Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Ryan Reynolds here from Int Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices
down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile, unlimited premium wireless. How did you get 30, 30, how did you get 30, how did you get 20, 20, 20, how did you get 20, 20, how did you get 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month? Sold! Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront payment equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Taxes and fees extra. Speed slower above 40 gigabytes each detail.
The land down under has never been easier to reach. United Airlines has more flights between the U.S. and Australia than any other U.S. airline, so you can fly nonstop to destinations like Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. Explore dazzling cities, savor the very best of Aussie cuisine, and get up close and personal with the wildlife. Who doesn't want to hold a koala? Go to united.com slash Australia to book your adventure.
Hello, faithful listeners, and indeed, to all you new listeners, welcome to Conflicted. You're joining us for episode two of season three, and gathering momentum for the new series, with me as always, is the great and powerful A.
Eamon Dean. Hi, Eamon. How are you? Oh, what a wonderful introduction. Please do it every episode, please. So you see, listeners, Eamon is still alive. A lot of you in the Facebook page and on Twitter are always wondering, Eamon, are you still alive? Are you still alive? I'm glad to report he's still alive. Yeah, rumors of my demise has been greatly exaggerated.
In fact, I'm glad to report that I'm still alive because I am convalescing from COVID-19. It finally struck me down. I thought I was going to get through this pandemic without being hit, but...
I got it. I got the bug. And who advised you to get some home therapy and home medicine? It's true. I immediately called you, Eamon, and you were very kind. You gave me your wife's sort of, I'm not going to say peasant remedies, but, you know, natural remedies, informed from long experience, no doubt. Exactly. Okay, Eamon, what do you say? Shall we dive right in? Absolutely.
Last time, we told the story of how incompetence and corruption within the American administration led to its shambolic and ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years of occupation. A symbol, really, of what we argued in series two of this podcast, that America's post-Cold War experiment in creating a new world order has failed.
After the downfall of the Soviet Union, it looked to many observers that America was the last man standing and that its model of global governance rooted in liberalism, capitalism, and quote-unquote rules-based internationalism, backed up by American military and financial power, would dominate the world forever. As we stated, this idea was made most famous by Francis Fukuyama in his book, The End of History and the Last Man.
Fukuyama's book appeared in 1992. Four years later, a riposte of sorts was published by Samuel Huntington. It was called "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," which we also discussed briefly in series two. Huntington said that the ideological conflicts that underpinned the two world wars and the Cold War may have gone, but their departure wasn't necessarily going to lead to the optimistic scenario imagined by Fukuyama.
Rather, the period of Western super domination was coming to a close as the rest of the world fitfully caught up with the West. The West won the world, Huntington wrote, not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.
Westerners often forget this fact. Non-Westerners never do. Now, as technological parity drew closer, geopolitics would return to how things had always been since time immemorial: a world of distinct civilizational zones between which would be encounter, competition, and conflict.
The Cold War division of humanity is over, he wrote. The more fundamental divisions of humanity, in terms of ethnicity, religions, and civilizations, remain and spawn new conflicts. Human history is the history of civilizations.
Now, to prepare for this episode, I re-read The Clash of Civilizations, and I can't pretend I liked it all that much. Huntington's thesis is so broad that it can pretty much accommodate anything, reducing its analytical power. Plus, there's the thorny issue of what "civilization" really means.
It's such an elastic concept that it can be stretched to include pretty much whatever he wants. As he basically admits, civilizations, he writes, have no clear-cut boundaries and no precise beginnings and endings. People can and do redefine their identities, and as a result, the composition and shapes of civilizations change over time. Civilizations are nonetheless meaningful entities, and while the lines between them are seldom sharp, they are real.
Right, that's it from Huntington. Series three is not going to be about his book. As I said, I don't really rate it. But we have named this series Clash of Civilizations. And we are going to use that idea as our launching point to explore, well, to explore a lot. On the surface, having just narrated the end of America's quote unquote empire in the Middle East, if it is indeed the end,
In this series, we're going to tell the story of that empire from the beginning, which basically means we're going to tell the story of the Cold War as it played out in the Middle East. America and the Soviets both maneuvering for dominance in the region, both trying to stamp their model of modernity upon it, both inheriting imperial structures from the previous period of European colonialism, both giving rise to resistance movements of various stripes.
All of this is fertile ground for asking the question, does an essential clash of civilizations underlie the Middle East's experience of modernization?
But in a way, that's just on the surface. Underneath, we'll be feeling our way to even deeper, more universal, and more ancient questions. Questions of meaning and religion and the wider arc of history as it plays out on the stage, really, of the human imagination, where matter and spirit, concept and reality, time and eternity meet, mingle, and clash. Big stuff. Ha ha!
Right, that's my opening spiel. Eamon, how does that all sound to you? You up for it? Well, between you and me, Thomas, I was listening to you and I was wondering, some university there is missing its professor. Ha ha!
