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. I recognize that war is never clean, and civilian casualties are an unfortunate and tragic reality. Anyone who believes in the possibility of a “clean war” is ignoring history and human nature. Even in the most “civilized” parts of the world, such as Europe, the 20th century bore witness to some of the worst massacres and genocides in history.

Modern warfare is fought not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of information. The manipulation of media, particularly through social media, has become a powerful tool. We saw this when Hamas claimed that Israel had bombed hospitals and killed hundreds of civilians, claims that, upon closer inspection, were exaggerated or entirely fabricated. Propaganda is an inseparable part of war, and recognizing this is crucial in understanding modern conflicts.

The Syrian Conflict and My Perspective on Ahmad al-Shar’a

Much of the controversy surrounding my recent comments stems from my discussion of Ahmad al-Shar’a, also known as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, and the ongoing conflict in Syria. To be clear: I do not view al-Shar’a as ISIS. While he was originally part of al-Qaeda in Iraq before it became the Islamic State of Iraq, he later split from the organization when he moved to Syria.

Since 2018, I have spoken with multiple intelligence officials who confirmed that al-Shar’a had been cooperating with Turkish intelligence as early as 2013 and later provided valuable intelligence to Western agencies, including those of France and the United States, in the fight against ISIS. His motivation may not have been purely altruistic, he saw ISIS as a rival, but his actions nonetheless contributed to the fight against one of the most brutal jihadist groups in history.

I have publicly acknowledged that I see elements of my own journey in his transformation. I, too, was once a committed jihadist until I saw the light and shifted my perspective to focus on geopolitical strategy rather than sectarian or ideological allegiances. Today, my positions are determined by strategic interests, not religious or sectarian affiliations.

Why I Support the Current Syrian Government Over Assad

Between al-Shar’a’s government and the Assad regime, I believe the former offers a better path forward for Syria. While al-Shar’a has a controversial past, his current trajectory suggests a willingness to reform. Unlike the Assad regime, which has kept Syria trapped in a failed socialist Arab nationalist system, his administration has demonstrated a commitment to economic modernization. The most developed areas in Syria today—Idlib, Jisr al-Shughur, and Sarmada—show clear progress, in contrast to the stagnation of Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, and Hama.

Critically, I reject the notion that what is happening on the Syrian coast is an organized ethnic cleansing campaign. Instead, it is a military operation aimed at dismantling remnants of the Assad regime, whose security forces have been targeting not only Sunni opposition members but also Alawites who are seen as traitors.

Reports indicate that some of the atrocities being widely shared on social media were, in fact, carried out by former regime officers—Alawites exacting revenge on their own community members for siding with the new government. Other reports suggest that Iranian and Hezbollah-backed Assad loyalists are fueling chaos to destabilize the current government. The Syrian government under al-Shar’a has deployed significant manpower to block roads and prevent large-scale sectarian revenge attacks, particularly from Sunni militants who see this as an opportunity for retaliation.

Propaganda and Disinformation in the Syrian Conflict

Iran, Hezbollah, and Assad loyalists have launched a well-coordinated disinformation campaign to portray the situation as a sectarian massacre. Many of the images and videos circulating on social media are, in reality, old footage from ISIS-era Iraq and Syria. Claims that Christians are being systematically targeted are also false, there have been no reports of Christian casualties in this conflict.

Additionally, many of the “atrocity” videos currently being used to condemn the new government are actually recycled footage of massacres committed by the Assad regime itself. The goal of this propaganda is clear: to manipulate Western audiences into believing that Syria is descending into sectarian genocide, thereby pushing Syria further into the Iranian-Russian-Chinese geopolitical axis.

A Call for Justice and a Rational Perspective on Syria’s Future

I do not deny that war crimes and atrocities have occurred in the Syrian conflict. I call upon the government of President Ahmad al-Shar’a to ensure accountability and bring those responsible to justice. However, we must recognize that this is not a case of systematic ethnic cleansing. The reality on the ground is far more complex, with various factions—Sunni and Alawite alike—engaging in revenge killings and power struggles.

Western observers must avoid falling into the trap of Iranian and Hezbollah propaganda. Syria has an opportunity to move away from the Russian-Iranian-Chinese sphere of influence and integrate into the Mediterranean and Gulf economic frameworks. It is in the best interest of Syria, the region, and the world that we support efforts to stabilize the country, promote economic recovery, and prevent it from becoming another puppet state for Tehran, Moscow, or Beijing.

A Geopolitical, Not Sectarian, Perspective

To those who accuse me of reverting to my “jihadi roots,” I ask: how could someone who opposed both Hamas and Hezbollah—a Sunni and a Shia militant group—be labeled as a jihadist sympathizer? My approach is based purely on geopolitical logic, not religious bias. I support what makes sense for the people of the Middle East, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sunni, or Shia, liberal or conservative.

What is happening in Syria is not a black-and-white sectarian war but a geopolitical realignment. We must approach it with rationality, not emotion, and recognize the broader stakes involved. Let us not allow misinformation and propaganda to cloud our understanding of the realities on the ground.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Aimen Dean

It is easy for Western self righteous keyboard warriors to paint the GCC Gulf countries as the evil capitalist labour exploiters who only pay “slave wages”.

In this article, I’m going to address one of the grievances some self righteous Westerners always voice against Arab GCC countries regarding so called “Slave Labor” from poorer countries. I will highlight the contrast in facts and numbers between the GCC and major EU economies.

First, by no means I’m saying the working conditions of workers from poorer countries in the GCC were ideal, far from it, but recent years has shown willingness of GCC authorities to improve working conditions, pay, hours and regulations.

Second, the only credible and quantifiable methodology to determine if the workers from poorer countries working in the GCC are slaving away for little to no pay is by looking at the “remittances figures” from the GCC to those countries where the workers come from.

In the decade between 2009 and 2019 more than $1.1 Trillion USD of remittences flowed from the workers in the six GCC countries namely Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait to less welloff countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Philippines, Egypt, Yemen, etc. On average the GCC remittences annual outflow is $110 billion USD.

The combined GDP of the six GCC countries is $1.7 Trillion USD, the combined GCC population is 53 million. This means that 6.5% of the GCC’s GDP is annually being transferred to less welloff countries through the guest labour programs thanks to wage remittances.

Now let’s examine the largest six European economies namely Germany, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Netherlands. Combined GDP $14 Trillion USD, combined population 345 million, combined annual remittences to less well off countries is also $110 billion USD (0.08% of GDP).

The GCC’s oil wealth, and the GCC’s foreign labour programs (despite all of their faults and shortcomings) based on the numbers above, clearly show how the GCC contributed to one of the largest redistribution of wealth among nations in modern times.

It is easy for Western self righteous keyboard warriors to paint the GCC countries as the evil capitalist labour exploiters who only pay “slave wages”. But $110 billion USD of annual remittance, equivalent to 6.5% of the GCC entire GDP, is no slave wage.

These labour programs in the GCC helped build entire villages, towns, schools and clinics in many less well off countries and contributed to the schooling tuition of tens of millions of young boys and girls to become productive members of their societies.

Many of the expat workers in the GCC returned home to their countries and brought with them wealth of experience and skills that were vital for the revival of their own countries’ economies.

The massive annual remittences from the GCC countries were a lifeline to millions of families in the societies where those workers came from. Foreign labour helped build the GCC, the remittances from the GCC helped build the economies of those workers’ countries.

Article compiled from author’s Tweet thread.