The Kurdish struggle matters because it is on the front line against the same extremist ideologies that threaten these countries.

Northern Syria is in a cataclysmic crisis. Kurdish communities in Rojava are facing relentless attacks by Turkish-backed militias and Syrian regime forces. Villages are being razed, civilians executed, women raped, and entire neighbourhoods systematically targeted.

Turkey’s involvement is central: Erdoğan manipulates proxies and leaders, such as Syria’s interim president Al-Jolani, to press his agenda, pursuing Ottoman-style expansionist ambitions while advancing a ruthless campaign to erase Kurdish autonomy. The Kurds, who have built pluralistic and stable governance systems in a region dominated by authoritarianism and sectarianism, now face existential threats.

What is unfolding against the Kurds in Syria carries lethal implications throughout the Middle East and beyond. The Kurdish struggle underscores a larger geopolitical reality: unchecked aggression here emboldens expansionist and Islamist forces throughout the region.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey are moving to form a NATO-style alliance, called the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA), whereby any attack on one party is considered an attack on all.

Turkey’s destabilising ambitions, combined with Pakistan’s support for Islamist networks and Saudi Arabia’s regional influence, are forming a bloc whose goals clash directly with the security and values of Israel, India, and the UAE — three powers on the Middle-East-Asia Corridor with shared strategic and democratic imperatives. For these three countries, the threat and consequences of extremism are immediate.

Israel and India maintain solid defence cooperation, forged over decades of shared security challenges and strategic alignment. India and the UAE have recently strengthened economic and security partnerships, including agreements in energy, defence collaboration, and trade, with the aim of doubling bilateral commerce to $200 billion over the next six years.

Together, Israel, India, and the UAE form a natural coalition committed to protecting citizens, countering extremist ideologies, and preserving regional stability.

The Kurdish struggle matters because it is on the front line against the same extremist ideologies that threaten these countries. Kurdish forces bravely fought off ISIS between 2014 and 2017, when much of the region collapsed, protecting religious minorities and detaining thousands of terrorists on behalf of the international community.

Today, these efforts are under severe strain. Prison breaks in north-eastern Syria, escalating attacks on Kurdish-held territory, and the vulnerability of displacement camps signal a potential resurgence of ISIS.

ISIS had never truly disappeared. Since losing its territorial caliphate in 2019, it restructured into a decentralised global network with regional affiliates. By the end of 2024, it remained the most lethal terrorist organisation worldwide. Its digital presence, financial networks using cryptocurrencies, and ideological influence over minors and lone actors make it a persistent global threat.

Weakening Kurdish control creates space for ISIS to regroup and export violence far beyond the Middle East — to Europe, India, and beyond.

ISIS has also preserved and expanded its digital capabilities. Through social media, encrypted messaging platforms, and online propaganda, the organisation radicalises and recruits globally, particularly among minors.

ISIS-inspired attacks involving teenagers in Europe, including Austria and Germany, demonstrate how rapidly online radicalisation can translate into real-world violence, often beyond early detection by security services.

Geopolitics, however, is not just about land and strategy; at its heart lies a spiritual dimension that is often overlooked. The current chaos is unfolding around the Euphrates, a river whose surrounding lands are historically sacred. This was where Abraham, the father of monotheistic faiths, settled, amassed wealth and influence, and lived in coexistence with people of different faiths.

The values Abraham embodied, such as respect, dignity, coexistence — continue to shape the cultural DNA of the Kurds. Today, those same values, reflected in the Kurdish society, which I have personally witnessed in their respect for human dignity, women’s rights, and pluralism, are under direct threat from extremist ideologies seeking to destroy them.

The Kurds’ defence of pluralism, coexistence, and local governance mirrors values shared by Israel, India, and the UAE. Failing to protect them is not neutral; it constitutes strategic negligence with consequences that will be felt far beyond Syria.

