Iran vs Israel

 

Why Are Iran and Israel Enemies?

Iran and Israel, once allies, have become fierce adversaries, particularly since Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian consulates in Syria and Iran’s counterattacks with drones and missiles exemplify this ongoing rivalry, which has intensified over recent decades. Iran openly expresses its desire to erase Israel from the map, while Israel considers Iran its greatest adversary.

A Historical Shift

Before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel and Iran shared a cooperative alliance. Iran was one of the first nations to recognize Israel in 1948, viewing Israel as a counterbalance against Arab nations. In exchange for oil, Israel provided Iran with technical expertise, training Iranian agricultural specialists and supporting its armed forces.

Changing Relations After 1979

The 1979 revolution marked a turning point, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his religious regime dissolved previous treaties with Israel. Iran began vocally opposing Israel’s control over Palestinian territories, with its increasingly severe rhetoric aimed at gaining support from regional Arab populations and expanding its own influence.

When Israel intervened in Lebanon’s civil conflict in 1982, Khomeini sent the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to Beirut to back local Shia militias. The Hezbollah militia, which grew from this support, is now a key Iranian proxy in Lebanon.

Present-Day Relations

Iran's current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continues the anti-Israel stance, frequently questioning the Holocaust’s narrative and opposing any form of compromise with Israel.

• Is the war between Iran and Israel a war of religion and ideology or is it a struggle for dominance in the region?

The complex relationship between Iran and Israel encompasses a blend of religious, ideological, and geopolitical factors, though many analysts view the conflict as fundamentally rooted in a struggle for regional dominance with religion as a powerful but secondary component.

1. Ideological and Religious Dimensions

• Religious Rhetoric: The animosity includes religious undertones, particularly from Iran's leadership, which often frames Israel as an “illegitimate Zionist entity.” This aligns with Iran's role as a Shia Muslim theocracy, positioning itself against Israel, which it portrays as a Western-backed, secular state in the heart of the Islamic Middle East​.
• Ideological Rivalry: Iran’s revolutionary ideology, which opposes Western influence and promotes a model of Islamic governance, is fundamentally at odds with Israel's democratic system and its alliances with the West, particularly the United States​.

2. Geopolitical and Strategic Motivations

• Regional Dominance: Both nations are vying for influence in the Middle East. Iran has expanded its presence in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen through proxy groups like Hezbollah, which is a key part of its “Axis of Resistance” against Israel. Israel, in turn, seeks to curb Iranian influence by countering these proxies and limiting Iran’s reach, particularly near its own borders​.
• Nuclear Ambitions: Iran’s nuclear program adds another layer, as Israel perceives a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat. Israel’s preventive measures against this—such as alleged cyber attacks and airstrikes on Iranian assets—reflect a strategic attempt to maintain military superiority in the region​.

3. National Security and Existential Threats

• Mutual Perception as a Threat: Both states view each other as significant threats to their national security. Iran views Israel’s alliance with Western powers, particularly the United States, as a containment strategy aimed at Iran’s isolation. Conversely, Israel sees Iran's support for anti-Israel groups and its military expansion as efforts to encircle and threaten Israel​.

While religion and ideology amplify the tension, the core of the Iran-Israel conflict lies in regional dominance and security concerns. Iran’s support for armed groups in opposition to Israel and its nuclear ambitions challenge Israel’s position, while Israel actively works to counterbalance Iran’s influence. Thus, though religious rhetoric is evident, this rivalry is driven largely by geopolitical strategies and power struggles.

 

Debates Within Iran

Not all Iranians support the government’s antagonistic approach toward Israel. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, suggested in a 2021 interview that Iran reconsider its relationship with Israel, highlighting that alliances with Russia and China overlook the treatment of Muslims in Chechnya and Xinjiang.

There are still more than 20,000 Jewish residents living in Iran

Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at Tehran University, criticized Iran’s policy on Israel, stating it isolates the country on the international stage.

• Do the Iranian people want war or is this a strategy of the ruling Iranian political party to hold on to power?

The general sentiment among the Iranian people tends to be against war, particularly with Israel or the West. Many Iranians prioritize economic stability, improved living standards, and greater social freedoms, rather than conflict. Polls and studies, while sometimes limited in scope due to restrictions within Iran, indicate that a significant portion of the population seeks reform and wishes for normalized relations with other nations, including the West and neighboring countries, rather than confrontational policies​.

Strategy of the Iranian Political Leadership

Iran’s ruling authorities, particularly hardline factions within the government, use anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric strategically. This approach serves multiple purposes:

• Maintaining Unity and Control: By emphasizing external threats, Iranian leaders are able to promote a narrative of national solidarity against foreign "enemies," which can help divert attention from domestic issues such as inflation, unemployment, and political repression.
• Legitimizing Their Rule: Iran’s Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard Corps often portray themselves as protectors of Islamic and Iranian values against Western influence, justifying their power and strict policies as necessary for national security.

