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.

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.

We are ancient nations, young and proud… We are peaceful nations… but we are not going to hesitate from gaining what we need through solidarity

On Saturday, Chitresh Kapoor and India’s Geopolitical Analyst Vaibhav Singh hosted Israel’s Ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, on the podcast Defensive Offense.

Since assuming his role in August 2024, Ambassador Azar has been a key figure in fostering the growing partnership between two of the world’s oldest civilizations—India’s Sanatan Dharma and the Jewish people.

Their dialogue explored the historical and strategic ties between the nations, the evolving threats posed by radical forces like Hamas and Iran, and the potential for deeper collaboration in the decades ahead.

A Shared Civilizational Resilience

The conversation began with a reflection on the deep historical connection between India and Israel, which Ambassador Azar described as a “civilizational connect.” Both nations, he noted, have endured invasions and foreign domination over millennia, yet preserved their cultural identities through resilience and memory.

“Unlike many old civilizations that vanished under the pressure of invasions, we stayed, we prevailed,” Azar remarked, attributing this survival to cultural perseverance rather than continuous sovereignty. For the Jewish people, landless for nearly 2,000 years, this meant developing “techniques of memory,” a theme he promised to elaborate on later but left tantalizingly unexplored in the podcast.

Official diplomatic relations between India and Israel began in 1992, yet their partnership predates this milestone. Azar highlighted how the relationship started “quietly and almost clandestinely,” rooted in mutual security challenges.

“We could help each other,” he said, emphasizing that trust, forged through defense cooperation, became the bedrock of their strategic alliance. This trust has since expanded into agriculture, water management, and high-tech sectors, with India boldly adopting Israeli technologies under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership.

One standout example is the agricultural partnership. Indian companies, such as Jain Irrigation’s acquisition of Israeli firm NaanDanJain, have collaborated with Israel to establish 32 Centers of Excellence across India. These centers provide subsidized seedlings, enhancing crop yields and food security—a testament to how Israeli innovation complements India’s scale.

Azar also pointed to emerging areas like water management, critical given India’s resource challenges, and the potential for joint research and development (R&D) in infrastructure and technology.

Geopolitical Shifts: Trump, Trade, and Trilateral Ties

The discussion took a timely turn toward global economic shifts, particularly with the recent U.S. administration change under President Donald Trump. Azar noted that both India and Israel have navigated relations with the Trump administration effectively, despite new trade tariffs announced just days before the podcast.

With India facing a 17% tariff and Israel 26%—compared to 54% for China and around 50% for Cambodia and Vietnam—both nations stand to gain as production shifts away from heavily taxed countries. “Textiles, the most flexible industry, could move to India within days,” Azar predicted, foreseeing a boost to India’s economy even before a potential U.S.-India trade deal.

This economic realignment underscores a trilateral dynamic among India, Israel, and the U.S. “Our relationship is not only bilateral but bears strategic significance trilaterally,” Azar said, urging a pragmatic rather than confrontational approach to such shifts.

For India, rising as a global economic power, and Israel, a technological innovator, this partnership could reshape supply chains and regional influence.

The Middle East: Hamas, Iran, and a New Alignment

The podcast pivoted to the Middle East, where Israel faces persistent threats from radical groups like Hamas and state actors like Iran.

Singh referenced former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s poignant statement: “We can forgive them for killing our children, but we cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill theirs.” He asked whether, decades later, anti-Semitism and hatred toward Israel have diminished.

Azar’s response was sobering: the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, with its brutal atrocities, marked the worst violence against Jews since the Holocaust. Yet, he argued, the nature of the conflict has evolved.

Historically, Israel battled pan-Arab nationalism, a secular movement that sought to eliminate the Jewish state as a colonial outpost—a narrative Azar dismissed, asserting, “Jews belong to Judea.” After five wars, this ideology waned, with Egypt’s peace treaty under Anwar Sadat marking a turning point. However, Sadat’s 1981 assassination by Islamists (Khalid Islamboli) signaled the rise of a new threat: pan-Islamic radicalism. Azar traced this shift through the Arab Spring of 2010, which, despite initial hopes for democracy, empowered radical forces like Iran and its proxies.