The opportunity for trilateral cooperation is clear. Israel and India already maintain strong defence ties, sharing expertise in counterterrorism, military technology, and intelligence operations. India and the UAE have deepened strategic, economic, and security partnerships, building a foundation for coordinated action in the region. The existing intelligence-sharing framework between Israel, India, and the UAE is a critical asset.

Strengthened and fully integrated, it could become a force that regional aggressors would approach with caution, knowing that any misstep against the trio carries immediate, precise consequences. Such strengthened coordination would allow pre-emption of terrorist operations, disruption of financing channels, prevention of further prison breaks escalating into global attacks, and early identification of radicalisation in vulnerable populations.

This is not abstract geopolitics; it is about protecting citizens under threat, whether in Kobane in Syrian Kurdistan, Tel Aviv, Delhi, or Dubai.

The Kurdish crisis also has profound moral resonance. Jews and Kurds are both ancient peoples shaped by exile, persecution, and the longing for homeland and dignity. Both have survived through resilience, shared values, and a commitment to coexistence rather than domination. This shared ethos should compel Israel to safeguard regional allies by building strong, long-term partnerships with stable partners such as the UAE and India.

The systematic dismantling of Kurdish society is not only a regional tragedy — it is a blow against the principles that govern other modern, pluralistic nations. For India, which faces Pakistan-sponsored jihadism and digital radicalisation, the Kurdish struggle mirrors its own fight against extremist ideologies that weaponise religion and erase pluralistic traditions.

For me personally, these countries matter deeply. My Indian background and consistent time spent in Israel give me a unique perspective on the stakes involved.

The UAE has proven to be a strong and reliable Middle Eastern partner, and I hope for even closer trilateral cooperation with Israel and India. Together, these nations have both the strategic capability and the moral imperative to act decisively.

But the capability should not just be expressed in words, but through concrete, coordinated action to prevent further atrocities and the resurgence of ISIS.

The human toll is urgent. Displacement, executions, and destruction in north-eastern Syria (Rojava) are accompanied by women’s lives in grave danger and children living amid trauma and extremist influence.

ISIS’s adaptability, both digital and operational, means that failing to act now risks renewed terror reaching far beyond Syria. Supporting the Kurds is about defending humanity against an extremist ideology that threatens us all.

The question is simple: will the world stand by, or will it recognise the moral and strategic necessity of supporting those on the front lines of extremism? The Kurdish crisis is a stark reminder that regional ambitions must be firmly contained.

For India, Israel, and the UAE, strengthening trilateral cooperation is not only about countering ISIS. It is also about ensuring that Pakistan’s proxies and Turkey’s expansionist ambitions remain within their own borders and fantasies. Coordinated intelligence, rapid-response networks, and strategic alignment can send a clear message: no aggression will go unchecked, and no extremist ideology will reshape the region. The time to act is now.

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

Since the end of the Cold War, much of the Muslim world has framed terrorism carried out in Islam’s name as an “American-Zionist conspiracy.” This argument draws on the undeniable reality of U.S. imperialism in West Asia, from Washington’s support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s to its disastrous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which helped incubate groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

It is undeniable how American foreign policy not only created conditions for militant Islamism but at times directly facilitated its growth. Yet to reduce all Muslim terrorism to an American creation is dangerously simplistic. Many Jihadists act from their own interpretations of Islamic texts, local grievances, and visions of a divinely mandated order, not to serve what the left-liberal have been calling American Imperialism.

Muslims globally have worked hard to defend their religion against the stigma of terrorism, insisting that Islam teaches peace and condemns violence. But crucial questions remain unanswered, questions that the far-right in India exploits and is using to perpetuate misconceptions against Muslims. The community’s defensive posture often remains confined to echo chambers, leaving outsiders unconvinced. 

Moreover, the demonization of Muslim identity in India is not simply the product of hatred for Islam as a religion; it also emerges from socio-political matters that are shown as a pattern of a global conspiracy. Yet Islamism cannot be understood merely as a reaction to deprivation, it derives itself from the interpretations of scripture that demand serious engagement.

