One of the seemingly strangest things about me is that when what appears to be “breaking news” in my field emerges, I usually have very little to say.
Why? Because it’s not news—at least not to me. It’s the same old story I explained two decades ago, and have since repeated countless times.
And yet, absolutely nothing changes.
Take what’s happening in Syria.
In recent days, Syria’s Druze minority has been subjected to a wave of jihadist-inspired terror that has left over a thousand people dead, entire villages emptied, and many Druze wondering if they are witnessing the final extermination of their people.
The violence began in earnest when Sunni Bedouin tribes—fully backed by units of the Syrian military—stormed multiple Druze villages in Sweida province. What followed were atrocities that mirrored the barbarism of ISIS. In al-Mazraa, armed men shouting “Allahu Akbar!” set fire to homes with families still inside. In Sahwat al-Khudr, several Druze were beheaded, their corpses mutilated and displayed in the town square. Video footage circulated on pro-regime Telegram channels shows the attackers chanting Koranic verses justifying the slaughter of non-Sunnis.
More than 262 civilians, including women and children, were butchered—some by gunfire, others burned alive or summarily executed. In Suwara al-Kubra, several Druze girls were abducted, raped, and dumped—one with her tongue cut out and a Koran verse scrawled in blood across her chest.
Local witnesses say regime troops either stood by or more often actively assisted in the raids, providing air surveillance and ammunition.
Syria’s so-called “reformist” president, Ahmad al-Sharaa—himself a “former” jihadist and member of al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra)—blamed the Druze for “inciting unrest,” echoing the same jihadist logic used by ISIS and al-Qaeda when killing their victims.
Over 79,000 Druze have fled, many now hiding in forests, caves, or makeshift camps. Local cleric Sheikh Hikmat al-Hijri condemned the regime’s actions as a “jihadist war of extermination,” declaring: “They [the new Syrian ‘government’] come with tanks and prayer rugs. They kill us in the name of their god, and the world applauds them as moderates.”
If you’re wondering where all the hate comes from, look no further than to the “Sheikh of Islam” himself: Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328), one of Sunni Islam’s foremost theologians, whose works are still widely disseminated throughout Islamic schools and mosques. The following is my translation of a fatwa he wrote specifically targeting the Druze. Not only does it call explicitly for their slaughter, but note the chilling final decree: any Muslim ruler who fails to inflict the wrath of Allah on them is no Muslim at all. (Hence why Syria’s new “president” al-Sharaa—formerly of al-Qaeda—is fully on board.)
All Muslims are agreed that they [Druze] are infidels [kuffār]. Indeed, whoever doubts that they are infidels becomes an infidel like them. They are not on the level of the People of the Book, nor the polytheists [mushrikīn]; rather, they are more misguided than both. It is impermissible even to eat their food. Enslave their women, seize their wealth, for they are hypocrites and apostates, and no repentance is accepted from them. Kill them wherever they are found, and let them be cursed as described. Especially target their leaders and teachers, lest they lead others astray. It is forbidden to sleep in their homes, befriend them in any way, or even walk beside them—not even in their funerals. And any Muslim ruler who does not persecute them as Allah commands is a sinner.
Keep in mind, what you just read is a foundational text from one of Islam’s most cited authorities, whose works are taught all throughout the Muslim world.
The message is clear: under the banner of post-Assad “reform,” the Syrian regime is carrying out a jihadist purge of one of the last independent religious minorities in the region. And they are doing it to cries of “Allahu Akbar” and in the name of “national unity.”
Nor have Christians been spared—with at least one family being slaughtered and one church set ablaze by the Sunnis and their governmental accomplices (to say nothing of the suicide bombing of a Damascus church on June 22).
Even so, where’s the news (a word which means new)? Where’s the shock? This is exactly what must happen when all the usual ingredients are mixed together.
And what are those ingredients? Simple: place Muslim fundamentalists in the same bowl with a vulnerable group of “infidels”—just make sure the former (in this case, the Syrian “president” and his jihadist regime) are the dominant flavor—and voilà: jihad and genocide.
After all, hasn’t this happened time and time again? Remember the grotesque and genocidal atrocities committed by ISIS against the Yazidis exactly a decade ago? The same is happening now under the latest incarnation of “radical Islam”—that is, the new Syrian government. Neither the Yazidis nor the Druze are considered “people of the book,” so there is no tolerance, no second-class dhimmi status for them. They must convert or face extermination. No jizya. No submission. Just slavery, rape, murder—in a word, annihilation.
Muammar al-Sharaa, cousin of Syrian president Ahmad al-Sharaa, has even posted on his Facebook account that “It is permissible to enslave their [Druze] women.”
So here we are again. Nothing learned. No progress made. Just the same cycle—wash, rinse, repeat—ad nauseam.
But I wish the redundancy of all this was limited to Muslim fundamentalists behaving like Muslim fundamentalists. The rot runs much deeper—and much closer to home.
American leadership—whether Republican or Democrat, from Reagan and the Bushes, to Clinton and Obama—has consistently aligned itself with jihadists, even while claiming to champion religious freedom and human rights around the world.
This was especially blatant under Obama, and I wrote extensively about it (see here, here, here). In Donald Trump’s own words, Obama was “the founder of ISIS.”
And yet, Trump himself was among the first to ease sanctions, shake hands with, and even praise the new Syrian leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa—the latest face of ISIS-style terror, and the man ultimately responsible for the ongoing massacre of the Druze.
“He’s a young, attractive guy,” Trump said of this terrorist in a suit. “Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter. He’s got a real shot at holding it together.”
Yes, that is how the U.S. president gushed about a man whose ideology is openly identical to ISIS; a man who “was” a member of al-Qaeda—remember them, murderers of 3,000 Americans?—and a man who is currently carrying out a religious genocide.
Contrast this with the treatment of former Syrian president Bashar Assad—a secularist who, for all his faults, never persecuted his people on religious grounds. And yet, every U.S. president condemned and imposed wave after wave of sanctions on him.
On the other hand, Trump thinks that the new terror leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, is finally going to give Syria “a chance at greatness.”
So, if Obama was “the founder of ISIS,” as Trump said—what does that make Trump?
Is all of this just coincidence? Is U.S. leadership—Republican or Democrat—forever naïve? Is it something much darker?
I’m much more inclined to the latter interpretation, but, at this point, does it even matter? The result is always the same: wherever the United States meddles in the Muslim world, terrorists who hate “infidels” come to power, and the religious minorities beneath them are butchered. And in time, they turn around and bite the hand that feeds them (e.g., by attacking the U.S. via 9/11).
That’s why none of this is “news” to me. From top to bottom, it’s business as usual.
To be clear, I’m not saying what’s happening in Syria shouldn’t be reported—I’m glad it is (and have personally posted several graphic videos of atrocities committed against the Druze on X). But I don’t see the need for yet more “analysis,” when the reality is both painfully obvious and depressingly unchanging. In fact, the way these stories are consumed has taken on a disturbingly voyeuristic quality: atrocities are committed, people feign shock, social media lights up with hashtags and slogans—until the news cycle shifts to the next outrage we’re meant to emote over. And the victims? They’re left to their fate. Forgotten.
Rinse. Repeat. Forever.
Pathetic.
So you’ll understand why I increasingly choose not to participate in these grotesque charades.
And that’s also why I’ve turned more and more to writing about history. Though it concerns the past, it often feels fresher and more revealing than today’s forever headlines—because it uncovers things people were never taught, and were never meant to know.
Why? because the history I deal with revolves around a time when men actually acted in the face of evil—not merely tweeted and hand-wrung about all the “bad news,” until the next distraction came along.