Oh, that's very kind of you. Right. So let's start by discussing what civilization means. You know, it is a very difficult concept. In the West, we tend to contrast civilization with, I don't know, barbarism. What do you call it? The uncivilized world. It's a very difficult concept to grasp, especially since in the Western world, you know, we have been, quote unquote, in our own minds at least, civilized.
for a very long time. But what interests me, Eamon, is that you actually come from a world where the dichotomy between the civilized and, let us say, the uncivilized is still quite fresh. I mean, in Arabic, the word for civilization, al-hadara,
is contrasted with its opposite, al-Badawa. Explain to us the difference between these two words. I mean, al-Hadara really means the settled, those people who don't move around. Al-Badawa, from which the word Bedouin comes, are the nomads. But I think as recently as 50, 60, 70 years ago in Arabia, the distinction between those who lived a settled, civilized life and those who did not was really apparent. Is that right?
Yeah, because let me put it this way. I mean, for the Arabs, in particular, the definition, you know, extends into two spheres here, you know, the physical sphere, you know, and the non-physical sphere, you know. So for the physical sphere, when you say to someone about someone, a Hadari, you know, someone who is civilized, you know, actually the word doesn't translate into civilized in English. You know, it actually translates into urbanized.
So they say someone who's urbanized and someone who is nomad. Because why? The Arabs, you know, they always stressed that حضارة or, you know, in other words, you know, civility
sometimes can be observed and maintained by nomads more than sometimes the urbanized. This is very interesting because throughout human history, there has been a sort of conflict, if you like, a tension between these concepts of the civilized and the uncivilized. On the one hand, people from the safety of their stone walls and cities looking out at the wilderness, seeing nomadic peoples,
On the one hand, they feared them. They held them in contempt. They saw that their manners and morals were less refined. But on the other hand, they valorized them. They thought that they had a kind of unsullied nobility of soul. So there was a strange tension there. For me, if I'm looking for the perfect Arabic definition of what civilization means, whether it is for the urbanized or the nomad,
It is summarized by the Egyptian poet Ahmed Shawqi, who is nicknamed the prince of all Arab poets, Amir al-Shuara. He said, وَإِنَّمَا الْأُمَمُ الْأَخْلَاقُ مَا بَقِيَتْ That nations, foundations are manners. So civilization equal manners. Therefore, it's your manners that determines how civilized you are.
regardless of your urbanized or nomadic status. That's interesting. However, I distinctly remember the first time that I visited Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. And I was driving around with my colleague who was a Saudi middle-class gentleman who'd grown up in Riyadh. And he
we stopped at a police checkpoint and he had to roll down his window and the policeman and he had a bit of banter about them and we drove off and as we drove off he chuckled to himself and he said Bedouin
As if the person that he had just had this exchange with was sort of cute, but clearly rough around the edges. So that was the idea, that his manners, if you like, weren't very refined. But he was sweet. He treated him a bit like a child, I have to admit. Unfortunately, I am as guilty. Whenever I visit Saudi Arabia...
You know, I always, you know, distinguish immediately between those who are urbanized and those who are, you know, coming from a Bedouin background. They are no longer nomad, you know, but it's still, you know, this, you know, lack of, you know, certain refinement is still there. And yet those who lack the certain refinement, I mean, they're not going to tell you, oh, sir, how are you? Whatever of that, like, you know, he would say, papers, please, you know, show me your this, show me that, whatever. But,
Nonetheless, if he feels that you are in distress and if he feels that you are in need, he will be quicker, much quicker than the urbanized person to offer you help, support, and to see his entire manner change completely. So there is something that basically there are cons and pros for each. Yeah, there you go. There's that tension that I mentioned, the tension between
viewing the nomad, viewing the person beyond civilization as noble of spirit and soul, while at the same time viewing them as lesser in some way. Rough around the edges. Rough around the edges, in fact. Now, the reason I bring all of this up is that as we begin to try to reach a wider understanding of Middle Eastern history and the way it informs the present, I think it's very important for people to realize that
Within the Middle East itself, there are different, if you like, civilizational strata or layers. And though we tend to look at maps today and we – in general, as human beings now, we look down upon the world and we see a flat space.
And that those flat spaces are determined by borders. And we think of governments as controlling all of the land within the borders. In historical terms, that's not really what happened at all. And that within these spaces, there were cities and there were villages. And there were at the same time these nomadic peoples. And they were all
mingling together and often that distinction between a city life and a village life and agricultural life and a nomadic pastoral life and a merchant life that distinction was often not just divided civilizationally but ethically
ethnically, religiously, linguistically. And all of these different peoples, all of these different modes of life were mingling together to create a very rich but often conflictual tapestry. Does that make sense, Ayman? Of course, because even in Saudi Arabia, you know, and my Saudi listeners will, you know, I think will chuckle when they listen to this.
