Israel's attack on Iran: The violent new world being born is going to horrify you
Western politicians and media are tying themselves up in knots trying to spin the impossible: presenting Israel's unmistakable war of aggression against Iran as some kind of "defensive" move.
This time there was no rationalising pretext, as there was for Israel to inflict a genocide in Gaza following Hamas' one-day attack on 7 October 2023.
There was not a serious attempt beforehand to concoct a bogus doomsday scenario – as there was in the months leading up to the US and UK's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then we were lied to about Baghdad having 'weapons of mass destruction' that could be launched at Europe in 45 minutes.
Rather, Iran was deep in negotiations with the United States on its nuclear enrichment programme when Israel launched its unprovoked attack last Friday.
The West has happily regurgitated claims by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was forced to act because Iran was on the cusp of producing a nuclear bomb - an entirely evidence-free claim he has been making since 1992.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
None of his dire warnings has ever been borne out by events.
In fact, Israel struck Iran shortly after President Donald Trump had expressed hope of reaching a nuclear agreement with Tehran, and two days before the two countries' negotiators were due to meet again.
In late March Trump's head of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had expressly stated as part of the US intelligence community's annual assessment: "Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khameini has not authorised a nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003."
This week four sources said to be familiar with that assessment told CNN that Iran was not trying to build a bomb but, if it changed tack, it would be "up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one [a nuclear warhead] to a target of its choosing".
Nonetheless, by Tuesday this week Trump appeared to be readying to join Israel's attack. He publicly rebuked his own intelligence chief's verdict, sent US warplanes to the Middle East via the UK and Spain, demanded Iran's "unconditional surrender", and made barely veiled threats to kill Khameini.
'Samson option'
Israel's engineering of a pretext to attack Iran - defined by the Nuremberg tribunal in 1945 as the "supreme international crime" - has been many years in the making.
The current talks between the US and Iran were only needed because, under intense Israeli pressure during his first term as president, Trump tore up an existing agreement with Tehran.
Israel's war on Iran is crime of aggression, not legal self-defence, say experts Read More »
That deal, negotiated by his predecessor, Barack Obama, had been intended to quieten Israel's relentless calls for a strike on Iran. It tightly limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium to far below the level where it could "break out" from its civilian energy programme to build a bomb.
Israel, by contrast, has been allowed to maintain a nuclear arsenal of at least 100 warheads, while refusing - unlike Iran - to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and - again unlike Iran - denying access to monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The West's collusion in the pretence that Israel's nuclear weapons are secret - a policy formally known in Israel as "ambiguity" - has been necessary only because the US is not allowed to provide military aid to a state with undeclared nuclear weapons.
Israel is by far the largest recipient of such aid.
No one - apart from incorrigible racists – believes Iran would take the suicidal step of firing a nuclear missile at Israel, even if it had one. That is not the real grounds for Israeli or US concern.
Rather, the double standards are enforced to keep Israel as the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East so that it can project unrestrained military power across an oil-rich region the West is determined to control.
Israel's bomb has left it untouchable and unaccountable, and ready to intimidate its neighbours with the "Samson option" – the threat that Israel will use its nuclear arsenal rather than risk an existential threat.
Israel's national security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, appeared to imply just such a scenario against Iran this week in a reported comment: "There will be other difficult days ahead, but always remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Bear in mind that Israeli governments count as "existential" any threat to Israel's current status as a settler-colonial state, one occupying and forcibly uprooting the Palestinian people from their homeland.
Israel's nuclear weapons ensure it can do as it pleases in the region - including commit genocide in Gaza - without significant fear of reprisals.
War propaganda
The claim that Israel is "defending itself" in attacking Iran - promoted by France, Germany, Britain, the European Union, the G7 and the US - should be understood as a further assault on the foundational principles of international law.
The assertion is premised on the idea that Israel's attack was "pre-emptive" - potentially justified if Israel could show there was an imminent, credible and severe threat of an attack or invasion by Iran that could not be averted by other means.
And yet, even assuming there is evidence to support Israel's claim it was in imminent danger - there isn't - the very fact that Iran was in the midst of talks with the US about its nuclear programme voided that justification.
Rather, Israel's contention that Iran posed a threat at some point in the future that needed to be neutralised counts as a "preventive" war – and is indisputably illegal under international law.
Israel's contention that Iran posed a threat at some point in the future that needed to be neutralised is indisputably illegal under international law
Note the striking contrast with the West's reaction to Russia's so-called "unprovoked" attack on Ukraine just three years ago.
