Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Politics is not as childish as some people imagine.
An agreement with an enemy does not automatically mean loyalty to that enemy.
A truce does not mean surrender.
A delay in battle does not mean permanent submission.
And the refusal to fight immediately does not prove that a ruler has become a puppet.
Even in early Islamic history, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (RA) purchased a truce with the Byzantines during the civil war in order to free his hand for the struggle against Ali; once he secured his position, he curtailed the tribute and resumed almost yearly expeditions against Byzantium.
The point is obvious.
Serious rulers do not fight every enemy at once, on every front, at every moment, simply to satisfy the emotions of spectators. They sequence threats. They buy time. They consolidate internally. They neutralize one danger so they can deal with another from a stronger position.
That is not treason.
That is statecraft.
The same logic appeared in modern times as well. The anti-Soviet mujahideen in Afghanistan were armed by the United States and others during one phase of conflict, yet that did not produce permanent alignment or everlasting obedience.
Later alignments shifted, enemies changed, and yesterday’s tactical overlap became tomorrow’s confrontation. That is not unusual in politics. It is normal.
So when people say, “If Ahmad al-Sharaa makes some arrangement, or avoids immediate war, that proves he has kowtowed forever,” they are thinking like children.
No, it does not prove that.
It proves only that politics has stages.
That rulers sometimes postpone one confrontation to survive another.
That agreements can be temporary, conditional, and instrumental.
And that what matters is not the existence of a tactical understanding in one moment, but the larger direction of power over time.
A man who pauses is not necessarily conquered. A man who negotiates is not necessarily owned. A man who delays battle is not necessarily domesticated.
Sometimes he is simply waiting for history to move into a more favorable configuration.
This is why shallow minds always misread political restraint as submission. They cannot distinguish between strategy and surrender.
But history can.
And history has shown, more than once, that a ruler may sign with one hand in one phase, and strike with the other in another.
Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan is one of the clearest examples.
At a moment when the Umayyad state was threatened both internally and externally, he made what many would have called a humiliating arrangement with the Byzantines. Why? Because he understood a truth that emotional people never understand: you do not fight every battle at once simply to impress spectators.
He neutralized one front, crushed the greater internal danger, reunified the state, rebuilt his position, and then, once the balance had changed, the truce ended and the Romans were defeated at Sebastopolis in 692.
There is a lesson in that.
An agreement is not always allegiance.
A pause is not always surrender.
A tactical accommodation is not permanent obedience.
And a ruler who does not rush into battle at the most emotionally satisfying moment is not therefore a puppet.
This is as true in modern politics as it was in the Umayyad age.
The same principle applies now.
If Ahmad al-Sharaa makes arrangements, avoids premature confrontation, or prioritizes rebuilding and internal consolidation first, that does not prove he has permanently bowed to Israel, nor that he will serve its interests indefinitely.
It proves only that serious rulers understand sequence.
First, survive.
Then consolidate.
Then build.
Then choose your moment.
Children think every delay is betrayal.
History teaches that sometimes delay is exactly what makes future strength possible.
English