This is where a major weakness lies. Muslims who commit acts of terror openly identify their violence with religion. If ordinary Muslims want to challenge them, they must engage with the ideological and theological claims rather than dismiss them as conspiracies against Islam. 

A friend of mine, once an Islamist and now a humanist, recalls that when he quoted scripture to justify his radicalism and impending desire to kill Kafirs and make Allah’s word supreme, his parents simply said, “This is wrong,” without offering any substantive rebuttal from the Quran or Hadith. 

Their inability to engage with the texts and his ideas and by extension the ideas of thousands of young muslims across the world, left him more convinced than before of his righteousness. This gap between religious conviction and theological illiteracy of ordinary Muslims is what Jihadists have been exploiting .

In India, this dynamic has produced troubling patterns. The 1993 Mumbai bombings, which killed 257 people and injured over 700, were often justified within sections of the Muslim community as “necessary retaliation” for the demolition of Babri Masjid and subsequent riots. Such selective justification creates a dangerous double standard: if killing innocents can be rationalized in one context, then why not in another? By this logic, pogroms, lynchings, and bulldozing of Muslim homes could also be justified as retaliation. This moral inconsistency weakens the Muslim community’s credibility and inadvertently plays into the hand of the far-right.

The way forward requires honesty and courage. Muslims must acknowledge that some within their community do commit acts of terror in the name of Islam and their motivation as an individual is purely religious,and that extremists draw solely from  scripture to justify themselves, which an average Muslim also derives his peace and brotherhood from.

These claims must be confronted theologically, politically, and morally, not brushed aside. The task is to reclaim religious texts from radicals through serious scholarship, foster intra-community debate, and build a universal moral compass where the life of a Hindu, Christian, Jew or an atheist is as sacred as that of a Muslim. 

Selective outrage, and Humanism condemning violence against Muslims while justifying violence committed by Muslims and even some situations even glorifying, only entrenches radicalism, fuels Muslimophobia, and strengthens hatred against Muslims. Unless Muslims embrace a consistent, universal ethic of non-violence against innocents as a rule with no ifs and buts, without this they will remain trapped in denial and conspiracy theories, deepening and perpetuating the very cycle of hate they seek to escape.

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

The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach.

Loay Al-Shareef, an Emirati peace activist and respected voice in the Arab reformist movement, recently issued a stark warning to American campuses and political leaders: the Muslim Brotherhood must be banned before its toxic ideology causes further harm.

His message is not one of political convenience or ideological vengeance. It is a cry rooted in personal experience, cultural insight, and a sincere concern for both the Arab world and the West.

Al-Shareef has visited more than 15 American universities, speaking alongside fellow Arab Muslim activists who once lived under the shadow of the very ideology they now confront. His mission is clear—to expose the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its military wing, Hamas, before more young minds are seduced by the movement’s deceptively noble slogans.

He is often asked: Why this relentless warning? His answer is powerful in its simplicity: “Because we know their evil better than anyone else on the planet.”

This isn’t abstract theory or secondhand knowledge. Many of these reformers were once indoctrinated with the Brotherhood’s ideas—raised on narratives of victimhood, infused with theological justifications for hatred, and programmed to see the world through a rigid binary of believers versus enemies. But some, like Al-Shareef, broke free. And in that awakening, they saw not just the lie—they saw the machinery behind it.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a shape-shifting ideology. Sometimes it appears as social activism, other times as religious outreach. But in moments of global attention—especially during crises in Gaza or Jerusalem—it wears the mask of “resistance” and “liberation.” That’s when slogans like “Free Palestine” or “From the river to the sea” are weaponized. To the uninformed, they echo human rights and justice. To those who know the ideology’s roots, they are coded calls for extermination and destruction.

Al-Shareef’s perspective forces an uncomfortable but necessary re-examination. The West, particularly liberal institutions in the U.S., often romanticize political Islamists as representatives of “authentic” Muslim identity. Yet the reality is far more complex—and dangerous. The Muslim Brotherhood has long perfected the art of double-speak: peace in English, militancy in Arabic; democracy in the West, theocracy at home.

