The West's Ultimate Misunderstanding of the Middle East
The Middle East is not just a different geography. It has an entirely different clock.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Nachum Kaplan, a longtime journalist and commentator who writes the newsletter, “Moral Clarity.”
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.
One of the West’s most enduring delusions about the Middle East is temporal. It assumes that everyone thinks like Washington, Brussels, or Canberra: in election cycles, quarterly earnings reports, and news cycles that expire before the next streaming series drops.
They do not.
The Middle East is not just a different geography. It has a different clock.
The modern West is a civilization of immediacy. Politicians calculate in two-year and four-year increments. Corporate leaders optimize for the next quarter. Journalists are slaves to the 24-hour news cycle. Public opinion sways with the algorithm. Even wars are framed as “limited operations” designed to produce measurable results before midterms.
By contrast, the Middle East contains civilizations that measure time in millennia. This is not to diminish Western thought or to romanticise Middle Eaternism; it is structural reality.
The Middle East is home to ancient cultures. Tribal loyalties, religious doctrines, dynastic rivalries, and historical grievances are not abstractions; they are living forces. When regional actors make plans, they do so with a patience that is alien to Western sensibilities.
Consider the Muslim Brotherhood.
Founded in 1928 by Egyptian schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood was not conceived as a protest movement, but as a civilizational project. Its aim was not to win the next election; it was to re-Islamize society from the bottom up and ultimately restore Islamic political dominance. Its strategy has always been multi-generational: education, social services, infiltration of institutions, demographic endurance, and ideological persistence.
Western policymakers routinely interpret such movements through their own familiar lens: Are they “moderating”? Are they participating in elections? Are they pragmatic this year? These are the questions you ask when you have no idea what you are talking about. Participation in a democratic process can be tactical and does not require surrendering a long-term vision.
Islamist movements frequently speak in terms of eventual and inevitable victory. Not tomorrow. Not necessarily in 10 years. But eventually. This is not conspiracy theory; it is next-level patience. It is why Hamas said it will “dissolve” its existing government in Gaza once a Palestinian technocratic leadership committee takes over the territory (while cementing its hold over Gaza by placing Hamas loyalists in key government roles), why the Palestinian Authority is happy to make no progress in its talks with Israel, and why the Iranian regime — even as U.S. and Israeli jets pummel it — insist they will keep enriching uranium and building ballistic missiles.
The West struggles with this concept because Westerners are culturally conditioned to believe that ideology softens under prosperity and time. In the Middle East, ideology often hardens under both. Hence why Western negotiators approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as if it were a zoning dispute when, for the disputing parties, it is eschatology.
And it is not just an Islamic thing. Consider figures such as Israel’s Far-Right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Smotrich does not speak the language of tactical containment. He speaks the language of destiny. He believes that Israel will ultimately exercise full sovereignty over Judea and Samaria — and perhaps beyond — whether that occurs in one year or 50 years. This sounds extreme, unrealistic, and inflammatory to Western ears because they misunderstand the clock.
For Smotrich and those who share his worldview, the question is not “Will this be resolved by the next administration?” It is “What is the arc of Jewish history?” Jewish national restoration is framed not as a policy debate but as a civilizational return after 2,000 years of exile. If you have waited two millennia, 50 years is a rounding error.
The same long horizon exists elsewhere in the region. Iran speaks openly about enduring sanctions for decades. Hezbollah embeds itself socially, educationally, and militarily with an eye toward generational struggle. Turkey’s neo-Ottoman rhetoric evokes imperial memory. None of this is accidental. These societies hold deep historical narratives that inform present strategy.
The West, by contrast, has become amnesiac.
This mismatch in temporal imagination produces chronic misunderstanding. Western officials announce initiatives with three- and five-year benchmarks. They believe that economic incentives will quickly recalibrate ideological actors. They assume fatigue will erode maximalist goals.
Meanwhile, regional actors calculate differently. They absorb blows, wait, and preserve doctrine. They invest in demography and education. They teach children stories that extend beyond any particular government’s lifespan.
Extremes illustrate the principle most clearly.
The Muslim Brotherhood envisions a long struggle to shape societies and eventually supersede Western influence. Bezalel Smotrich envisions an Israel that consolidates sovereignty across disputed territories over an indefinite timeline. These visions are not mirror images ideologically, but they share a structural feature: patience.
Western policymakers are often shocked when actors reject what appear to be generous compromises. Yet compromise presupposes that the present is decisive. For many in the Middle East, the present is just a phase and destiny awaits.
This long-term thinking has profound implications for minorities. In a region where majorities may harbor generational ambitions, minorities cannot afford to assume that temporary tolerance equals permanent safety. The history of the Middle East is littered with communities that once flourished under conditional arrangements — Armenians, Assyrians, Copts, Yazidis — only to find that the long arc of power shifted against them.
Survival, in such an environment, requires more than international guarantees. It requires hard power. The Jews learned this lesson with catastrophic finality in the 20th century. The State of Israel exists because Jews rebuilt it so they would never again have to outsource their survival. An armed Jewish state is the logical response to a region — and a world — in which patience and ideology often converge.
The Kurds have learned similar lessons. Repeatedly betrayed by external patrons, divided across borders, they understand that autonomy without arms is fragile. The brief existence of Kurdish self-rule in various forms has always depended on their capacity to defend themselves. In a region where long-term ideological projects are commonplace, minorities must assume that today’s lull may be tomorrow’s reckoning.
The West finds this unsettling because it prefers universalist narratives about integration, coexistence, and post-historical peace. Those narratives have merit within stable liberal democracies, but do not automatically translate to civilizations where theological and historical memories are still shaping.
When Western diplomats urge minorities to “take risks for peace,” they often do so from societies where existential threats are remote and historical grievances have been bureaucratized into textbooks. This is evident in Western Europe’s inability to respond to Russian expansionism in Ukraine. They have forgotten how to respond for unreasonable naked aggression. In the Middle East, existential threats are neither abstract nor forgotten.
The ultimate Western misunderstanding of the Middle East is not about borders or settlements. It is about time. The West believes history is winding down into managed stability. Much of the Middle East believes history is an unfinished contest.
Until Western policymakers internalize this temporal asymmetry, they will continue to misread both allies and adversaries. They will expect short-term concessions from actors who think in centuries. They will be surprised when movements persist despite setbacks. They will underestimate ideological stamina. And minorities who rely solely on Western assurances will pay the price.
The Middle East does not operate on quarterly guidance. It operates on inherited memory and projected destiny. Those who survive there understand this instinctively. The West would do well to adjust its clock — perhaps a sundial.
Brilliant. True. I am a citizen of the United States and have never been educated to think about the long horizons that you invoke. This column was the introduction to a way of thought that I hadn’t ever considered. Thanks, Nachum.
Very good observations and one that should be studied by everyone who works in any policy role involving the middle east (state department, dept of war, etc.). Another dimension is that martyrdom (of the population not the leaders) is constantly promoted. The religious dimension is something the west cannot grapple with nor understand as they are many centuries removed from movements like the crusades where religious fervor was put to use by the monarchs and governments. Nachum's observation that hard power is needed to survive in this region seems obvious, but to the western world such a view is an anathema. In fact, it is the lack of such understanding that may be the undoing of western countries as they continue to assume that those coming from such cultures will moderate when living in the west.