The distinction here is between not only two classes, you know, which is those who are of Bedouin, you know, in other words, nomadic roots, and those who are of, you know, urbanized root, Hadari, but also there is the third class, which is, you know, the Qarawi in Fusha, you know, in classical Arabic, but also Grui, you know, in the slang. El Grui. Yeah, El Grui. So whenever, you know, actually, sometimes, you know, a
a Bedouin is no longer an insult. Actually, Gruyere is the insult, you know, which means a villager, you know. So, if you really want to insult someone in Saudi Arabia, call him a villager. So, you know. The farmers get no love. The farmers get no love in any civilization. No.
Okay, because the old kings of time, and to this day, among the royal families of Arabia, what is the favorite sport? Is it farming? No, of course not. It's hunting. Yeah. With falcons and with hounds and all of that. Because hunting is the noble sport of kings. Yes.
You know, but farming, come on, this is for the peasants. And so, you know, so actually in the hierarchy, you know, of Arab mentality, first there is the urbanized, educated ruling class. And then you have the Bedouins or no longer nomadic, but they are descendants of Bedouins. They form most of the...
and military apparatus. You know, they are the warriors protecting the, you know, kingdoms. And then below them, peasants. So...
This distinction between a kind of noble pastoral nomad people and a slightly corrupt backwards agricultural people, this is as old as certainly the Bible. I mean, the story of Cain and Abel is 100% about this idea. Cain is the farmer. Cain is somehow corrupt and wicked. Cain robs.
murders unjustly his noble brother Abel, the pastoralist, the shepherd. And from Cain's lineage, it says, came all forms of wickedness, as well as technology and cities and civilization. So from the very beginning of the human sort of spirit trying to work out these things, as at least it's in the Bible, we see this tension and this conflict from the very beginning. Now,
As Huntington wrote, defining civilization is not easy, but it does mean something. And whatever reality that word is gesturing towards, that reality plays a very real, if very complex and subtle role in history and in current events. Returning now, as we have so many times, to the years following the end of the Cold War in 1991, we can see this already playing out.
In fact, in his book, Huntington provides a long list of examples from 1993 of how his civilizational paradigm was already manifesting itself in the post-Cold War world. We've discussed several already on Conflicted, the wars that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia, which you participated in, Eamon. Yeah, in Bosnia. The expansion of NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, antagonizing Russia.
fighting in Central Asia between a weakened Russia and Mujahideen troops. But one sticks out, both because it involves a conflict we haven't discussed, and because it illustrates how ancient and how lasting these civilizational fault lines are. This conflict is the one between two small countries in the Caucasus region, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Now, dear listener, you may remember that starting in late September 2020 and lasting for about six weeks, a war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan over a disputed territory called Nagorno-Karabakh. This flare-up was the sequel to the conflict in 1993, which Huntington referred to, a clear sign that some places, at least, are still experiencing the fallout of the Cold War.
But before we get into the details of the conflict, Eamon, in general, why have Armenians and Azeris been in conflict?
Ah, we need several hours. But in order to condense this... Well, it's really about territory. The fight is really about territory. It's always about territory, but it's more than that. Don't forget, I mean, yes, the underlying reason is territory, but there is a lot, a reservoir of deep-seated feelings, grievances, insecurities. I mean, we could talk about it forever. Historical grievances that could last a thousand years forever.
But the reality is, as someone who's been to the Caucasus, and I participated in the conflicts of the Caucasus, you know, whether in Chechnya, Dagestan, and Azerbaijan. Yes, I mean, you went to Baku, which is the capital of Azerbaijan, in 1996. Is that right? Yes, indeed. And the reason you were there was to help smuggle, was it peanut butter? No, mayonnaise to Mujahideen in Chechnya. Mayonnaise, yeah.
Well, among other things, of course. So we have to understand that with such deep, you know, deeply held grievances that the Armenians feel about the fact that, you know, history was not kind to them for all
almost 1,500 years. And on top of the fact that their ancestral homeland seems to have been eaten, you know, piece by piece by continuous Turkic tribal migration starting in the, you know, 10th and 11th century, you know, with Turkish tribes coming from the steppes of Central Asia.
They were pushed and pushed and pushed, you know, to the Caucasus regions, and that's it. I mean, basically, it's just a long list of, you know, grievances against Turkic people for almost a thousand years. It's important for the listener to understand that the Armenians are among the oldest peoples in the world.
In the Bronze Age, there was a network, a patchwork of Indo-European kingdoms that stretched across Anatolia and into the Caucasus. Anatolia and the Caucasus, really what is the modern state of Turkey. And those Indo-European peoples, you may have heard of the Hittites, for example. They're in the Bible, so they're sometimes well-known. They're sort of a famous people. But they were just one of many Indo-European peoples, which during what's called the Bronze Age collapse,
beginning in 1200 BC, sort of disappeared, certainly seemed to leave the historical record. They amalgamated, they were conquered, but out of that strange several centuries of conflict and civilizational dissipation, the Armenians emerged.