Western capitals and their media were only too clear then that Moscow's actions were unconscionable - and that severe economic sanctions on Russia, and military support for Ukraine, were the only possible responses.
So much so that early efforts to negotiate a ceasefire deal between Moscow and Kyiv, premised on a Russian withdrawal, were stymied by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, presumably on Washington's orders. Ukraine was instructed to fight on.
Israel's attack on Iran is even more flagrantly in violation of international law.
Netanyahu, who is already a fugitive from the International Criminal Court, which wants to try him for committing crimes against humanity in Gaza by starving the population there, is now guilty of the "supreme international crime" too.
Not that one would not know any of this from listening to western politicians or the billionaire-owned media.
There, the narrative is once again of a plucky Israel, forced to act unilaterally; of Israel facing down an existential threat; of Israel being menaced by barbaric terrorists; of the unique suffering - and humanity - of Israel's population; of Netanyahu as a strong leader rather than an out-and-out war criminal.
It is the same, well-worn script, trotted out on every occasion, whatever the facts or circumstances. Which is clue enough that western audiences are not being informed; they are being subjected to yet more war propaganda.
Regime change
But Israel's pretexts for its war of aggression are a moving target - hard to grapple with because they keep changing.
If Netanyahu started by touting an implausible claim that Iran's nuclear programme was an imminent threat, he soon shifted to arguing that Israel's war of aggression was also justified to remove a supposed threat from Iran's ballistic missile programme.
Why Israel's attacks are backfiring as Iranians rally around the flag Read More »
In the ultimate example of chutzpah, Israel cited as its evidence the fact that it was being hit by Iranian missiles - missiles fired by Tehran in direct response to Israel's rain of missiles on Iran.
Israel's protestations at the rising death toll among Israeli civilians overlooked two inconvenient facts that should have underscored Israel's hypocrisy, were the western media not working so hard to obscure it.
First, Israel has turned its own civilian population into human shields by placing key military installations - such as its spy agency and its defence ministry - in the centre of densely populated Tel Aviv, as well as firing its interception rockets from inside the city.
Recall that Israel has blamed Hamas for the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza over the past 20 months based on the largely unevidenced claim that its fighters have been hiding among the population. Now that same argument can, and should, be turned against Israel.
And second, Israel is all too obviously itself hitting residential areas in Iran - just as, of course, it did earlier by destroying almost all of Gaza's buildings, including homes, hospitals, schools, universities and bakeries.
Both Netanyahu and Trump have called on Iranians to "evacuate immediately" the city of Tehran - something impossible for most of its 10 million inhabitants to do in the time allowed.
But their demand raises too the question of why, if Israel is trying to stop the development of an Iranian nuclear warhead, it is focusing so many of its attacks on residential areas of Iran's capital.
Israel has turned its own civilian population into human shields by placing key military installations in the centre of densely populated Tel Aviv
More generally, Israel's argument that Tehran must be stripped of its ballistic missiles assumes that only Israel - and those allied with it - are allowed any kind of military deterrence capability.
It seems not only is Iran not allowed a nuclear arsenal as a counter-weight to Israel's nukes, but it is not even allowed to strike back when Israel decides to launch its US-supplied missiles at Tehran.
What Israel is effectively demanding is that Iran be turned into a larger equivalent of the Palestinian Authority - a compliant, lightly armed regime completely under Israel's thumb.
Which gets to the heart of what Israel's current attack on Iran is really designed to achieve.
It is about instituting regime change in Tehran.
Trained in torture
Again, the western media are assisting with this new narrative.
Extraordinarily, TV politics shows such as the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg invited on as a guest Reza Pahlavi, the son of the Iranian shah ousted by the ayatollahs in 1979 to create an Islamic republic. He used the slot to call on Iranians to "rise up" against their leaders.
Why Netanyahu is frantically trying to pull the US into Israel's war on Iran Read More »
The framing - an entirely Israeli confected one - is that Iranian society is desperate to throw off the yoke of Islamic dictatorship and return to the halcyon days of monarchical rule under the Pahlavis.
It is a beyond-absurd analysis of modern Iran.
Asking Pahlavi to discuss how Iran might be freed from clerical rule is the equivalent of inviting Josef Stalin's grandson into the studio to discuss how he plans to lead a pro-democracy movement in Russia.
In fact, the much-feared Pahlavis were only in power in 1979 – and in a position to be overthrown – because Israel, Britain and the US meddled deeply in Iran to keep them in place for so long.
