Understanding the Dynamics of Empire and Islamic States in Contemporary Politics

In recent years, the geopolitical landscape has been dramatically shaped by the interactions between powerful nations and various states, particularly those with Islamic governance structures. A tweet from political analyst Kevork Almassian succinctly encapsulates this complex relationship, suggesting that empires are primarily concerned with compliance rather than ideology. This article aims to delve into the implications of Almassian’s statement, examining how the presence of an "Islamic state" is tolerated by empires, but independent nations—Islamic or otherwise—pose a significant challenge.

The Concept of Compliance in International Relations

The notion of compliance is central to understanding the behavior of empires in the modern world. Almassian highlights that empires, which can be interpreted as powerful nation-states or coalitions, have no inherent objection to the establishment of Islamic states as long as these states align with their strategic interests. This compliance can manifest in various forms, such as political allegiance, economic cooperation, or military support.

The Case of Syria

Almassian specifically points to Syria, a nation that has been the focus of international attention and intervention. The Syrian conflict has led to the emergence of various factions vying for control, including those with Islamic ideologies. The international community’s response to these developments illustrates a paradox: while some Islamic groups are supported when they align with Western interests, others are aggressively opposed when they pursue independent paths.

The Tolerance of Islamic States

The tolerance of Islamic states by powerful nations is often contingent on their willingness to cooperate with existing geopolitical frameworks. For instance, if an Islamic state can be integrated into a broader strategy that serves the interests of an empire, it may receive support, resources, and legitimacy. The installation of compliant regimes in regions like Syria can be viewed as a means to stabilize these areas while ensuring that they operate within the desired parameters set by powerful nations.

The Role of Ideology vs. Strategy

It is essential to differentiate between ideology and strategy in this context. Empires might publicly advocate for democracy, human rights, and self-determination; however, their actions often reveal a preference for stability and compliance over ideological alignment. This dichotomy raises important questions about the motivations behind foreign interventions and the true nature of support for Islamic states.

The Threat of Independent Nations

In contrast to compliant Islamic states, independent nations pose a significant threat to empires. These nations, regardless of their religious affiliations, challenge the status quo by asserting their sovereignty and pursuing their own interests. This independence can lead to tensions, as empires may perceive these nations as obstacles to their geopolitical goals.

Historical Context

Historically, the rise of independent nations has often been met with resistance from powerful states. The Cold war era, for example, saw numerous instances where independent movements in the Global South were either supported or suppressed based on their alignment with the interests of superpowers. The legacy of colonialism and the subsequent emergence of independent nations have left lasting impacts on international relations, often resulting in conflicts that are framed as ideological but are rooted in the desire for control.

The Implications for Global Stability

The dynamics between compliant Islamic states and independent nations have significant implications for global stability. As empires continue to navigate this complex terrain, the potential for conflict remains high. The inability to tolerate independent voices can lead to military interventions, economic sanctions, and diplomatic isolation.

The Role of International Institutions

International institutions, such as the United Nations, play a crucial role in mediating these tensions. However, their effectiveness is often limited by the political will of powerful nations. The willingness to support or undermine independent nations often reflects the broader geopolitical calculus of empires, raising questions about the legitimacy and fairness of international governance.

The Future of Islamic States and Empires

As the world continues to evolve, the relationship between Islamic states and empires will likely remain a contentious issue. The emergence of new geopolitical players, shifting alliances, and the rise of nationalist movements are all factors that will influence this dynamic.

The Need for a New Framework

To foster a more stable and equitable global order, there is a pressing need for a new framework that recognizes the legitimacy of independent nations. This framework should prioritize dialogue, mutual respect, and cooperation over compliance and control. By addressing the root causes of conflict and fostering an environment of inclusivity, the international community can work towards a more stable future.

Conclusion

Kevork Almassian’s observation about the empire’s tolerance of compliant Islamic states versus its intolerance for independent nations sheds light on the intricate dynamics of international relations. Understanding this relationship is crucial for comprehending contemporary geopolitical conflicts and the challenges that lie ahead. As the world grapples with the consequences of empire, sovereignty, and ideology, the quest for a balanced approach that respects the rights of all nations remains more important than ever.

In summary, the discourse surrounding Islamic states and empires is not merely a matter of ideology; it is deeply rooted in the strategic interests that shape global politics. The future will depend on how these interests are navigated and whether a more inclusive approach can be adopted to ensure peace and stability in an increasingly interconnected world.

The empire has no problem with an “Islamic state”-as long as it’s compliant. They just installed one in Syria.

What they can’t tolerate are nations that are independent, Islamic or otherwise.

— Kevork Almassian (@KevorkAlmassian) June 17, 2025

The empire has no problem with an “Islamic state”-as long as it’s compliant. They just installed one in Syria.