The tragedy is that many Western politicians and diplomats continue to give these preachers a pass. Whether out of ignorance, fear of being labeled “Islamophobic,” or naïve idealism, this tolerance is enabling the very ideologies that fuel radicalization, antisemitism, and violence.

Al-Shareef is not anti-Palestinian. He, like many in the Arab world, supports justice and dignity for Palestinians. But he draws a line between a genuine pursuit of peace and the manipulation of that cause by Islamist actors who have hijacked it for their own ideological war.

His call to ban the Muslim Brotherhood in America is not just about foreign policy. It’s about safeguarding the social fabric of democratic societies. It’s about recognizing antisemitism—not as a political position, but as a crime with deadly consequences. And it’s about listening to those who have walked through the fire and come out with scars and clarity.

The next time a “Free Palestine” protest escalates into violence, as many unfortunately have in recent months, remember this warning: the danger isn’t just spontaneous—it’s ideological, well-organized, and globally connected.

Loay Al-Shareef’s message to America is not anti-Muslim. It’s anti-extremist. It’s a call for nuance, courage, and truth in a time when too many prefer slogans to substance.

The West must listen to those who know the mask behind the movement. Before it’s too late.

The backlash from Kashmiris, combined with international sympathy for India, creates a political environment conducive to a strong Indian response.

On April 22, 2025, a horrific terrorist attack shook the serene Baisaran meadow in Pahalgam, Kashmir, claiming the lives of 26 tourists, predominantly Indian male civilians. The assailants, identified as Islamist extremists, executed their victims at point-blank range after determining their targets based on their inability to recite Islamic verses. This brutal act, attributed initially to The Resistance Front (TRF), a Pakistan-based terrorist group closely linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), has escalated tensions between India and Pakistan, prompting expectations of a significant Indian military response.

A recent policy paper by Max Abrahms, a tenured professor of political science at Northeastern University, published by the Pacific Forum in Honolulu on May 2, 2025, provides critical insights into the dynamics of this attack and predicts a robust Indian retaliation.

Abrahms, a leading expert on terrorist group dynamics, begins his analysis by detailing the attack’s immediate aftermath. “Immediately after the mass casualty attack against civilians in Kashmir, the terrorist group known as The Resistance Front (TRF) claimed responsibility on the messaging app Telegram,” he writes. However, TRF later reversed its stance, denying involvement and attributing the initial claim to a “coordinated cyber intrusion” allegedly orchestrated by Indian cyber-intelligence operatives.

This denial, Abrahms argues, aligns with a well-documented pattern among militant groups worldwide. Drawing from his extensive research, he notes, “Many militant groups… have conditioned credit claims on whether the attacks got positive press coverage.” The TRF’s retraction, he suggests, was likely influenced by pressure from Pakistan’s security establishment and widespread protests by Kashmiris condemning the attack.

The TRF, founded in 2019, is described by Abrahms as a “close offshoot—or even just a front—of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT),” the notorious group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. An analyst quoted in the paper asserts, “All TRF operations are essentially LeT operations.” This connection underscores the attack’s broader implications for India-Pakistan relations, given LeT’s history of operating with tacit support from elements within Pakistan.

The initial claim and subsequent denial reflect a strategic attempt to mitigate the political fallout from an attack that targeted civilians, a tactic Abrahms has studied extensively. “Statistically, I have found with Justin Conrad that militant groups are significantly more likely to claim organizational responsibility when the targets are military personnel compared [to] civilians like the 26 tourists in Kashmir,” he explains.

Abrahms’ research highlights a global trend where terrorist groups distance themselves from civilian attacks to avoid reputational damage. He cites examples such as the African National Congress’s denial of involvement in 1988 attacks on civilian targets in South Africa, al-Qaeda’s dismissal of civilian casualties in Iraq as “lies concocted by the mainstream media,” and the Taliban’s routine denials of civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

In the case of TRF, Abrahms argues, “The Resistance Front appears to have engaged in a public relations strategy that I have dubbed as ‘Denial of Organizational’ to mitigate the political fallout from the controversial attack.” The group’s attempt to pin blame on Indian operatives mirrors tactics used by other militant organizations to deflect responsibility.

