London Post

Hamid Mir

Mr President, why did you start this war? This is the question that the New York Times asked President Trump in its editorial on February 28, 2026. A few hours before another attack on Iran by the United States and Israel, the world media was broadcasting the news that the talks between the United States and Iran in Geneva were moving in the right direction thanks to Oman’s efforts. Trump also used these talks for deception and attacked Iran during the talks. As a result of this attack, the fire of a new war has spread throughout the Middle East. After the end of the life of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the flames of this war will flare up even more. Apparently, Trump’s goal is to change the regime in Iran, but will regime change bring stability to Iran?
Trump and Netanyahu have together brought the world to the brink of a third world war. This little guy, in his column titled “The only danger ahead” in the Jang daily on January 1, 2026, expressed his fear that the world is moving towards a third world war and to avoid this war, everyone will have to come together to stop Netanyahu in 2026. Only Trump could stop Netanyahu, but unfortunately, he became his partner and is seeking praise by announcing the death of Khamenei. Will this war be limited to a change of regime in Iran? Why is the New York Times asking the US President the reason for starting the war? Didn’t the editorial board of the New York Times listen to the interview of US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee in which he openly supported Greater Israel? Before the start of this war, two important events occurred that are very closely related to the Greater Israel project. The first event was the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said a day before the start of the visit that he was going to form a broader regional alliance with India against Shia extremists and Sunni extremists.
This claim seemed to indicate a determination that Israel and India would work together to divide Muslims on sectarian lines and commit aggression against them. The second important event was that as soon as Modi arrived in Israel, the Afghan Taliban carried out 51 attacks on the border with Pakistan.
Pakistan responded to these attacks with lightning speed and for the first time made Afghanistan realize that it had provoked a nuclear power. I am not forcibly finding any connection between these attacks on Pakistan and Modi’s visit to Israel. All I know is that the current Indian Ambassador to Israel, JP Singh, went to Kabul in November 2024 and met with Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi and other important Afghan leaders. JP Singh has also served in Islamabad. He played a very important role in bringing the Afghan Taliban closer to Delhi. Whether the Afghan brothers believe it or not, everyone can see that India is using them against Pakistan. On the night between February 26 and 27, when the Afghan Taliban attacked Pakistan, we cannot ignore Modi’s presence in Israel. Who knows that those who advised the Taliban to attack Pakistan were actually conspiring to make Muslims fight Muslims.
Pakistan is very aware of the partnership between India and Israel and there was a fear that this partnership could lead to an aggression against Pakistan by both of them, which could directly or indirectly involve the Afghan Taliban, so before such a time came, they were responded to by invading Afghanistan. Now let’s move on to the new war started by Trump and Netanyahu, which is moving from the Middle East to South Asia. When the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, supported Greater Israel, I was reminded of the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war. During that war, I spent several weeks in Lebanon and Syria – at that time, the British journalist Robert Fisk was in Beirut and I listened very carefully to the words of Robert Fisk, a journalist who had come to Beirut to report on the war from all over the world. I heard the details of the Greater Israel plan from Fisk’s language for the first time. Fisk used to say that the Zionists seek justification for this project from the Bible and the Torah, but in reality, it is a plan to establish political and economic dominance over the world. It was here that I heard about an American Jew, Colonel Ralph Peters, who in 2006 published a new Middle East map in the US Armed Forces Journal, in which the borders of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq were changed, as well as Saudi Arabia.
Ralph Peters’ map also included independent Kurdistan and independent Balochistan. To create an independent Kurdistan, it was necessary to break Iraq and Turkey, and to create an independent Balochistan, the Baloch majority areas of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan had to be connected to each other. Colonel Ralph Peters wrote many articles based on this map. Then he also wrote a book called Never Quit the Fight. Colonel Ralph Peters declared Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be unreal states. He added some areas of Saudi Arabia to Jordan. Many areas of Iran were given to Azerbaijan and some areas were included in independent Balochistan. Colonel Ralph Peters called this new map the borders of blood. Behind these borders of blood was actually the plan of Greater Israel, which Americans like Mike Huckabee are openly supporting today. The question arises, what is Modi’s interest in Greater Israel? Modi is actually the enemy of Muslims. Every plan to oppress Muslims and divide them is the voice of his heart. He considers Greater Israel and Akhand Bharat to be a link in the same chain. The Modi government has put up a map of Akhand Bharat in the Indian Parliament, under which it wants to include some areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Tibet in India. The Afghan Taliban have not condemned Akhand Bharat till date or they are not yet aware of it. Anyway, Israel and India actually want to become two new world powers. For this purpose, the Israeli Zionist lobby is using US President Trump. Many Jewish intellectuals in America are strongly opposed to the Greater Israel plan because they know that it is the same plan that Theodor Herzl made in 1904, under which he wanted to make the Zionist movement a new world power. A new world power that also wanted to dominate America. The war that Trump has started is actually a war against America. Israel has already become a symbol of hatred around the world. Trump is also making America a symbol of hatred. Those rulers of the Muslim world who were very happy to hear Trump praise them will soon pray that Trump never praises them again because Trump is now becoming a symbol of hatred in America as well. Those who nominated this symbol of hatred for the Nobel Peace Prize will soon regret why we declared the merchant of death a messenger of peace.