When Iranians elected the secular reformist Mohammed Mossadegh, a lawyer and intellectual, as prime minister in 1951, Britain and the US worked tirelessly to topple him. His chief crime was that he took back control of Iran's oil industry - and its profits - from the UK.
Within two years, Mossadegh was overthrown in US-led Operation Ajax, and the Shah re-installed as dictator. Israel was drafted in to train Iran's Savak secret police in torture techniques to use on Iranian dissidents, learnt from torturing Palestinians.
Predictably, the West's crushing of all efforts to democratically reform Iran opened up a space for resistance to the Shah that was quickly occupied by Islamist parties instead.
In 1979, these revolutionary forces overthrew the western-backed dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile in Paris to found the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Crescent of resistance
Notably Khomeini's successor as supreme leader, Ali Khameini, issued a religious edict in 2003 banning Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He considered it a violation of Islamic law.
Which is why Iran has been so reluctant to develop a bomb, despite Israel's endless provocations and claims to the contrary.
By allowing Israel to bomb Iran, Trump is pushing Tehran to go nuclear Read More »
What Iran has done instead is two things that are the real trigger for Israel's war of aggression.
First, it developed the best alternative military strategy it could muster to protect itself from Israeli and western belligerence - a belligerence related to Iran's refusal to serve as a client of the West, as the Shah once had, rather than the issue of human rights under clerical rule.
Iran's leaders understood they were a target. Iran has huge reserves of oil and gas, but unlike the neighbouring Gulf regimes it is not a puppet of the West. It can also shut down the Strait of Hormuz, the main gateway for the flow of oil and gas to the West and Asia.
And as a Shia-led state (in contrast to the Sunni Islam that dominates much of the rest of the Middle East), Iran has a series of co-religionist communities across the region - in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere - with which it has developed strong ties.
For example, with Iran's help, Hezbollah in Lebanon built up a large stockpile of rockets and missiles close to Israel's border. That was supposed to deter Israel from trying to attack and occupy Lebanon again, as it did for two decades from the early 1980s through to 2000.
But it also meant that any longer-range attack by Israel on Iran would prove risky, exposing it to a barrage of missiles on its northern border.
Ideologues in Washington, known as the neoconservatives, who are keenly supportive of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, deeply opposed what came to be seen as "the axis of resistance".
The neocons, seeking a way to crush Iran, quickly exploited the 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York in 2001 as an opportunity to erode Iranian power.
A woman carries her child following the Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran on 15 June, 2025 (AFP)
General Wesley Clark was told at the Pentagon in the days after the attack that the US had come up with a plan to "take out seven countries in five years".
Notably, even though most of the hijackers who crashed planes into the Twin Towers were from Saudi Arabia, the Pentagon's list of targets centrally featured members of the so-called "Shia crescent".
All have been attacked since. As Clark noted, the seventh and final state on that list - the hardest to take on - is Iran.
Show of strength
Israel's other concern was that Iran and its allies, unlike the Arab regimes, had proved steadfast in their support for the Palestinian people against decades of Israeli occupation and oppression.
Iran's defiance on the Palestinian cause was underscored during Trump's first presidency, when Arab states began actively normalising with Israel through the US-brokered Abraham accords, even as the plight of the Palestinians worsened under Israeli rule.
Israel and the US are jointly remaking the Middle East through extreme violence and the eradication of international law
Infuriatingly for Israel, Iran and the late Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasarallah became the main flagbearers of popular support for the Palestinians - among Muslims across the board.
With the Palestinian Authority largely quiescent by the mid-2000s, Iran channelled its assistance to Hamas in besieged Gaza, the main Palestinian group still ready to struggle against Israeli apartheid rule and ethnic cleansing.
The result was a tense stability of sorts, with each side restraining itself in a Middle Eastern version of "mutually assured destruction". Neither side had an incentive to risk an all-out attack for fear of the severe consequences.
That model came to an abrupt end on 7 October 2023, when Hamas decided its previous calculations needed reassessing.
With the Palestinians feeling increasingly isolated, choked by Israel's siege and abandoned by the Arab regimes, Hamas staged a show of force, breaking out for one day from the concentration camp of Gaza.
Israel seized the opportunity to complete two related tasks: destroying the Palestinians as a people once and for all, and with it their ambitions for a state in their homeland; and rolling back the Shia crescent, just as the Pentagon had planned more than 20 years earlier.
Israel started by levelling Gaza - slaughtering and starving its people. Then it moved to destroy Hezbollah's southern heartlands in Lebanon. And with the collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, Israel was able to occupy parts of Syria, smash what remained of its military infastructure, and clear a flight path to Iran.