The Pahalgam attack’s civilian toll—26 unarmed tourists—makes a forceful Indian response almost inevitable, according to Abrahms’ analysis. “Civilian attacks depress the likelihood of a credit claim for a simple reason—they tend to backfire both politically and organizationally on the perpetrators,” he writes. His statistical studies reveal that governments are “over four-times as likely to employ lethal violence against a group when it attacks civilians compared to military targets.” This pattern suggests that India, already reeling from the loss of its citizens, will not limit its response to diplomatic measures.

Indeed, India has already taken significant steps in retaliation. Abrahms notes that the government has expelled Pakistani nationals, suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, shut down airspace, and engaged in cross-border firing along the Line of Control. However, he predicts a more substantial military operation, drawing a comparison to the 2019 Pulwama attack, which targeted Indian security personnel.

Following Pulwama, India launched Operation Bandar, a precision airstrike on a terrorist camp in Balakot, Pakistan, just 12 days later. “This time the Indian military response will be even more extensive given the target selection of the Islamist extremists regardless of whether they stand behind their heinous attacks,” Abrahms asserts.

The international community has expressed solidarity with India, with widespread condemnation of the attack amplifying pressure on New Delhi to act decisively. The targeting of civilians, coupled with the attackers’ reported use of religious tests, has drawn parallels to other Islamist extremist operations, further isolating Pakistan diplomatically.

Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, commented on X that the lack of “clarity about the culprit” might temper India’s response. However, Abrahms counters this view, arguing that his research “leaves little doubt that the attack was indeed carried out by the Islamist group that originally claimed organizational credit.”

The Pahalgam attack also reignites concerns about the volatile India-Pakistan relationship, particularly in the context of Kashmir, a long-standing flashpoint. The region has seen intermittent violence, with militant groups exploiting local grievances to justify their actions. TRF’s claim of representing “Kashmir resistance” was undermined by the massive protests across the Valley, which Abrahms attributes to the attack’s indiscriminate nature.

The backlash from Kashmiris, combined with international sympathy for India, creates a political environment conducive to a strong Indian response.

Abrahms’ paper underscores the broader strategic implications of civilian-targeted terrorism. “Compared to attacks against government targets, civilian attacks significantly reduce the odds of government concessions while increasing the odds of the target country employing military force—often, in devastating fashion,” he writes.

This dynamic has been evident in India’s past responses to terrorism, including the 2001 Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, both of which prompted significant policy shifts and military posturing.

As India weighs its options, the specter of escalation looms large. A military strike, while satisfying domestic calls for justice, risks further destabilizing the region. Pakistan’s response to India’s actions—particularly the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and airspace restrictions—will be critical. Abrahms’ research suggests that India’s response will be calibrated to signal resolve without triggering a full-scale conflict, though the scale of the Pahalgam attack may push New Delhi toward a more aggressive posture.

In conclusion, the Pahalgam attack represents a tragic escalation in the cycle of violence in Kashmir, with far-reaching consequences for India-Pakistan relations. Max Abrahms’ analysis, grounded in rigorous political science research, offers a sobering prediction: India’s response will be forceful, driven by the civilian nature of the attack and the need to deter future atrocities. As the world watches, the coming days will test India’s strategic calculus and the fragile stability of South Asia.

Taha, a vocal critic of the Iranian regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, said the world is repeating the same mistakes that allowed Osama bin Laden to rise unchecked—this time, in places like Sudan and Gaza.

“The Houthis are now training members of Hamas and jihadists in Sudan to use drones,” Taha revealed. “They have access to Iranian drone technology, and it’s only a matter of time before they choose to strike—maybe tomorrow, maybe years from now. But it’s dangerous if we don’t deal with it.”