Wajahat Ali Khan:

At the beginning of 2026, not just Iran but about fourteen or fifteen Muslim countries have become battlefield, also world finds itself trapped in an era, many analysts now describe as the most conflict-ridden period since the end of the Cold War. Wars are no longer isolated events; they overlap geographically, politically, and ideologically. Yet one uncomfortable reality stands out when global conflict zones are examined closely: a significant number of Muslim-majority countries are either directly at war or deeply entangled in armed conflict.
The question is often asked in political discussions and public debates: how many Muslim countries are currently at war? The answer depends on how “war” is defined whether limited to declared interstate wars or expanded to include civil wars, insurgencies, and prolonged armed conflicts. Based on ongoing conflict trackers, humanitarian reports, and current news developments, between 10 and 14 Muslim-majority countries are presently experiencing active warfare or large-scale armed conflict in 2026. One of the most alarming developments in early 2026 is the escalation between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where cross-border clashes rapidly evolved into what Pakistani officials openly described as an “open war.” Airstrikes, artillery exchanges, and military offensives have taken place across major cities and border regions, raising fears of a prolonged regional conflict. Civilian casualties and troop losses continue to mount as diplomatic mediation struggles to gain traction.
Interstate wars between Muslim neighbours were once rare in recent decades. Their return signals not only political breakdown but also the erosion of regional security mechanisms that previously prevented escalation. Sudan today represents one of the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophes. Since 2023, fighting between the national army and the Rapid Support Forces has devastated cities, displaced millions, and created famine-like conditions. International observers warn that atrocities committed during the conflict bear the “hallmarks of genocide.
Similarly, Syria’s civil war, now entering its second decade, continues to produce instability despite reduced global attention. Millions remain displaced, infrastructure lies shattered, and armed factions still control fragmented territories. In Yemen, years of conflict between government forces and Houthi fighters have entrenched one of the world’s longest humanitarian emergencies, with no decisive political settlement in sight. (The National Interest) These wars demonstrate a grim modern reality.
No discussion of conflict in Muslim regions can ignore the ongoing violence surrounding Palestine, particularly Gaza. Although intensity fluctuates, hostilities and military tensions remain central to Middle Eastern instability and continue to influence wider regional politics. Analysts warn that unresolved confrontation risks reigniting broader regional war involving neighbouring actors. For many across the Muslim world, Palestine remains not only a geopolitical crisis but also a symbolic one shaping public opinion, diplomacy, and political identity far beyond its borders. Less visible to global audiences but equally deadly are conflicts spreading across the Sahel region of Africa. Muslim-majority or heavily Muslim societies such as Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and parts of Nigeria face persistent insurgencies involving militant organizations, military juntas, and foreign security interventions.
Elsewhere, Libya remains divided between rival political and military authorities more than a decade after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi. Armed factions continue to compete for territorial control and oil wealth. Somalia, meanwhile, continues its long battle against insurgent groups challenging state authority, keeping the country in a condition of chronic conflict despite international peacekeeping efforts. Together, these cases highlight a broader pattern: many Muslim-majority states are not experiencing short wars but prolonged instability where peace agreements repeatedly fail.
When aggregated, the principal Muslim-majority countries currently experiencing active war or major armed conflict include, Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, Bahrain, UAE, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Niger. The explanation cannot be reduced to religion, culture, or geography alone. Experts increasingly point to overlapping structural causes. Weak state institutions unable to manage political transitions. External power competition, turning local disputes into proxy wars. Resource politics, particularly oil, minerals, and strategic trade routes. Demographic pressure, with rapidly growing youth populations facing unemployment. Post-colonial borders, which often ignored ethnic and tribal realities.
Humanitarian agencies warn that a small group of conflict-affected countries many of them Muslim-majority now account for an overwhelming share of global humanitarian need. Entire generations in parts of the Muslim world have grown up knowing nothing but checkpoints, displacement camps, drone strikes, or militia rule. War has shifted from emergency to environment from exception to routine. Meanwhile, global attention moves quickly from one crisis to another. Conflicts that continue for years become politically inconvenient and gradually invisible.
It is essential to resist simplistic conclusions. These wars are not proof of inherent instability within Muslim societies. Rather, they reveal how fragile governance, global rivalry, economic inequality, and unresolved historical grievances intersect most violently in already vulnerable regions.
As 2026 unfolds, the central question is no longer how many Muslim countries are at war. The more urgent question is whether the international system possesses either the will or the imagination to prevent today’s conflicts from becoming permanent features of tomorrow’s world. Because history shows one undeniable truth: wars that persist long enough eventually redefine entire civilisations.