And it seems that they were focused around Eastern Anatolia and into where they now live, around Lake Van in the eastern part of the Anatolian Plateau. So we're talking a very old, well-established people. They were the first kingdom to officially adopt Christianity. Before any other kingdom, before any other nation became Christian, the Armenians did. So they're very ancient and they're very proud of that antiquity.
The Azeris are descendants of, well, from the perspective of Armenians, new Turkic arrivals. The Oghuz Turks who entered what the ancients called Albania, which is where Azerbaijan is today, beginning in the 10th century.
Now, there's echoes here of that civilized, uncivilized, or Hadara-Badawi split, of the Christian-Muslim split even. And these things still matter. So the Armenians who are a civilized, quote-unquote, long-established Christian country saw that
nomadic, pastoral, Turkic warrior peoples move into the valleys of the zone that they had been living in. And it created tremendous conflict. The Turkish migrations resulted in the establishment of many new states, long established, which echo to the present as well. And the Armenians felt like they were a people trapped between imperial zones.
If you look at the map of ancient Armenia, they're like the poles of the Middle East. They're sort of like Poland there, always shifting back and forth, victims of various imperial power struggles. They were stuck there between Safavid Iran and the Ottomans. The Russians to the north got involved, and obviously to the south, various Arab peoples as well. So they're always in the middle. And that's when we reach the 20th century and the sad story of the Armenian Genocide.
So that brings us up to the 20th century, really, from the Armenian point of view. Now, Ayman, you spent some time in Baku, in Azerbaijan. What is the Azeri point of view about their own history and how it relates to coexisting or not with Armenians? I remember when I met several Azeris, and some of them actually were Shia, some of them were Sunni. As you know, the Azeris are almost 70% Shia Muslims, but they are not...
the same as the Iranians in terms of their belief in the supremacy of the supreme leader of Iran. So basically, when you talk to them and they hear that I was in Bosnia fighting against the Serbs and the genocide that happened there in Bosnia, they say, and what about the genocide that happened and the ethnic cleansing that happened against your Azeri brothers and sisters in the Nagorno-Karabakh region?
You know, we were expelled from our homes there. I mean, our, you know, Azeri brothers and sisters were slaughtered, killed, and driven. You know, the Armenians are the Serbs of the Caucasus. The Azeris share with the Armenians, you know, the ideals that their homeland actually is supposed to be much bigger, you know, because of the spread of their ethnic group across other countries, including Iran, where they have, you know, massive amount of Azeris living there. But,
They believe themselves to be the descendants of great empires and great traditions of the Mongols, of the Tartars. In fact, one of the biggest mosques in Baku is called the Tartars Mosque.
in order to stress that link between them and the ancient civilizations of the steppes. The first Oghuz Turks who came into that part of the world, they established a great empire known as the Seljuk Empire, the first really great Turkic empire.
Islamic empire, and they feel that they are the heirs of that empire and many empires that followed. Absolutely. Not only that, they say that they have contributed considerably to Islamic civilization. They were the barrier between, you know, the Russian southward conquest of the Caucasus that, you know, that without them, you know, that the entire, you know, Turk-Persian Muslim world would have been subjugated by the Russians.
So for them, they feel that they were the guardians of the northern gates of Islam. And they say it with zeal. In fact, the city that lies between Azerbaijan and the Soviet region of Dagestan, and now it's the Russian region of Dagestan, is called Darband.
which in Persian means the gate of gates. This is where we protected the Turkish Persian Muslim world from subjugation by the Russians. So there you have it, two peoples in their own minds, both very ancient, both heirs of great civilizations, clashing. Now,
Now, let's return to the beginning of the 20th century when the story takes a very tragic turn. So at that time, two peoples who were subject to the Ottomans revolted, encouraged by Western powers, the Arabs, and of course we'll cover that in another episode, and the Armenians.
At the same time, the Bolshevik Revolution actually conquered much of what was Armenia and the Armenians had to fight and resist them. So during this period, the Armenians are developing a very strong sense of nationhood and a very strong sense of their independence. This resulted in Turkish reprisals against Armenia and at least hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Millions were displaced.
For that reason, you find Armenians everywhere today, even in Los Angeles. I'm looking at you, Kim Kardashian. And this genocide is a very important component of Armenian self-identity today and informs their perspective towards their neighbors, their Turkic neighbors, really on either side of the border, both Turks and Azeris. Would you say that's true, Eamon? Oh, yeah, because for them…
As far as the Armenians are concerned, and when you speak to Armenians, for them, the Azeris are the more aggressive and trespassing version of Turkish people. Is that because they just live much closer to them? Oh, yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, like, you know, in order to justify taking back lands or, you know, basically conquering territories or fighting against them, you have to, you know, really...