His comments come amid heightened concerns over drone warfare being deployed by non-state actors across the Middle East and Africa, as Iran continues to export advanced weaponry and ideological influence through its proxy networks.

A Growing Danger in Sudan

Taha expressed particular concern over Sudan, where, according to his claims, militant groups are preparing for larger-scale attacks using drone capabilities gained through Houthi and Iranian training programs.

“We are just waiting for another Bin Laden to grow in Sudan—to carry out another 9/11,” he warned. “And that’s exactly what’s happening. The world is waiting again.”

The political scientist criticized the international community, particularly Western nations, for ignoring early warnings and failing to act decisively against groups operating under religious or humanitarian cover.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the West

Taha also highlighted the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, calling them the “ideological engine” behind many extremist movements. He applauded the UAE and other Gulf nations for formally banning the group and classifying it as a terrorist organization.

“Countries like mine, the UAE, have banned the Muslim Brotherhood and spoken clearly to the West about the dangers they pose,” he said. “But unfortunately, many of these extremists now operate freely in the West—masquerading as activists, lawyers, or human rights defenders.”

In a controversial segment, Taha referred to specific cases in the United Kingdom, where individuals with extremist ties allegedly defended criminals, including those involved in sexual abuse cases, under the guise of political or religious victimhood.

“When people speak out against these crimes, they’re called Islamophobic,” he said. “That is not Islam. Rape, terrorism, and criminal acts do not represent Islam or any religion.”

He stressed the need for freedom of speech to be protected when addressing such issues, warning against censorship disguised as tolerance.

“British citizens have every right to criticize these radicals. That is not Islamophobia; that is truth. But they [extremists] use the label to silence dissent.”

A Call to Action

Taha’s remarks also took aim at figures like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other leaders whom he accused of using religion as a political weapon, while maintaining ties with Brotherhood-affiliated networks.

He drew parallels between the situations in Gaza, Sudan, Turkey, and even India, warning that the ideological infrastructure underpinning jihadist movements is transnational, and that failure to counter it now could have catastrophic consequences later.

“Whether it’s my brother in the UAE or a citizen in India, we face the same threat. Letting this ideology grow unchecked puts all of us at risk.

Nonetheless, his message is clear: ignore the warning signs now, and pay a much higher price later.

Today’s jihadists wear suits, engage in public discourse, and wield influence through political parties and media platforms.

In the years following 9/11, American counterterrorism strategies focused almost exclusively on dismantling terrorist networks like al-Qaeda and ISIS. While this approach successfully eliminated key leaders and disrupted cells, it largely ignored a deeper and more enduring threat: the ideological infrastructure that breeds and sustains extremism.

Ahmed Charai, a respected voice in global security and the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, argues that this oversight has left the world vulnerable to a new wave of jihadist violence, anchored in the transnational Islamist movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Charai, who also serves on the boards of the Atlantic Council, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the United States Institute of Peace, emphasizes that while battlefield victories may eliminate terrorists, ideological indoctrination continues to spawn new recruits.

He writes, “While America has long focused on defeating terrorist networks like al-Qaeda and ISIS, it has largely overlooked the ideological infrastructure that gave birth to them. At the heart of that ecosystem lies the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Global Reach

Founded in Egypt in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood was initially a socio-religious reform movement. However, over the decades, it evolved into a political force that inspired some of the world’s most dangerous extremist groups, including al-Qaeda and Hamas.

Charai points out that “the Muslim Brotherhood and its ideological allies no longer operate in the shadows.” Instead, they have become emboldened, leveraging democratic platforms to glorify terrorism, coordinate with adversaries like Iran, and spread extremist ideologies under the guise of civil society activism.

The October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre in Israel—marked by mass killings, sexual violence, and the kidnapping of civilians including Americans—was a shocking reminder of the Brotherhood’s continuing threat. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the aftermath of that attack, Brotherhood-affiliated parties across North Africa and the Middle East openly praised the violence.