Public Sentiment vs. Government Stance

The Iranian public's views frequently contrast with those of their government. For example, during major protests, such as those in 2009 (the Green Movement) and 2019 (economic protests), many Iranians voiced dissatisfaction with their government’s foreign policies, especially its involvement in regional conflicts like those in Syria and Yemen. Economic hardships stemming from sanctions and the government’s military expenditures abroad have also fueled domestic discontent​.

The Iranian government’s stance on regional conflicts and its anti-Israel rhetoric are more likely strategies to consolidate internal control and assert regional influence. Meanwhile, the Iranian populace generally favors peace and economic reform over war. This divide highlights the complexity of Iran's internal politics, where the government’s foreign policy often does not reflect popular opinion.

 

Power Dynamics

Though Iran possesses a vast missile arsenal, including the Shihab series and Zolfaghar missiles, Israel’s advanced technology, missile systems, and defense capabilities (such as the Iron Dome) offer it a robust defense against missile and drone threats.

In terms of conventional military forces, Israel’s technological superiority in air and missile defense surpasses Iran’s, despite Iran's greater population and larger standing army.

The rivalry also extends into cyber warfare, where Israel’s sophisticated digital infrastructure makes it vulnerable to Iran’s increasing cyber capabilities. However, Iran’s defense systems remain less advanced, making its own networks susceptible to counterattacks.

This complex, decades-long enmity continues to shape regional alliances and tensions across the Middle East.

Who Holds More Military Power: Iran or Israel?

The military power dynamics between Iran and Israel are complex, influenced by distance, technological capabilities, and differing defense strategies. Despite the 2,152-kilometer gap, Iran has demonstrated the reach of its missiles, proving significant progress in its missile program.

Iran is home to the Middle East’s largest and most diverse missile program, reportedly possessing over 3,000 ballistic missiles, according to U.S. Central Command’s General Kenneth McKenzie in 2022. On the other hand, Israel’s missile capabilities remain less public, though it is widely recognized as having the most advanced missile stockpile in the region. Over the last six decades, Israel has developed missiles, both domestically and through collaboration with allies, notably the United States, and even exports them. Notable missiles in Israel’s arsenal include the Delilah, Gabriel, Jericho series, and Popeye, among others. Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system, however, stands as a unique asset, effectively intercepting a range of incoming threats, including rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to Israeli missile defense engineer Uzi Rubin, the Iron Dome is unmatched worldwide, serving as a reliable short-range defense system. Conversely, Iran, a larger nation by both land and population, presents its own advantages. However, comparing these factors alone doesn't directly translate to greater military power. Israel allocates substantial funds to its defense budget—nearly $24 billion compared to Iran's $10 billion—enhancing its technological and defensive superiority.

While Iran has approximately 610,000 active military personnel, significantly more than Israel's 170,000, Israel excels in advanced technology and air force capabilities, boasting 241 fighter jets and 48 attack helicopters compared to Iran's 186 jets and 13 helicopters. Iran has focused heavily on missile and drone capabilities, producing both short- and long-range options. These have occasionally appeared in regional conflicts, including missile strikes attributed to Iranian support in Yemen.

Key missiles in Iran's inventory include the Shihab series, capable of up to 2,000 kilometers, and the Zolfaghar, which can target at ranges up to 700 kilometers. Recently, Iran added the Fateh-110 hypersonic missile with a range of 300-500 kilometers, marking advancements in its missile technology. Yet, while Iran has launched hundreds of missiles, Israel’s history of guerrilla operations on foreign soil showcases a tactical edge.

In terms of cyber warfare, both nations engage heavily, though Israel’s advanced digital infrastructure presents vulnerabilities against Iran's cyber capabilities, balancing the technological disparities with cyber strategies. This sophisticated and multifaceted rivalry between Iran and Israel thus spans missile technology, military budgets, and the shadowy domain of cyber defense, shaping their regional standoff.

 

Iran versus Pakistan, Economic, Local and Military Review

Iran vs. Pakistan: An Examination of Tensions

Historical Background of the Border Dispute

The 900-kilometer border between Pakistan and Iran, known as the Goldsmith Line, was demarcated by Goldsmith in 1871. Along this border live Baloch tribes who do not recognize the boundary, carrying out insurgent activities in both countries. On the Iranian side, a Sunni Baloch minority resides, feeling marginalized by the central government, which they accuse of religious discrimination. The U.S. Counterterrorism Agency notes that groups like Jaish al-Adl advocate for these Baloch rights, further straining relations.

Before the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran and Pakistan were both aligned with the Western bloc. In the 1970s, Iran’s Shah even assisted Pakistan in curbing separatist activities in Balochistan. However, after the revolution, Iran became adversarial to the West, while Pakistan remained aligned with it. Although both countries opposed the Soviet Union during the Afghan jihad, Iran supported the Northern Alliance (predominantly Shiite Hazara) while Pakistan backed the Mujahideen.