I won't say dehumanized, but you have to demonize your enemy and to say, whoa, the Turks did genocide against us, but these Azeris are the worst versions of the Turks. They don't distinguish actually between the Azeris and the Turks. They consider the Azeris an extension and a more aggressive extension of the Turks.
And between you and me, the Azeris and the Turks share almost the same language when they speak to each other. It's almost a slight difference in dialect, but that's it. I mean, the Armenians view them as more aggressive Turks. The word trespassing, I've heard it many times coming out of Armenian people when they talk to me. In the end, both Armenia and Azerbaijan became Soviet republics.
Nagorno-Karabakh, this disputed region that has caused the war, lies between Armenia and Azerbaijan, really. Although it's a very mountainous area with highlands and midlands and higher lands and lowlands because it's so mountainous. And that more sort of, let's say, vertical stratification informs the ethnic diversity of the area.
But that region, Nagorno-Karabakh, which was within Azerbaijan, was largely self-governing because it had a majority Armenian population. Now, this obviously is a recipe for conflict. And once the Soviet Union collapsed, war broke out in 1992. One conflict after another, it
during which largely, I think you would agree with this, Eamon, the Armenians beat the shit out of the Azeris and they were able to occupy Nagorno-Karabakh and though no country recognized that occupation as legal, effectively made it a part of Armenia. Yes. The conflict of 1993-1994 saw the Armenian military really, really dominating the battlefield and
not only they were able to beat the Azerbaijani military, which was really pathetic at the time, they, you know, however,
did not just be satisfied with the annexation and the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was three-quarters Armenian population. The problem is not here. The problem is that Nagorno-Karabakh itself is an enclave inside Azerbaijan. And actually, the areas surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that straddle the border between Armenia proper and Nagorno-Karabakh itself
was almost 85% ethnic Azeris. So the idea is you have to expel, from the point of view of the Armenians, you have to expel
almost 700,000 Azeris from their homes in order to make way for the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave to have a continuous, contiguous land connection with Armenia proper. And were they successful in clearing out all the Azerbaijanis? 700,000 plus ended up as internal refugees in Azerbaijan. Now, I can confirm that myself.
Because when I used to work for Al-Haramain charity, it was a Saudi charity set up in Azerbaijan to help with internally displaced Azerbaijanis, as well as Chechen refugees coming from the Chechen war pouring into Azerbaijan. The numbers stack up. You know, they do actually, you know, the numbers stack up. The numbers are credible. So, yes.
700,000 people were kicked out of their homes. And that's why the Azeris used to tell me, you know, well, you know, what about our, you know, genocide and ethnic cleansing that took place here? You know, you went to make jihad in Bosnia. Why don't you come and make jihad here in Azerbaijan? And, you know, and I was like, yeah, I mean, really, do you view it as a Muslim against Christian? And they said, yes.
So there, they mixed everything. Just like the Serbs cloaked their ultra-nationalism in Bosnia with the symbology of Christianity, the same thing, the Azeris felt that this is yet another manifestation of a Christian crusade against them in the Caucasus.
Overnight, Duncan's pumpkin spice coffee has sent folks into a cozy craze. I'm Lauren LaTulip reporting live from home in my hand-knit turtleneck that my Nana made me. Mmm, cinnamony. The home with Duncan is where you want to be. So back then in the 90s, you said that Armenia was well-equipped and well-trained and therefore won, though there were more Azeris than Armenians, but the Armenians were better equipped.
The Azeris, their military wasn't much. But what about the Turks? So why didn't the Turks back then come to the Azeris aid? I mean, here you have Armenia invading Azerbaijan. You have Armenia ethnically cleansing huge areas of Azerbaijan. 700,000 Azeris had to flee. Why didn't the Turks intervene?
Turkey at that time did not intervene for two compelling reasons. First of all, the Turkish economy wasn't as great as it is right now. I mean, the Turkish GDP at that time in the early 1990s did not exceed $100 billion, compared to about nearly $900 billion right now. That's the first thing that we need to understand.
The second reason is that, you know, Turkish politics was so complicated at the time. Because of the proportional representation in the elections, you end up with governments comprising of six parties in a coalition. So six small parties come together, make a coalition, and it doesn't last more than seven, eight months at a time. And they keep changing prime ministers more than they change their socks. This prevented the Turkish government from really executing its will. It was very divided, internally divided and weak.
Exactly. The third reason, which is very important, they were fighting a war against the PKK. So a Kurdish Marxist, you know, guerrilla group, you know, an insurgent group, basically, that were fighting a bloody war, you know, in Anatolia against ISIS.