These were the preconditions for launching the current war of aggression on Iran.
'Birth pangs'
Back in 2006, as Israel was bombing swaths of Lebanon in an earlier attempt to realise the Pentagon's plan, Condoleezza Rice, the then US secretary of state, prematurely labelled Israel's violence as the "birth pangs of a new Middle East".
What we have been witnessing over the past 20 months of Israel's slow rampage towards Iran is precisely a revival of those birth pangs. Israel and the US are jointly remaking the Middle East through extreme violence and the eradication of international law.
Success for Israel can come in one of two ways.
Either it installs a new authoritarian ruler in Tehran, like the Shah's son, who will do the bidding of Israel and the US. Or Israel leaves the country so wrecked that it devolves into violent factionalism, too taken up with civil war to expend its limited energies on developing a nuclear bomb or organising a "Shia crescent" of resistance.
The more Israel kills, the more the West portrays it as a victim Read More »
But ultimately this is about more than redrawing the map of the Middle East. And it is about more than toppling the rulers in Tehran.
Just as Israel needed to take out Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria before it could consider clearing a path to Iran's destruction, the US and its western allies needs the axis of resistance eradicated, as well as Russia bogged down in an interminable war in Ukraine, before it can consider taking on China.
Or as the German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted this week, in one of those quiet-part-out-loud moments: "This [the attack on Iran] is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us."
This is a key moment in the Pentagon's 20-year plan for 'global full-spectrum dominance': a unipolar world in which the US is unconstrained by military rivals or the imposition of international law. A world in which a tiny, unaccountable elite, enriched by wars, dictate terms to the rest of us.
If all this sounds like a sociopath's approach to foreign relations, that is because it is. Years of impunity for Israel and the US have brought us to this point. Both feel entitled to destroy what remains of an international order that does not let them get precisely what they want.
The current birth pangs will grow. If you believe in human rights, in limits on the power of government, in the use of diplomacy before military aggression, in the freedoms you grew up with, the new world being born is going to horrify you.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sharjah 24
31 minutes ago
- Sharjah 24
Israel struck Iran's Isfahan nuclear site again
"Isfahan we targeted in the first 24 hours of our operation, but we carried out a second wave of strikes there overnight, deepening our achievements and advancing the damage to the facility," the military official told reporters during a briefing on condition of anonymity. He added that the targeting of two centrifuge production sites in Isfahan was "in addition to a couple more centrifuge production sites that we have been able to strike successfully in recent days". The repeated raids by the Israeli air force have "dealt a severe blow to Iran's centrifuge production capabilities," the official added. Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium, both for civilian and military use, with the radioactive metal needing to be enriched to high levels for use in atomic weapons. Isfahan, in central Iran, is known to have a uranium conversion facility which processes raw, mined uranium. It also holds a nuclear fuel fabrication facility, which was inaugurated in 2009 and produces low-enriched fuel for use in power plants. In July 2022, Iran announced plans to construct a new research reactor there. On the first day of Israel's strikes on June 13, the Israeli military said it had struck "a facility for producing metallic uranium, infrastructure for reconverting enriched uranium, laboratories, and additional infrastructure" in Isfahan. Iran's atomic energy agency said afterwards that the damage was "not extensive" and there was no cause for concern about radiation. Israel has also targeted Iran's two main underground nuclear sites, Natanz and Fordo.
Sharjah 24
31 minutes ago
- Sharjah 24
Israel military says hit Hezbollah site in south Lebanon
"Overnight, an Israeli Navy vessel struck a Hezbollah 'Radwan Force' site in the area of Naqoura in southern Lebanon", the military said in a statement. The military said the site was used by Hezbollah "to advance terror attacks against Israeli civilians". In a separate statement on Saturday, the military said it had "struck and eliminated" a Hezbollah militant in south Lebanon the previous day, despite an ongoing ceasefire between both sides. In a statement carried by the official National News Agency, Lebanon's health ministry said late on Friday that one person was killed in a "strike carried out by an Israeli enemy drone on a motorcycle" in the same south Lebanon village. The November ceasefire aimed to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, which sparked months of deadly hostilities by launching cross-border attacks on northern Israel in solidarity with Palestinian ally Hamas following its October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. Lebanon's army, which has been dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure as part of the truce, said earlier in June that the Israeli military's ongoing violations and "refusal to cooperate" with the ceasefire monitoring mechanism "could prompt the (Lebanese) military to freeze cooperation" on site inspections.