Military Capabilities and Economic Strengths

According to the Global Fire Index, Pakistan ranks 9th in military strength while Iran ranks 14th. However, neighboring conflicts are rarely won through military prowess alone. Factors like economic stability, natural resources, technological dependency, strategic location, religious identity, ethnic diversity, and population dynamics also play a crucial role.

Geographically, Iran is twice as large as Pakistan, yet Pakistan has triple the population. Economically, Iran holds an advantage with a robust oil and gas reserve (the world’s second-largest natural gas and third-largest oil reserves), while Pakistan relies heavily on imported oil, spending around $17 billion annually. Iran’s export and import revenues are $107 billion and $54 billion, respectively, allowing for financial independence, whereas Pakistan’s trade deficit and external debt create ongoing dependency on international aid from the IMF, the U.S., and Gulf states.

Iran’s identity is rooted in religious zeal and ancient pride. Its 3,200-year-old history saw it as a superpower, rivaling ancient Greece. Notably, Cyrus the Great (550 BCE) and Darius I (who ruled after seizing power in 522 BCE) led Persia as the world’s largest empire, until Alexander the Great defeated King Darius III in 323 BCE.

Iran's Religious Transformation and Influence

Iran’s religious identity evolved significantly over centuries. Before Islam, it was the birthplace of Zoroastrianism, a state religion from the 15th to the 10th century BCE. Following the arrival of Islam, Khalid ibn al-Walid’s victory over the Persian province of Mesopotamia in 633 CE marked the beginning of Islamic influence. In 636 CE, Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas achieved a decisive victory at the Battle of Qadisiyyah, and by 642, under Caliph Umar’s orders, Muslim forces gradually gained control of Persia.

Currently, 99% of Iran’s population is Muslim, with around 90% identifying as Shia and 9% as Sunni. Iran’s shift to Shiism occurred in the 16th century when Shah Ismail I of the Safavid dynasty enforced Shia Islam, giving Sunnis the ultimatum to convert or face death. His actions led to conflicts with the Ottoman Empire and established a strong Shia identity in Iran.

Modern Iran as a Religious State

The 1979 Islamic Revolution marked Iran’s emergence as a theocratic state. Iran has since engaged in regional ideological influence, including an eight-year war with Iraq. Despite facing Western and Arab support for Iraq, Iran emerged resilient. In contrast, Pakistan, with its Sunni majority (85-90%) and Shia minority (10-15%), experiences sectarian divides, with frequent religious and political tensions. Globally, Pakistan has the second-largest Shia population after Iran, and sectarian violence, notably in the 1990s, highlighted the internal challenges intensified by Iran’s growing influence.

Ethnic Composition in Iran and Pakistan

Iran’s population is composed of various ethnic groups: Persian speakers make up 60-65%, Azeris 15-17%, Kurds 7-10%, Baloch 2%, and Turks 1%. Pakistan, although Punjabi-majority, has an ethnically diverse landscape, creating additional challenges in maintaining national unity.

Current Tensions at the Border

The Baloch region spans both Pakistan (Balochistan) and Iran (Sistan), leading to cross-border accusations. Iran alleges attacks from Pakistani territory, and Pakistan holds similar views. Recently, Iran conducted operations within Pakistani territory, prompting Pakistan to retaliate. Without diplomatic intervention, these events risk escalating into sustained cross-border hostilities, which neither country desires.

Iran's Broader Ambitions

Iran’s recent regional confrontations—such as strikes on Iraq and Syria—raise questions. Some speculate that domestic pressures to support Gaza amidst the Israel conflict have contributed to Iran’s aggression. Additionally, Iran faces strained relations with the U.S. under Biden, who recently issued a warning of potential conflict. The timing of Iran’s actions against Pakistan appears puzzling, suggesting either a miscalculated step or an overreach influenced by internal or regional pressures.

Global Implications

Iran’s support for the Houthi rebels, who target ships in the Red Sea, poses risks to one of the world’s key maritime routes. This path is crucial for trade between East and West, connecting through the Suez Canal. If blocked, ships would need to detour around South Africa, increasing transport time, insurance costs, and, consequently, the price of goods globally.

With inflation already heightened by the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, this instability could further strain economies worldwide. Countries like Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, China, and Japan are particularly keen to avoid further disruptions. The U.S. and the UK have deployed a multinational task force in the Red Sea, reinforcing their naval presence. Western powers, including Israel, could leverage Iran’s unprovoked attack on Pakistan to shift public opinion against Iran, potentially setting the stage for action against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Pakistan's Stance

While Pakistan is reluctant to worsen ties with Iran, ignoring such an incursion could invite further attacks. Unlike Syria, Yemen, or Iraq, Pakistan has previously demonstrated resilience against similar challenges from India, making a strong response likely.