Turkish military. It's funny that you bring up the Kurds because the Kurds are yet another very ancient group who live in this part of the world who are contesting their statehood and their nationality against competitors. So my goodness, it's a messy part of the world. So the Turks were poor, they were politically weak, and they were fighting a war with the Kurds so they couldn't intervene. Now at the time,
The president of Azerbaijan was a man called Haider Aliyev. Now, his son, Ilham, later became president. And that's when the game began to change. What did Ilham do, Ayman? Well, Ilham Aliyev is a man living in the future rather than living in the past. This is the best I could describe him. I mean, he basically realized that there is no point crying over lost territories. The question is,
How do I take them back? So he started, you know, a plan based on three simple, you know, steps. First, grow the wealth of the nation through oil and gas exports. That's the first thing, you know, make Azerbaijan wealthy. The second,
make Azerbaijan a diplomatically strong country by alliances with Russia, with Turkey, with Israel and with Pakistan. So, you know, this is how it all started. And then the third thing, make Azerbaijan militarily advanced, you know, with technology and smart planning. Three steps, that's it.
While the Armenians were savoring their victory of the mid-1990s and they were very complacent, next door, Al-Hamaliev put these three plans into action and
and executed each one flawlessly. The Arab Spring informed Aliyev's geopolitical perspective as well, didn't it? I mean, he looked around at 2010, 2011, 2012, at all the instability. This encouraged him to strengthen his diplomatic ties both to Turkey and, surprisingly, to Israel. Well...
He looks at the fact that he is sandwiched there between the Caspian Sea, Russia, mighty Russia, Turkey, and Iran. He doesn't trust Iran.
even though basically that he comes from a Shia family, but he doesn't feel that the Iranians are trustworthy allies. So he looks across the border into Turkey. He realized that Turkey is the closest ally from a cultural and linguistic point of view. He looks at Russia and thinks, a good partner, someone who I can keep happy.
But how do I keep the Russians happy? How do I keep the Iranians nervous? How do I keep the Americans, you know, from lecturing me about human rights, you know, and democracy, you know, and all of that, which basically, like, you know, I mean, Azerbaijan, let's face it, like, you know, doesn't have a very good record in either, you know. So how do I keep them happy? Well, Israel,
Israel is a great lobbying power in D.C., but also Israel has something that I need because Israel also know that I have something that they desperately need. I can imagine what Israel gets from Azerbaijan, access to the Caspian Sea, the ability to practice espionage against Iran. Now, what is it, though, that Israel can offer Azerbaijan? Israel is one of those countries that's proven that, you know, with...
minimum manpower and maximum technological advancement, you can win a war against any conventional army as long as the numbers are manageable. So it's Israel's military technology, its military experience that was useful to the Azeris. Oh yeah, I mean, no question about it. It
It's billions and billions of dollars worth of weapons and technology that were basically sold by the Israelis to the Azeris. So that is one. But the other aspect that the Israelis can offer President Elhan Aliyev
is the lobbying power they have in D.C. in order to just keep the Americans away from criticizing or over-criticizing the regime of Alham Aliyev's records on human rights and democracy. Which was useful to Aliyev because Armenia has a pretty sophisticated lobbying effort in Washington as well. There are so many Armenians there.
living in the United States, American citizens now, but of Armenian background. They're often very rich. Armenians abroad have succeeded in becoming a very wealthy merchant people. Now, the funny thing is though that Armenia itself, the country of Armenia, isn't very rich. Why isn't it? It should be rich. If Azerbaijan can become rich, why can't Armenia become rich?
Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenia doesn't have any oil or gas or natural resources and it's landlocked. I mean it doesn't have access to the sea. So two recipes for economic disaster. And at the same time the brain drain because the migration really drains the Armenian economy of important resource which is the manpower and the brain power that they need in order to develop.
but also surrounded by hostility. You know, you can be landlocked, you know, and prosperous. I mean, look at Switzerland. Exactly. Switzerland is famous for its banking sector, which I would have thought given Armenians abroad, especially in Lebanon, for example, where Armenians are famous for their banking acumen. I would have thought that Armenia might be a financial center for that part of the world. Again, we come back to the fact that Armenia is not lucky with its neighbors.
You know, there is Iran. What do you do with Iran? They're already under sanctions. There is Turkey, which is hostile to you and can, you know, blockade you. There is Azerbaijan, which is at war with you. And then there is Georgia to the north. And Georgia is actually the country that became the banker, you know, of the Caucasus. You know, they are the ones who actually decided to become the center for banking operations in the Caucasus. And also because the Armenians...
themselves, like, you know, chose to become a little bit of an isolationist nation, you know, in their own way, you know, of thinking, of conducting diplomacy. You know, they seem to be an insular, you know, they adopted that insular. Fortress Armenia. Yes, exactly. Plus the bureaucracy and the regulations and the laws, you know, which are complicated, the ease of business index, Armenia is not exactly there at the top, you know, not even in the middle. So all of this meant that Armenia was destined to be poor.