This was not just political posturing—it was, as Charai notes, “ideological solidarity with terror.”

Ideological Convergence of Islamist Extremists

One of the most alarming trends Charai highlights is the growing cooperation between Sunni and Shia Islamist groups, despite their theological differences.

He writes, “Islamist actors like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Muslim Brotherhood have converged strategically. They share logistics, messaging, and battlefield objectives.”

These alliances, often coordinated through Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), are united by a singular aim: the erosion of American influence in the Middle East and the imposition of authoritarian religious rule.

This strategic alignment has consequences beyond the battlefield. According to Charai, “advocacy networks, political parties, mosques, and media platforms” in the West echo the same extremist narratives. These platforms champion “resistance to the West,” “rejection of Israel,” and a worldview that opposes liberal democracy. The challenge is not merely foreign—it’s increasingly domestic.

Exporting Extremism to the West

Charai draws attention to the worrying rise of Islamist influence in Western societies, especially in the United States.

Citing the surge in pro-Hamas demonstrations and antisemitic rhetoric on American campuses, he warns that many of these movements are shaped by narratives “promoted by Brotherhood-linked groups operating in the US.” These organizations often disguise themselves as civil rights advocates, enjoying nonprofit status and constitutional protections while promoting divisive and extremist ideologies.

This duality—exploiting democratic freedoms while opposing democratic values—is at the heart of Charai’s warning. As he starkly puts it, “Islamist movements do not seek to participate in liberal democracies—they seek to exploit them until they can replace them.” In other words, these movements are not interested in pluralism or dialogue; their endgame is dominance.

A Policy Roadmap for the United States

So, what can be done? Charai offers a four-pronged strategy that, if implemented, could significantly curb the spread of Islamist extremism in the United States and abroad.

1. Designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO):
Charai argues this would enable the U.S. government to freeze assets, impose travel bans, and prosecute individuals providing material support. Although past administrations considered this move, they were deterred by bureaucratic inertia. But as Charai insists, “The facts today make inaction indefensible.”

2. Target Domestic Front Groups:
Many Brotherhood-linked organizations in the U.S. are connected to foreign donors and governments. Charai calls for legal and financial scrutiny of these groups. If American institutions are inadvertently facilitating extremism, “they must be held accountable.”

3. Impose Travel Bans on Islamist Leaders and Families:
Those who glorify terrorism should not benefit from the freedoms of the societies they seek to undermine. Charai advocates barring these individuals from entering or doing business in the U.S., emphasizing that this would send a clear message: “Praising terrorism disqualifies you from enjoying the privileges of the West.”

4. Pressure Allies to Crack Down on Extremist Political Parties:
The U.S. should use diplomatic and economic leverage to encourage partner governments to reform laws that allow extremist parties to dominate political discourse. This means holding allies accountable when Brotherhood-affiliated parties engage in hate speech, glorify terrorism, or suppress dissent.

The Stakes Are High

Charai’s message is urgent and uncompromising: “Islamist extremism does not remain in rhetoric—it translates into action. And when those actions result in the deaths of Americans, silence is not an option.” The threats are not theoretical; they are real, organized, and growing. The failure to respond now will lead to deeper polarization at home and greater instability abroad.

We are no longer dealing with militants hiding in caves. Today’s jihadists wear suits, engage in public discourse, and wield influence through political parties and media platforms. This is what Charai calls the “new phase” of the war on terror—one that must be fought not just on the battlefield, but in courtrooms, campuses, parliaments, and civil society.

Ahmed Charai’s analysis is a wake-up call for policymakers, civil society leaders, and citizens alike. The ideological war against Islamist extremism requires more than surveillance and drone strikes. It demands intellectual clarity, legal action, and political will. As Charai powerfully concludes, “The time for complacency is over. The time to act is now.”

In a world where extremist ideologies are increasingly cloaked in the language of rights and representation, the challenge is not just to oppose terror—but to expose the ideas that justify it. Only then can we build a more secure, resilient, and truly free society.

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.