As of recent reports, Pakistan has conducted retaliatory strikes against anti-state elements in Iran’s Sistan region. In military strength, Pakistan remains better positioned than Iran, though it has no desire for prolonged conflict. Diplomacy remains the most viable solution, as an armed escalation would only fuel tensions and external interventions, risking a broader regional conflict.

Loudspeaker: A Religious Test Case

How the Loudspeaker Became Permissible: An Examination of Its Religious Acceptance

The journey of the loudspeaker from being considered haram (forbidden) to halal (permissible) within certain religious communities, particularly in Pakistan and India, highlights the complex interplay between technological advancements and religious interpretations. This article investigates the initial resistance to the loudspeaker by religious scholars and its eventual acceptance as a critical tool in the dissemination of religious teachings, using historical developments and key scholarly decisions.

 

Any Noise disturb you! and any disturbance can harm you

 

The Early Use of Loudspeakers and Their Perception

The loudspeaker was first used for public speeches by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson after World War I. This innovation in sound amplification was initially viewed with skepticism, as any form of noise was considered a disturbance, potentially harmful to individuals and society. This early mistrust reflected broader concerns about the intrusion of modern technology into traditional lifestyles.

A Brief Timeline of Loudspeaker Development:

• 1861: Johann Philipp Reis installs a speaker that could produce clear tones on his telephone, although the sound remained faint.
• 1876: Alexander Graham Bell receives the first patent for a loudspeaker capable of producing intelligible speech.
• 1877: Werner von Siemens builds an electromagnetic coil-based speaker from Bell's design, but it fails.
• 1877: Thomas Edison patents a system for amplifying sound in the early phonograph using compressed air and horns to enhance volume.
• 1898: Horace Short patents a compressed air loudspeaker, producing better sound than previous designs.
• 1898: Oliver Lodge creates the first experimental moving-coil loudspeaker.
• 1915: Peter L. Jensen and Edwin Pridham design the first practical moving-coil loudspeaker.
• 1924: Chester W. Rice (General Electric) and Edward W. Kellogg (AT&T) patent moving-coil technology, using permanent magnets and induction to move a diaphragm and produce sound waves.
• 1924: The Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company introduces the first all-electric home phonograph equipped with a dynamic loudspeaker.
• 1924: Walter H. Schottky and Dr. Erwin Gerlach invent the ribbon loudspeaker using diodes.
• 1930s: Ribbon loudspeakers are improved by adding drivers for better amplification.
• 1937: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) introduces the Shearer Horn system, using dual compression drivers to produce high-frequency sound.
• 1943: Altec Lansing invents duplex drivers and introduces the famous "Voice of the Theatre" 604 speakers.

Reception of the Loudspeaker in India and Religious Opposition

When the loudspeaker reached India, it faced immediate resistance, as many religious scholars were unaccustomed to modern innovations. The prominent Islamic scholar, Maulana Ashraf Thanvi, initially declared the loudspeaker haram. His rationale was rooted in the notion that the loudspeaker, much like the gramophone, was associated with entertainment and could potentially lead to morally questionable uses.

However, the utility of the loudspeaker, particularly in disseminating religious sermons to larger audiences, began to garner attention. For instance, voices transmitted through loudspeakers could reach thousands of people over long distances, making it an effective tool for religious leaders. The matter was eventually brought to the attention of Nandan Lal, a science teacher who challenged the opposition from religious scholars by highlighting the practical benefits of the technology.

Before the loudspeaker, the telephone had already been declared permissible (halal) by scholars, while the gramophone was considered haram. The loudspeaker’s introduction sparked a similar controversy, as it was initially seen as a device akin to the gramophone. This perception led to widespread debate and the loudspeaker's entry into what can be described as a "trial period" in Indian religious discourse.

The Arrival of Radio and Amplified Religious Skepticism

The arrival of the radio in India compounded the tension surrounding the loudspeaker. Many religious leaders, including Maulana Thanvi, were ready to condemn it as well. A fatwa was issued, stating that listening to music on the radio was haram, and by extension, using the radio for religious content was also forbidden if the same device was used for music. This reasoning reflected the deep suspicion of any device that could transmit entertainment, fearing it would corrupt religious purity.

In contemporary terms, this reaction mirrors the ongoing debate about digital platforms like YouTube, where scholars argue that the same platform used to broadcast religious content also hosts content deemed inappropriate by traditional standards. Maulana’s fatwa at the time could be compared to a modern-day ruling against platforms that promote both sacred and secular content.

Shifting Perspectives: Letters to Radio Pakistan

As reports of loudspeaker use in mosques across the Arab world began to reach India, the opposition among the religious community started to soften. Religious scholars wrote to Radio Pakistan, seeking guidance on whether the loudspeaker could be considered permissible in Islamic practice. In response, the experts at Radio Pakistan clarified that the loudspeaker merely amplified the human voice without altering its substance. This distinction played a crucial role in changing the narrative.