When discussing the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, the phrase “the empire has no problem with an ‘Islamic state’—as long as it’s compliant” resonates strongly. This statement, attributed to Kevork Almassian, encapsulates a significant tension in international relations, particularly regarding the establishment and support of various regimes throughout the region. It suggests that external powers are often willing to support particular forms of governance, as long as they align with their interests. In this context, the recent developments in Syria provide a clear illustration of this dynamic.

The situation in Syria has been complex and fraught with conflict for over a decade now. The Syrian civil war has not only devastated the country but has also attracted a multitude of foreign interests, each with their own agendas. One could argue that the installation of a compliant “Islamic state” in parts of Syria reflects a broader strategy employed by powerful nations to maintain control and influence in the region.

What they can’t tolerate are nations that are independent, Islamic or otherwise.

The second part of Almassian’s quote, “What they can’t tolerate are nations that are independent, Islamic or otherwise,” speaks volumes about the broader implications of foreign intervention. Independent nations pose a threat to the established order that many powerful countries wish to maintain. These nations, whether Islamic or secular, challenge the narrative of compliance and subservience that has dominated international politics for decades.

In the Middle East, the struggle for independence has often been met with resistance from external powers. The support for certain regimes, while simultaneously undermining others, illustrates a clear double standard in foreign policy. This is particularly evident in how the West has dealt with Islamic movements and governments. For instance, movements that seek to implement Islamic principles in governance are often demonized if they don’t align with Western interests. Yet, those that do comply or serve as a puppet regime often receive backing, regardless of their ideological stance. This inconsistency raises questions about the motives behind foreign interventions.

The Role of Syria in Global Geopolitics

Syria serves as a microcosm for understanding these geopolitical dynamics. Over the years, various factions have emerged, each supported by different foreign powers. For example, the United States and its allies have often positioned themselves against the Assad regime, citing human rights violations and the need for democratic reforms. However, the reality on the ground is much more complicated. As Almassian points out, the installation of a compliant Islamic state in Syria indicates that external powers are willing to back certain regimes as long as they serve their interests.

Moreover, the rise of groups like ISIS and their subsequent downfall has also been influenced by foreign intervention. The U.S.-led coalition’s fight against ISIS was often framed as a noble cause to eliminate terrorism. However, the aftermath of this campaign has revealed that the vacuum left behind can lead to further instability. The question remains: what happens when an Islamic state, compliant or not, emerges from the rubble? And who will support it?

The Complexity of Compliance in Islamic Governance

The notion of a compliant Islamic state raises important questions about governance. What does it mean for a state to be compliant? In many cases, it involves the acceptance of foreign intervention in domestic affairs, aligning national policies with the interests of powerful nations, and suppressing dissent. This can lead to a perverse form of governance, where the ruling elite prioritize their relationship with foreign powers over the needs of their citizens.

In Syria, the Assad regime has maintained its grip on power through a combination of brutal repression and external support. This has created a situation where the Syrian people face a choice between oppressive governance and the chaos of a power vacuum. As a result, many have sought refuge in alternative forms of governance that promise stability, even if they come at the cost of independence.

The Impact on the Syrian Population

For the Syrian population, the implications of foreign intervention and the establishment of a compliant “Islamic state” can be devastating. The ongoing conflict has led to a humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and countless lives lost. The prospect of stability offered by a compliant governance model can be alluring, but it often comes with strings attached. The desire for independence and self-determination is overshadowed by the harsh realities of survival in a war-torn country.

Moreover, the international community’s response to the Syrian crisis has been inconsistent at best. While there is widespread condemnation of the Assad regime’s actions, the lack of a cohesive strategy to support the Syrian people’s aspirations for true independence and democratic governance is glaring. This raises important ethical questions about the role of powerful nations in shaping the futures of others.

The Future of Islamic States in the Middle East

As we look to the future, the question of how Islamic states will evolve in the Middle East remains open. Will they continue to be propped up by foreign powers willing to support compliant regimes, or will there be a shift towards empowering independent governance? The answer may lie in the ability of local populations to assert their rights and demand governance that reflects their values and aspirations.

In many cases, the rise of independent Islamic movements can be seen as a response to the failures of external powers to provide meaningful support. The Arab Spring, for example, showcased a widespread desire for change and independence, albeit often met with violent repression and foreign intervention. The resilience of these movements suggests that the quest for genuine independence will continue, despite the challenges.

Conclusion: A Call for Genuine Support and Change

As we reflect on the complex interplay of power, governance, and independence in the Middle East, it’s essential to recognize the importance of supporting genuine efforts for change. The empire may have no problem with compliant Islamic states, but the future of the region depends on empowering the voices of its people. By fostering an environment where independent governance can thrive, we move closer to a world where nations can determine their own destinies, free from the shackles of external control.

In the end, the path forward lies in understanding and addressing the underlying issues that have led to conflict and instability. Only then can we hope to see a Middle East where independence is celebrated, rather than feared.