Now, in 1995, Armenia, as we said, conquers Nagorno-Karabakh, begins its ethnic cleansing campaign of the surrounding areas. And from that point onwards, there's been an on-again, off-again attempt to internationally broker a settlement between the two sides. Now, this resulted in 2007 in what are called the Madrid Principles.
Point by point, principles outlining how maybe peace could be brought to bear on the situation. It's funny when you read the Madrid principles now, point by point, it's really almost like a blueprint of America's new world order. This idea that through goodwill, through economic incentives, through international peacekeeping operations, that somehow conflicts could just be neutralized. It doesn't really work out that way. It certainly didn't work out that way in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
At the same time, there's on again, off again breaches of the ceasefire. Fighting breaks out again and again and again. Eventually, Nagorno-Karabakh declares itself independent and establishes the Republic of Artsakh. But in effect, Armenia had annexed it and the surrounding areas. So finally, war broke out. And in September and October of 2020, Azerbaijan crushed the Armenians. Why were they able to do this, Ayman? There is a joke in...
diplomatic circles in DC always about the Palestinians, you know, they say that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This applies even more to the Armenians because the Madrid six principles in 2007, 2009, 2011, you know, and Russian attempts in 2012 and 13. I mean, all of these, you know, opportunities would have given them exactly what they wanted.
the whole of Nagorno-Karabakh with a land corridor to Armenia proper, with the fact that except that the surrounding areas which they occupy should return back to the Azeris, the Azeris can go back to their homes, but nonetheless Nagorno-Karabakh and a land corridor will be theirs. So
So, you know, and also the deal will also extend a oil and gas pipeline from Baku all the way through Armenia to Turkey for export. And that would have given Armenia some semblance of energy security. I would say it's a sweet deal. Why abandon it? We come back to the irrationality of nationalism, historical grievances, inability to
live in the future and no longer live in the past. This is the same plague, basically, that is plaguing the Palestinian mindset when it comes to negotiating with the Israelis. It's the same thing here.
At the same time, the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, he was ruthless, but he was very calculating. He was very smart. He never attacked Armenia properly. He only attacked those areas that were still officially internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.
So no one could actually officially criticize his actions. He was simply defending his country's own borders. The problem was that the fact that the Armenian prime minister at the time who came to power in 2018, you know, was someone who lacked, you know, the ability to, you know, to lead in a smart way.
First, he alienated the Russians, his traditional allies. He was also someone who alienated the Turks by talking a lot about the fact that when he went to France and along with Macron was saying that we have to pressure Turkey to return certain territories to Armenia.
So as soon as you start claiming territories from Turkey, while you, you know, I mean, that actually woken, you know, the Turkish, you know, fears and, you know, and also the belligerence of the Turks. I mean, do not step on the tail of the Turks. You know, there is a famous, you know, Turkish cat called the Angorak, you know, it has the bushiest tail you could ever see on any cat breed. But step on its tail and it will scratch you.
and it will bite. It's the same thing here. The Armenian prime minister stepped on the Turkish Angora's cat, you know, and...
And as a result, the Turks took notice of this. So they reached out to the Azerbaijani government to discuss further military cooperation, transfer of military technology. And suddenly, instead of having one ally, which is the Israelis, he has the Turks now. So Alham Alayev decided now is the time.
because, you know, three things happened. One, the Armenians are alienated from their traditional allies, the Russians. Two, the Armenians are threatening Turkish territorial integrity, and therefore he has an ally with the Turks. And three,
The Azerbaijani military now has reached the level of readiness, thanks to Israeli and Turkish military support, to take on the Armenians who've been sleeping on the wheel of technological advancement for a very long time.
That's really the main point. Since the 90s, the Armenian military hadn't developed to the same extent. So they were fighting a more conventional sort of war. They thought the Armenian fighting spirit would see them through, whereas all along, the Azeris had built up an extremely sophisticated, hyper-modern military. Describe
that military a little bit, just a little bit. I mean, it involved the use of drones. What other sort of modern technologies did Azeris bring to the field? First of all, the most important element of any modern military is the ability to see your enemy while your enemy can't see you.
So the ability to have air superiority where your enemy cannot see you, but you can see them all the time moving using drone surveillance technologies means that you know where they are and they don't know where you are. So that's it. That's the first advantage that you have. Your enemy is blind to your movement. You can see the enemy clearly everywhere. And the Azeris had that advantage. They were sort of using their drones, hovering over the battlefield. They could see everything.
their Armenian enemies on the ground and they would just take them out. Exactly. At the same time, they are shooting down Armenian aircraft and they are shooting down Armenian drones. In other words, basically total air superiority. That's the first win that the Azeris scored. Second is drone technology that is armed with small size but very smart bombs that can actually rain down on tanks and
and on artillery. So the Armenians have their rocket launchers, they have their T-72 advanced, well, semi-advanced Russian tanks, they have their artillery pieces, they can field them, but as soon as they put them in position, the Azeris basically, I mean, with several drones, each drone carry about eight of these bombs, they can choose their targets and pick them one by one, and the Armenians can't do anything. They
They describe it, it's the equivalence of eagles hunting bunnies. Really, it's a war between eagles and bunnies. Also, there is this technology coming out of Israel, and now even the Emiratis are actually manufacturing it, called...