By 1951, the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes was officially declared halal. The scholarly consensus emerged that amplifying the call to prayer (adhan) and sermons was not only permissible but a valuable tool for reaching larger congregations.

The "Great Voice" of the Magnavox Loudspeaker: A Simplified Overview

When discussing the history of loudspeakers, one key figure is Peter L. Jensen, born in Denmark in 1886. Jensen began his career as an apprentice to a Danish engineer named Valdemar Poulsen, and after several years of working together, Poulsen sent Jensen to the United States in 1909 to help develop the Poulsen Wireless Telephone and Telegraph Company.

The Beginnings of Magnavox

In the U.S., Jensen met Edwin S. Pridham, an electrical engineer. Together, in 1911, they set up a small research lab where they experimented with Poulsen’s radio transmitter. They made some changes to the transmitter by using thicker wires and adding a copper coil between the magnets. However, these adjustments did not capture much attention.

Eventually, they added a gooseneck horn from an Edison phonograph to the device. This modification led to the invention of the first practical moving-coil loudspeaker, which they named Magnavox (meaning "great voice" in Latin). Although earlier versions of loudspeakers existed, this was the first that worked well enough to be used in real-life situations. Jensen and Pridham intended to sell the Magnavox as a public address (PA) system.

First Public Demonstration

On December 10, 1915, Jensen and Pridham conducted the first public demonstration of their loudspeaker at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Afterward, they held another event outside San Francisco City Hall, playing music and broadcasting a speech by California Governor Hiram Johnson. These demonstrations marked the loudspeaker’s initial success.

By 1919, the Magnavox loudspeaker gained national attention when it was used during a speech by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. Pridham helped set up the system, and Jensen stayed near Wilson to ensure everything worked smoothly. The loudspeaker allowed Wilson’s voice to be heard up to a mile away, proving its effectiveness.

The Growth of Loudspeaker Use

By the 1920s, loudspeakers had become widely popular, being used in radios, phonographs, and theater sound systems. Today, they are found in various places, such as cars, hearing aids, concert halls, and theaters.

While the basic design of the loudspeaker has remained the same, improvements in materials and shapes have made them more efficient and reliable. These changes have enhanced sound quality and expanded the use of loudspeakers in modern technology. For example, researchers from Ultrahaptics and the Universities of Bristol and Sussex used sound waves from loudspeakers to create the world’s first sonic tractor beam, which can lift and move small objects. This technology could revolutionize medical procedures by enabling the movement of microsurgical instruments inside living tissue without direct contact.

Improving Loudspeaker Technology Through Simulation

For loudspeakers to provide clear and loud sound in large areas like shopping malls and offices, high sound quality is essential. Today, we can use computer simulations to improve loudspeaker designs. Instead of building and testing many physical models, engineers can now test designs in a virtual environment. For example, Riccardo Balistreri at QSC Audio Products used simulations to improve the design of PA loudspeakers, allowing for more efficient testing and faster improvements.

New Approaches to Loudspeaker Design

While the basic mechanism behind loudspeakers hasn’t changed much, advances in digital technology mean that improvements may soon be necessary. Researchers used COMSOL Multiphysics (a powerful simulation software) to test a new electrostatic membrane design. They created arrays of membranes that can reproduce the sound created by an acoustic transducer (a key part of a loudspeaker). This research shows how simulations can help develop new loudspeaker designs to meet the growing needs of modern technology.

 

Modern Challenges and the Proliferation of Loudspeakers

Today, loudspeakers are a common feature of mosques across Pakistan and India. However, their widespread use has introduced new challenges. In densely populated neighbourhoods with multiple mosques, it is not uncommon for several loudspeakers to operate simultaneously, causing confusion about which sermon or call to prayer to follow. This has created a communal dilemma that reflects broader issues of urban living and technological management.

Interestingly, the introduction of foreign technologies, developed by Western inventors such as Bell, Siemens, and Edison, has brought unforeseen consequences to societies that maintain a delicate balance between tradition and modernity. While these inventions were designed to enhance communication, they often sparked debates and resistance within religious and cultural frameworks, as seen in the case of the loudspeaker.

 

The journey of the loudspeaker from being condemned as haram to becoming an integral tool in religious practices highlights the tension between tradition and technological innovation. Initially viewed with suspicion due to its perceived association with forbidden forms of entertainment, the loudspeaker gradually gained acceptance as its utility for religious purposes became undeniable. This case underscores the ongoing negotiation between modern technologies and traditional religious frameworks, as societies grapple with the challenges and opportunities posed by advancements in communication.

 

As Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries continue to confront the complexities of technological integration, the example of the loudspeaker serves as a reminder of the broader societal negotiations that take place at the intersection of faith, culture, and modernity.

 

Pakistan and Afghanistan Cricket War

How Did Cricket Become Politicized in the Subcontinent?