Middle East Eye
38 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
Shattered Lands: How Doha and Dubai could have joined India or Pakistan in 1947
A century ago a large part of the Arabian peninsula, including modern-day Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, was legally part of India. Today most people, including in the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, have no idea about this, and many would find the idea ludicrous and absurd. But it was indeed the case, as historian Sam Dalrymple shows in his newly published book Shattered Lands: Five Partitions and the Making of Modern Asia. It is a remarkable fact that Dubai and Doha could easily have ended up as part of modern India or Pakistan. Very rarely can a book on history transform the public's understanding of an entire continent and region's past. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters But this could be such a rarity. Shattered Lands, Dalrymple's first book, is magisterial. In fact, I can confidently say it is groundbreaking. Drawing on evidence from myriad archives and private memoirs and interviews in several languages, Dalrymple has produced an outstanding debut. But better than that, it is a delight to read. Too many history books render extraordinary characters and events dull. Shattered Lands, out now, is published by Harper Collins. (Supplied) Dalrymple's energetic, electrifying prose is thus a breath of fresh air. Every paragraph is practically bursting with colour. The scope of the work is enormous. The premise is that as recently as 1928, 12 modern nations - India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait - were "bound together" as part of Britain's Indian empire, the Raj. An entity of its own, the Raj housed a quarter of the world's population and was governed by the Indian rupee. Shattered Lands documents how, over half a century, this vast empire was torn apart. The book is vast in scope but particularly pertinent to Middle East Eye readers is the story of the Arabian Peninsula and how it was split off from India. Much of the British Raj was hidden. Official maps never depicted the whole empire. To avoid the ire of Istanbul, Arab states bordering the Ottoman Empire were bizarrely left off maps "as a jealous sheikh veils his favourite wife", in the words of one Royal Asian Society lecturer. Oman, like Nepal in the east, was not officially part of the Indian empire, but it was governed as an informal protectorate by the viceroy of India and included in the list of Indian princely states, which were under indirect British rule. As Dalrymple writes: "The standard list of princely states even opened alphabetically with Abu Dhabi, and Viceroy Lord Curzon himself argued that Oman should be considered 'as much a Native State of the Indian Empire as Lus Beyla or Kalat'." 'Central to the very idea of India' Muscat, Doha and Dubai were legally part of India under the Interpretation Act of 1889. The wealthy Gulf states today are thus some of the few Indian princely states that actually survived; the larger ones which went to India or Pakistan were doomed. Dalrymple tells us that "the Arabian and Burmese frontiers of the Raj were once central to the very idea of India, and several of the founding fathers of Yemen and Burma had even once conceived of themselves as Indian nationalists". Close ties between the Gulf and the subcontinent stretched back long before the onset of British rule: "For more than two millennia, South Asian communities and their cultures had spread across Asia into China, Afghanistan and Arabia." Persian or Arabian Gulf? A brief history Read More » But the British Empire took this to an unprecedented level. In the early 20th century many Arab elites were educated in Bombay and Aligarh in India, and wore Indian-style sherwanis. The partition of the Arabian peninsula from the Indian empire began in 1937 with the separation of Yemen. That same year it was also decided that India would "not be allowed to run the Persian Gulf" if it became independent. A decade later, in April 1947, the Gulf states were partitioned from India and ceased to be run by the Indian Political Service (staffed mainly by Indians). Indian soldiers were replaced by British ones, and India and Pakistan lost the (then largely undiscovered) vast oil wealth of Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE. As Dalrymple argues, this was "India's greatest lost opportunity". It was only decades later, in 1971, that Britain finally abolished its protectorates over the Gulf states. An age of nationalism One of the book's most fascinating sections examines the crucial role played by Hindu nationalism in the partition of the Arabian peninsula. Because many Indian nationalists fixated on the ancient Hindu holy land of Bharat as their historical reference point, they were uninterested in Burma and Arabia. This weakened Indian nationalism in those parts of the Raj and boosted alternative political visions. We are introduced at one point in the book to the young Arab journalist Muhammad Ali Luqman, who in Aden served as the Gujarati-Arabic translator for one Mahatma Gandhi when he visited before Aden's separation from India. Gandhi's supporters unfurled an Indian flag to "mad cheers by all those present". But many in Aden were turning against Indian nationalism. Shattered Lands is Sam Dalrymple's first book (Supplied) After its separation from India, the discovery of oil turned Aden into one of the world's most important ports. By the 1950s, it was a "vibrant city of businessmen and dreamers where cruise ships jostled alongside the old Arabian dhows and Yemeni Jews mingled with Gujarati Hindus and Somali Muslims". But monumental changes arose with the rise of Gamal Abdel Nasser, who became president of Egypt in 1954. 