loitering munitions. Basically, it's a drone, small size, that actually travels around looking for military targets, something that looks like a rocket launcher or a tank for the enemy. And then you don't need to do anything. It will have its own system, its own guidance systems to recognize the enemy's vehicles, positions,
And it will just, you know, attack it immediately. It's a suicide drone laden with explosives. It will just attack it. So they can launch hundreds of these. You mean this sort of technology operates without even a man on the ground directing it? No. But this is something out of science fiction. This is like out of the Terminator movies or something. Exactly. Exactly. It can recognize, you know, the enemy's weapons.
the enemy's tanks, because it's already fed into its algorithms that, you know, okay, this is a T-72 tank. This is a BM-40, you know, rocket launcher. This is a 152 mils howitzer. Go and attack it and it will go and attack it.
on its own. And you can launch dozens of these, you know, and there is nothing, like really, there is nothing, you know, the Armenians can do about it because they're too small to detect until it's too late.
So the Azeri military prowess really won the day. Now, because of mistrust between Azerbaijan and Iran, Iran has in recent years been an ally of Armenia. And when the war broke out, Iran did smuggle munitions to Armenia. But when this became known, the big –
protests broke out in Iran amongst the Azeris there. And so Iran had to kind of withdraw that support, further isolating Armenia. Turkey, as you said, was straightforwardly in support of Azerbaijan. Russia, in general, a protector of Armenia, traditionally, refused to get involved, as you said, because the prime minister of Armenia had such a pro-Western position. It got Putin's back up.
But nonetheless, in the end, it was Russia who oversaw a ceasefire agreement between the two sides. Armenia withdrew from most of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that it had occupied. Nagorno-Karabakh itself remains an autonomous republic of Artsakh, and Russia is patrolling a corridor between it and Armenia to make sure that Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia are connected.
So the war was over. According to official estimates, it resulted in about 3,000 Azeri deaths and 4,000 Armenian deaths, but tens of thousands wounded in Armenia. So what's the point of all this? The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a good snapshot of the post-Cold War world. And the U.S.'s absence from the diplomatic table is a sign of its fading power.
More importantly, the conflict reveals the depth of historical memory, how ancient history informs the present, and how the conflicts we see raging across the region are, in important ways, manifestations of the continuity of old civilizational fault lines.
Just in this episode, we've had to go back to the Bronze Age to understand what's going on. We've touched on a number of historical turning points that will come up again and again this season. The Bronze Age, as I've said. The religious dimension as paganism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and many shaded areas in between work their magic on history.
The ethnic dimension as ancient dividing lines, Semite, Indo-Aryan, Greek, Turk are still in the mix. The imperial dimension as the three great imperial zones that comprised Islamic civilization from the Mongol invasions onward, the Ottoman, the Iranian, and the Mughals in India weakened and collapsed in the face of European and then American power.
All these dimensions are there haunting the present, and in this series of Conflicted, we'll continue to shed light on them all as best we can as we explore the complex legacies of the Cold War in the Middle East and how that conflict often echoed earlier conflicts, both from the age of European imperialism and from the Islamic empires that preceded and overlapped with it.
In a way, the Cold War began in the Middle East when an Arabian king made a fateful decision. Instead of granting oil drilling rights to Britain, the region's foremost imperial power, he chose an upstart instead: the United States of America. That alliance between the White House and the House of Saud would become the linchpin of Cold War geopolitics, the echoes of which continue well into the present day.
Eamon and I will tell that story, and what I'm most excited about is hearing Eamon's insider view on an event both mysterious and macabre, one with roots in the Cold War, which dominated headlines for months, threatening to overturn decades of careful Saudi diplomacy.
Stay tuned for Conflicted's take on the infamous assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. Oh, I'm so looking forward to it. As always, I'd like to extend the invitation to all listeners to join the Conflicted Discussion Group on Facebook, where you can connect with other fans of the show to discuss the themes and topics we cover in each episode and be the first to hear all the latest news about future episodes. You can find the Facebook group by searching for Conflicted Podcast Discussion Group.
You can follow us on Twitter and Facebook at MHConflicted. We're also pleased to announce that you can now subscribe to ad-free listening and upcoming bonus content for just 99p on Apple Podcasts. And over on Spotify, you can also listen ad-free. Search for Conflicted Extra to get access to future bonus episodes for just 99p a month. Okay, I think that's everything for today. We'll be back in two weeks.
Conflicted is a Message Heard production. This episode was produced and edited by Rowan Bishop. Sandra Ferrari is our executive producer. Our theme music is by Matt Huxley.