Cricket, often referred to as the "gentleman's game," has taken on an entirely different identity in the subcontinent, morphing into a battleground of politics and diplomacy. What once symbolized sportsmanship has, over time, been weaponized by India against Pakistan, and now, Afghanistan has become embroiled in this complex rivalry. Tensions between these nations are no longer confined to political arenas—they are playing out visibly on cricket pitches across the region. 

When we think of Afghanistan, certain stereotypical images often come to mind, largely shaped by the media: a woman in a burqa, a bearded man with a Kalashnikov, and barren landscapes. Rarely do we view Afghanistan in its full complexity, with its rich ethnic and religious diversity. The country, with its layered history, is far more than these limiting representations.

For decades, Pakistan and India were the traditional cricketing rivals in the subcontinent. But in recent years, this rivalry has extended to include Afghanistan, which has emerged as a new contender. The question arises: how did Afghanistan, a nation whose cricket program was once nurtured by Pakistan, become its adversary on the field?

The irony is unmistakable. Many of Afghanistan's star cricketers were born in Pakistan, raised there, and learned to play the sport in its fields and stadiums. Pakistan played a crucial role in building Afghan cricket from the ground up—supporting its infrastructure, providing financial aid, and even supplying its first coach.

However, as Kabul's political alignment shifted, so did its cricket board's loyalties. India, seeking to expand its influence in Afghanistan, built cricket stadiums there and began financially backing the Afghan cricket board. The lure of the Indian Premier League (IPL) also pulled Afghan players toward India. This geopolitical maneuvering caused a rift between the cricket boards and administrations of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There’s an Afghan proverb that sums up the harsh realities of history: "May God save you from the venom of a cobra, the teeth of a lion, and the vengeance of an Afghan." 

Afghanistan's historical legacy is steeped in tales of plunder, and for centuries, its tribes survived by raiding wealthier lands. In fact, every time a tribal army set out for Punjab, countless Afghan tribes joined in, driven by the necessity of survival, as their barren lands offered little by way of agriculture.

کھادا پیتا لاہے داتے باقی احمد شاھے دا 

In modern times, the game of cricket became another front in this regional struggle. The turning point in recent Afghan-Pakistan relations came when the Soviet Union raised the red flag over Kabul, marking the beginning of a new era. The winds of history blew in a new direction, one that sought to rewrite old narratives and forge new alliances. Anti-Pakistan movements took root, and now, some in Kabul seek to reignite these hostile winds from the West toward the East.

Afghanistan's geographic location—rugged, mountainous, and perilous—has earned it the moniker "graveyard of empires." British forces learned this the hard way in the Anglo-Afghan wars, and the Russians and Americans faced similar fates. While the region may have seemed unconquerable at times, historical conquerors like the Persians, Mongols, and Alexander the Great managed to subdue it briefly. Yet, in the end, it was conflict and chaos that endured, as locals resisted both foreign invaders and their own rulers, preventing any one faction from holding power for long.

A Brief Timeline of Afghanistan's History:

• Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Timur, and the Mughals: Afghanistan's strategic location made it a crossroads for some of history's greatest empires. Alexander spent three years leading his army and elephants through its treacherous terrain.
• 1219: Genghis Khan's forces ravaged Balkh and Herat, erecting towers made of human skulls.
• 1500: Babur left the Ferghana Valley to conquer Kabul, laying the groundwork for the Mughal Empire.
• 1747: Ahmad Shah Durrani, appointed Afghanistan's first king at the Loya Jirga, would go on to defeat the Marathas and capture Delhi and Kashmir.
• 1880–1901: Amir Abdur Rahman, known as the "Iron Amir," ruled Kabul, negotiating the infamous Durand Line with the British.
• 1926: Amanullah declared himself king and introduced progressive reforms, but his efforts were met with resistance, leading to his eventual ouster.
• 1979: The Soviet invasion triggered decades of war, displacing millions and setting the stage for the rise of the Mujahideen.
• 1989: The withdrawal of Soviet forces marked a victory for the Mujahideen but also left Afghanistan in chaos, as competing factions vied for power.

1989-1992: Aftermath of Soviet Withdrawal

• February 15, 1989: The Soviet Union completes its withdrawal from Afghanistan after nearly a decade of military involvement, leaving a power vacuum and escalating civil conflict among various factions
• April 1992: The Mujahideen, a coalition of anti-communist factions, oust President Mohammad Najibullah, leading to the establishment of a transitional government. However, internal rivalries soon erupt into civil war1992-1996: Rise of the Taliban

• 1994: The Taliban emerge as a significant force, gaining control over Kandahar and promising to restore peace and security through strict Islamic law
• September 1996: The Taliban capture Kabul, imposing a harsh interpretation of Sharia law and significantly restricting women's rights and freedoms2001: U.S. Invasion

• October 7, 2001: Following the September 11 attacks, the U.S. launches Operation Enduring Freedom, targeting the Taliban regime for harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. The Taliban are quickly ousted from power2001-2014: Reconstruction and Ongoing Conflict