Today, he explained, the Middle East hosts two deeper conflicts: the Shiite-Sunni divide and the struggle between radicals and pragmatists.

Israel, he argued, is a “token” exploited by radicals to destabilize the region, with Iran’s ultimate aim not Jerusalem but Mecca and Medina. Within this context, Hamas’s attack and Israel’s retaliation did not unravel ties with Arab states, unlike past conflicts. “No Arab country has disconnected diplomatic relations,” Azar noted, citing the Abraham Accords and joint defense efforts against Iran’s April 2024 ballistic missile barrage as evidence of a new alignment.

Singh pressed further, asking why Saudi Arabia is often implicated in Israel-related conflicts. Azar pointed to the Shiite-Sunni rift, with Iran leveraging propaganda to undermine Saudi pragmatism.

He recalled the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which both Israel and Saudi Arabia opposed, as a moment of crystallized common interest. While hesitant to predict Saudi recognition of Israel, he suggested it hinges on mutual benefit and timing. He said it while quoting King Solomon—“Everything has a time under the sun”—there is time for war and time for peace.

Aspirations for Indo-Israel Ties: Beyond Defense

Returning to bilateral ties, Kapoor asked about the future as the 30-year-old relationship approaches its 50th anniversary in 2042. Beyond defense—where Israel supplies equipment like drones and missile systems—Azar envisioned a partnership transcending trade.

“Our relationship is much more than transactions,” he said, rooted in shared heritage, trust, and India’s steadfast support during Israel’s recent war. This solidarity has spurred Israeli interest, with monthly ministerial visits and university collaborations on R&D.

Tourism emerged as another frontier. Kapoor noted that Israelis frequent Goa, Hampi, Manali, and Ladakh while Indian tourists to Israel, mainly from Kerala, visit for religious reasons. 

Azar highlighted Israel’s high GDP per capita ($55,000) and travel habits—20 million tourism packages annually for a 10-million-strong population—suggesting untapped potential as India’s per capita income rises. By 2050, with India projected at $10,000 per capita, he foresaw “hundreds of millions” of Indian travelers exploring the world, including Israel.

Kapoor proposed defense exchange programs for veterans, given both nations’ conflict histories. Azar welcomed the idea, noting Israel’s view of India as a safe haven and the potential for educational and cultural exchanges to deepen people-to-people ties.

Radicalism and Propaganda: A Global Challenge

The conversation darkened as Singh raised Iran’s role in terrorism, from historical invasions of India to modern proxy wars.

Azar praised Israel’s contributions—drip irrigation, desalination, and tech innovation—contrasting them with Iran’s export of ballistic missiles and drones to groups like the Houthis and Hezbollah. He warned of Iran’s infiltration of Western institutions, using media and academia to portray itself as a victim while perpetrating terrorism.

Singh echoed this, citing the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing influence in India via scholars trained abroad. Azar cautioned vigilance, citing the UAE’s successful deradicalization of its education system as a model. He acknowledged Israel’s own Muslim Brotherhood party, noting its varied nature, but stressed the broader threat of radicals exploiting democratic freedoms.

Netanyahu’s Popularity and Leadership

Singh concluded by noting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unrivaled popularity in India, evident in record-breaking TV ratings during his visits. Azar attributed this to shared national pride and leadership.

“We are ancient nations, young and proud… We are peaceful nations… but we are not going to hesitate from gaining what we need through solidarity”, he said, likening Netanyahu and Modi as proactive leaders who defy apology.

The Abraham Accords, he argued, stemmed from Netanyahu’s strategy of strength—economic, military, and diplomatic—shifting regional dynamics.

Addressing the Gaza conflict, Singh questioned the high civilian toll reported after October 7. Azar defended Israel’s actions, arguing Hamas’s tactics—operating from hospitals and disguising terrorists as civilians—forced a tragic response. He challenged inflated casualty figures, suggesting half were terrorists, and compared Israel’s urban warfare record favorably to historical precedents, despite biased narratives from outlets like Al Jazeera and the UN.

A Partnership for the Future

The podcast underscored a relationship built on trust, resilience, and mutual interest, poised to grow as both nations rise. From countering radicalism to fostering innovation and tourism, India and Israel share a vision that transcends geopolitics—a civilizational bond ready to shape the 21st century.