'A dangerous environment for non-Arabs' Nasser's brand of Arab nationalism spread like wildfire across the region. "In quick succession states all over the Arabian Raj formally tied citizenship to 'a fair knowledge of Arabic' and being 'Arabs belonging to an Arab Country'," Dalrymple writes. "In the process the once cosmopolitan Indian Ocean society would gradually be replaced by arbitrary new national identities." And nearly everywhere South Asians "found themselves on the wrong side of the citizenship line and were forced to sell their properties". 'So ended the idea that 'Arab' could be an Indian ethnicity like Bengali or Punjabi - one that had been common for centuries' - Shattered Lands, Sam Dalrymple By this point, Luqman, once an Indian nationalist, was campaigning for a "Greater Yemen". The Aden Trade Union, meanwhile, announced it aimed to create "a hostile and dangerous environment for non-Arabs". Anti-Indian sentiment was also fuelled by the consequences of the fall of Hyderabad, India's largest princely state - which was widely recognised as a centre of the Islamic world. Hyderabad had a population of tens of thousands of Arabs. Indian soldiers rounded them up and detained them when the state was annexed by the fledgling Indian nation in September 1948. In the end many left and a few thousand were deported. "So ended the idea that 'Arab' could be an Indian ethnicity like Bengali or Punjabi - one that had been common for centuries," Dalrymple writes. Imperialism was often a brutal and oppressive affair, but it could also be cosmopolitan and multicultural. Nationalism could be just as brutal - and regularly very bloody. Much that was complex and attractive was destroyed in the violent convulsions of decolonisation. The Qu'aiti sultanate Under the rule of the nizam, the richest man in the world and the patron of the deposed Ottoman caliph, Hyderabad had effectively governed the Qu'aiti sultanate - the third-largest state in the Arabian peninsula - as a vassal. This gave rise to a rich cultural fusion which produced, among other things, the famous dish of haleem - a Hyderabadi variation on the Arabian dish harees that is famous today. One of the most remarkable figures Dalrymple interviewed for Shattered Lands is Sultan Ghalib al-Qu'aiti, the charming and scholarly former ruler of the sultanate, whose mother was the nizam of Hyderabad's niece. The seventh nizam of Hyderabad (centre) with some members of the ruling family of the Qu'aiti sultanate in around 1940 (Wikimedia Commons) In 1966, he became ruler of the Hadhramaut region of southern Yemen at the age of 18. Enormously popular with his people, Sultan Ghalib worked with manual labourers three times a week to convey "the true meaning of socialism in conformity with the teachings of Islam". But in 1967 the young ruler was betrayed by the British and overthrown in a coup by the National Liberation Front, an Arab nationalist militia, which declared the socialist republic of South Yemen. After he was deposed, he went to Oxford and Cambridge and became a distinguished historian. To this day, however, Sultan Ghalib remains tragically stateless. 'Unimaginable class reversal' Another fascinating fact Dalrymple documents is that Omani sultans owned the port of Gwadar on the Pakistani coastline until the mid-1950s (a Baluchi khan had given Gwadar to an Omani prince in 1783). The Omani Sultan Said bin Taimur was educated as an Indian prince in Ajmer, and was so Indian in his tastes and sensibilities that the British consul-general called him "Babu". Revealed: Why there is an abandoned Ottoman tomb in remote India Read More » The sultan even discriminated against Arabs in his own polity, denying them education and government positions. Unsurprisingly, he was spectacularly unpopular and was ultimately replaced by his reformist son, Sultan Qaboos. Qaboos bucked the Arab nationalist trend by declaring "many communities from across the Indian Ocean as indigenous tribes". He even declared Kanak Khimji, a Gujarati merchant, to be a sheikh with responsibility for Oman's 200,000 Hindus - the first Hindu sheikh in Arab history. Few non-fiction books are worth reading cover to cover, but Shattered Lands is a rare exception. Outside of some academic circles, the history of the Arabian Raj has been largely forgotten. Dalrymple's book should make waves in the Gulf, which today hosts a massive South Asian population - mostly poor migrant labourers, in what Dalrymple calls an "unimaginable class reversal". But the book will also shatter historical orthodoxies in the subcontinent itself. Shattered Lands is a triumph - and I strongly suspect Dalrymple has much more up his sleeve.