• December 2001: A new interim government led by Hamid Karzai is established with international support
• 2004: Afghanistan adopts a new constitution, establishing itself as an Islamic republic with democratic elections
• 2014: NATO formally ends its combat mission in Afghanistan, transitioning security responsibilities to Afghan forces amid ongoing insurgency challenges from the Taliban and other groups2020-2021: U.S. Withdrawal and Taliban Resurgence

• February 29, 2020: The U.S. and Taliban sign the Doha Agreement, stipulating the withdrawal of U.S. troops in exchange for Taliban commitments to prevent terrorist activities
• August 15, 2021: The Taliban recapture Kabul as U.S. forces complete their withdrawal, marking a dramatic return to power after two decades of conflictPost-2021 Developments

• 2021-Present: Following the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan faces significant humanitarian crises, with reports of human rights violations and resistance movements emerging against the new regime. The situation remains unstable as international recognition and aid are heavily debated

Throughout its history, Afghanistan has been a land where empires rise and fall, often at the mercy of the forces that sweep through its mountainous terrain. Today, it remains a focal point of geopolitical tension, and cricket has become an unlikely stage for this ongoing saga. The game is no longer just a sport but a reflection of the broader struggles for influence and power in the region.

Afghanistan’s Dual Ideological Divide: A Struggle Between Religion and Nationalism

In recent events, Afghanistan's ideological landscape is often seen as divided into two distinct schools of thought. On one side is the religious ideology, which has been nurtured and cultivated over the years. On the other side is nationalism, which, at various points in history, has been promoted as a counterbalance to religious dominance. Despite the political influence of religious groups that has grown since the Afghan Jihad, the nationalist faction seizes any opportunity to challenge this dominance and attempt to reshape Afghanistan’s national narrative. Figures like Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani are recent examples of leaders who tried to push this nationalist agenda. However, the religious faction, significantly supported by Saudi money over the decades, remains the more dominant force. This dominance persists because U.S. dollars have largely failed to influence the broader Afghan population, being funneled instead toward the elite, who rarely have the people's interests at heart. The elite and the masses, as is often the case, have conflicting interests.

Throughout the 20th century, Afghanistan has been a battleground for the world's superpowers. Yet, due to its unique geography, economic structure, and social fabric, the country has always resisted foreign invaders. In times of war, the Afghan people have little to lose, while the invading forces stand to gain almost nothing. This imbalance has made Afghanistan an exceptionally challenging adversary.

Given these realities, Afghanistan has always been a difficult partner in any relationship. For Pakistan, navigating its relationship with Afghanistan requires careful, deliberate steps.

Jerusalem is Converging Point of Three Big Religions

Jerusalem: The Sacred Land and Its Tumultuous History

Jerusalem! Oh, Sacred Land! How testing has your sanctity proven for humanity?

Jerusalem is a unique city where the three major monotheistic religions lay claim to its sanctity. When religion and faith come into play, logic and reason often yield. For over three thousand years, Jews have held deep religious ties to the city; Christians for two thousand years, and Muslims for fourteen hundred years. The city houses 1,204 synagogues, 158 churches, and 73 mosques. Within its walls stand the Jewish Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, and the Western Wall. For Christians, it is where Jesus Christ was crucified at Golgotha and where they believe he will be resurrected. Christians make pilgrimages to Jerusalem to seek purification from sin; the Bible mentions Jerusalem 632 times.

 

For Muslims, Jerusalem is the third holiest city after Mecca and Medina. It is home to the first Qibla and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where Prophet Muhammad embarked on the Night Journey, as recounted in the Quran: 

"Glorified is He who took His servant by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs; indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing" (Surah Al-Isra, Ayah 1).

 

According to Hadith, the Kaaba was the first mosque built on earth, and Al-Aqsa followed 40 years later. Muslims initially faced Al-Aqsa during prayers.

 

Jerusalem has endured 2 complete destruction, 23 sieges, 44 captures, and 52 attacks.

A Brief Timeline of Jerusalem’s History:

• 5000 BCE: Archaeologists trace human habitation in Jerusalem back to seven thousand years ago, making it one of the oldest cities.
•  1700 BCE: The Canaanites constructed stone walls to manage water in Jerusalem’s east.
•  1550–1400 BCE: The Egyptians annexed the region.
•  1000 BCE: Prophet David conquered the city, establishing it as the capital of his kingdom.
•  960 BCE: David’s son, Prophet Solomon, built the First Temple, known as Solomon’s Temple.
•  589 BCE: Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city and exiled the Jews.
•  539 BCE: The Persian ruler Cyrus the Great captured Jerusalem, permitting the Jews to return.
•  30 CE: Roman soldiers crucified Jesus Christ.
•  638 CE: Muslims conquered Jerusalem for the first time.
•  691 CE: The Umayyad ruler Abdul Malik constructed the Dome of the Rock.
•  1071 CE: The Turkish commander Atsiz seized Jerusalem from the weakening Fatimid dynasty.
•  1095 CE: Byzantine rulers appealed to Pope Urban II to liberate Jerusalem, sparking the Crusades.
•  1099 CE: Crusaders finally captured Jerusalem, slaughtering most of its Muslim inhabitants.
•  1187 CE: On October 2, during the Night of Ascension, Salah adDin Ayyubi recaptured Jerusalem, raising the crescent in place of the cross and offering general amnesty to the Christians upon payment.