Sajjad Azhar

The escalating tensions between Iran and the United States have revived a long-standing intellectual debate: is the confrontation merely a geopolitical struggle, or does it reflect a deeper clash of civilizations?
British historian Peter Frankopan, a professor of global history at Oxford University, has described the attack on Iran as potentially the third major turning point in modern global history, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the attacks on the World Trade Center. Such interpretations indicate that the current crisis is being viewed not only through a political or military lens but also through a broader historical perspective.
Recently, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remarked that “a fanatical regime like Iran, which believes in religious delusions, cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also argued that “the old world order is over.” These statements raise an important question: what kind of new global order is the United States attempting to shape?
This debate echoes the theory presented in 1993 by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in his famous thesis, “The Clash of Civilizations.” Huntington argued that future global conflicts would be driven less by ideology or economics and more by cultural and civilizational differences. Observers now wonder whether the Iran–US confrontation reflects precisely such a civilizational divide.
Iranian officials strongly reject this narrative. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, recently declared that Iran would defend its “6,000-year-old civilization” and that the country had prepared for a long conflict if necessary.
Some analysts therefore interpret the standoff not merely as a dispute between two states but as a confrontation between two distinct historical traditions and political visions. On one side stands Iran, a country that historically emerged as a global power more than once and ruled large parts of the known world for centuries. On the other stands the United States, the dominant superpower of the past century and the leading representative of the modern Western political and economic order.
Iran: A Civilization That Became a Superpower Twice
Iran is among the regions where evidence of early human settlement dates back tens of thousands of years. Historically, the Iranian plateau became a major center of civilization with the arrival of Indo-Iranian tribes around 2000 BCE.
The Achaemenid Empire, founded in the 6th century BCE by Cyrus the Great, is often regarded as the first great Persian superpower. At its peak, the empire stretched from Anatolia in the west to the Indus River in the east, covering nearly 7.5 million square kilometers. It established one of the world’s earliest administrative systems and a remarkably organized imperial structure.
After the conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great in 330 BCE, Persian power eventually revived under the Parthian Empire, which rebelled against Greek rule and re-established control across much of the region.
Later, the Sassanian Empire (224–651 CE) marked another golden age of Persian power. During this era, Persia and the Roman Empire were the two dominant global forces. The Sassanians controlled territories stretching from the Caucasus to the Indus River and presided over the peak of Zoroastrian influence.
The empire eventually collapsed after the Arab conquest following the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah in 636 CE. In later centuries, Iran passed through various dynasties including the Seljuks, the Khwarazmians, and the Mongol rulers.
The Safavid Empire (1501–1722) restored Iran as a powerful regional state and established Shiite Islam as the state religion. This period was followed by the rule of Nader Shah, the Qajar dynasty, and finally the Pahlavi monarchy, which lasted from 1925 until the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
Comparing the Civilizational Trajectories of Iran and the United States
If Iran’s history stretches back several millennia, the United States is a relatively young nation. The US emerged as a sovereign state following the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Within little more than a century, it began rising as a global power, eventually becoming the world’s dominant superpower after the two World Wars.
The American model—built on secular governance, institutional checks and balances, capitalism, human rights, and democratic ideals—has shaped much of the modern global order.
Iran’s contemporary political structure, however, emerged from the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian state is founded on the doctrine of Wilayat-e-Faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist) and a political philosophy that challenges Western liberal capitalism and American influence in the Middle East.
Thus, the ideological confrontation today is not strictly between Iran’s five-thousand-year-old civilization and America’s modern one. Rather, it is largely between the revolutionary Islamic political system established in Iran in 1979 and the liberal democratic order championed by the United States.
Clash of Civilizations or Strategic Interests?
Before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was one of Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East. After 1979, however, relations deteriorated sharply and have remained tense ever since.
Today, Israel has become the United States’ most trusted ally in the region. Many analysts argue that American policy in the Middle East is deeply intertwined with Israel’s strategic interests. Yet historically, relations between Iran and Jewish communities were often positive.
When Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, he allowed the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple. Because of this act, Cyrus is described in Hebrew scriptures as “the Lord’s anointed,” making him one of the few non-Jewish figures to receive such recognition.
Even during later Persian and Islamic eras, Jewish communities generally enjoyed religious freedoms in Iran. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, Iran quietly maintained diplomatic and trade relations with the new state.
However, after the 1979 revolution, Iran declared Israel an illegitimate state and began supporting groups opposed to Israeli influence in the region. This shift fundamentally transformed Middle Eastern geopolitics and laid the groundwork for the present confrontation.
For this reason, many scholars argue that the current crisis cannot be explained solely as a clash of civilizations. While Iran represents one of the world’s oldest cultural traditions, the roots of its present conflict with the United States and Israel lie primarily in the ideological and geopolitical consequences of the Islamic Revolution.
Whether the tensions will evolve into a broader civilizational conflict or remain a contest of strategic interests remains one of the most critical questions shaping the future of the Middle East.