• 1229 CE: Frederick II acquired Jerusalem peacefully.
•  1244 CE: Muslims regained control.
•  1517 CE: Sultan Selim I integrated Jerusalem into the Ottoman Empire.
•  1917 CE: British General Allenby entered Jerusalem, defeating the Ottomans.

• 1947 CE: The UN divided the city into Palestinian and Jewish sectors.
•  1948 CE: Israel declared independence, splitting the city between Israel and Jordan.
•  1967 CE: After the SixDay War, Israel gained control of both parts of Jerusalem.
•  1993 CE: The Oslo Accords led Palestine to recognize Israel and vice versa.
•  1995 CE: Oslo II divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, granting the Palestinian Authority additional powers.
•  2020 CE: President Trump supported moving the US Embassy to disputed Jerusalem, fueling Israel’s expansion into Palestinian territories under the guise of a peace agreement.

 

A Brief Modern History of Jerusalem and the Ongoing Conflict

Post-WWI to Israel's Establishment:

After World War I, Britain defeated the Ottoman Empire and took control of Jerusalem, leading to a wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine. 

Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera

Jews began establishing communities and ultimately launched militant movements for an independent Jewish state. In 1948, as Britain withdrew, the United Nations proposed a partition of Palestine into Jewish and Muslim states, declaring Jerusalem an international city. However, Israel later seized additional Palestinian territories by force. In recent years, under the so-called "peace plan" by President Trump, Israel gained support for further annexation, swiftly advancing its territorial expansion with minimal opposition beyond diplomatic resistance.

Current Crisis: Forced Evictions and East Jerusalem 

Currently, Israeli authorities are evicting Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem—a deeply complex issue. Palestinians argue they have lived there since the 1950s, holding documentation from Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Jewish organizations, however, claim they inhabited these homes as far back as 1885, later losing them in the 1948 war. Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War; prior to that, it was under Jordanian control. Israeli courts have already evicted Palestinians from these homes under a revised property law.

Today, Muslims make up 60% of East Jerusalem’s population and aspire to establish it as their capital.

The area contains the historic Old City and numerous sacred sites, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Western Wall. 

Demographics and Geography of Jerusalem and Gaza 

Jerusalem’s population stands at approximately 936,000, including 550,000 Israelis and over 350,000 Palestinians. 

Gaza, located along Palestine's western border, covers a mere 365 square kilometers and is home to two million people, with a staggering density of 6,000 individuals per square kilometer, making it the world’s third most densely populated area. 

Bordered by Israel on the east and the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Gaza’s southern corner adjoins Egypt via the Rafah border crossing, which remains tightly closed, leading to severe shortages of water, electricity, and medicine.

Although Gaza falls under Palestinian administration, it is effectively governed by Hamas, a Sunni political and military group founded in 1987. Hamas gained control of Gaza following its 2006 election victory and has maintained an armed presence, launching rockets toward Tel Aviv. While some speculate these rockets are smuggled from Egypt through tunnels, Israel contends that weapons are produced in local factories with assistance from Iranian military experts. Qatar and Turkey are also known to support Hamas at multiple levels and have even advocated for its recognition as a peaceful political party.

Hamas vs. Israel: The Military Dynamics 

Hamas targets Israel with rockets, most of which Israel intercepts using its Iron Dome system, developed by the Israeli company Rafael. The system intercepts missiles fired from ranges of 4 to 70 kilometers, achieving roughly an 80% success rate. However, it does not guarantee total protection, prompting Israel to retaliate with airstrikes on Gaza, where civilians often bear the brunt of the attacks. For both sides, this conflict holds religious significance, with combat seen as a sacred duty. Despite Hamas's limited resources, Israel is a highly advanced state, backed by powerful Western nations and a strong network of lobbying groups in the United States. Israeli drones and technology lead global markets, supplying advanced capabilities to numerous countries.

 

While countries like Algeria, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia do not recognise Israel, advancements under the Trump administration (including formal recognition by the UAE and covert cooperation with Saudi Arabia) have diluted Arab pressure. Egypt and Jordan, which recognised Israel three to four decades ago, have neutralised their regional opposition, and following the UAE’s move, it is anticipated that other Gulf states may soon follow.

Hamas remains Israel’s primary remaining adversary, one Israel aims to dismantle as quickly as possible, regardless of civilian casualties. Both sides view the struggle as a religious duty, adding layers of complexity to a conflict that has already seen far too many innocents lost.