Middle East Centre

Why did Iraq fail to prove its WMD absence before the 2003 invasion? This seminar examines new evidence from Iraq and United Nations sources to shed light on the internal debates leading up to the 2003 war. Why did the Iraqi regime fail to demonstrate it no longer had WMD prior to the 2003 invasion? For the past twenty years, there has been surprisingly little debate about this key question. In this seminar I draw on primary sources that I have collected from Iraqi sources and the United Nations inspectors investigating Iraqi WMD disarmament between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion. Drawing on this new evidence, I argue that two factors were vital in shaping Iraqi WMD disclosures during the 2002-2003 period. First, a crucial strategic dilemma was that new admissions of past deception would bolster the case for war. Second, the Iraqi regime faced far greater difficulties in ensuring that its subordinates cooperated with the United Nations inspectors, despite the growing threat of war, than was recognized at the time. Drawing on these rich new primary sources, I highlight the debates and disagreements about what to disclose and to deny that unfolded inside the Iraqi state apparatus during these fateful months. Biography: Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer is Professor of Political Science at the University of Oslo, and heads the Oslo Nuclear Project. She has previously been a Junior Faculty Fellow at CISAC, Stanford University (2012-13), and a pre- and post-doctoral fellow at the Belfer Center, Harvard University (2008-10). She received her doctoral degree from London School of Economics in 2010, which received the Michael Nicholson Thesis Prize from BISA the following year. She published Unclear Physics: Why Iraq and Libya Failed to Build Nuclear Weapons (Cornell University Press, 2016) based on her dissertation research. Her work has been published in numerous outlets including International Security, The Middle East Journal, the New York Times (online), International Herald Tribune, Monkey Cage and War on the Rocks.

This talk examines the Shi‘ite political parties linked to Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU) and their influence over the state, exploring their strategies for legitimacy in politics, religion, and society. Despite their modest performance at the ballot box in comparison to the 2018 parliamentary elections, the Shi‘ite political parties associated with Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU) have remained important brokers with sufficient power to steer the government’s decision-making. Having been recognised as a state-sanctioned paramilitary umbrella since November 2016, the PMU regard themselves as entitled to co-shaping not only the political process, but also the very nature of Iraqi statehood. Their continued leverage over the contested Iraqi state and its institutions raises the question of how such an array of hybrid auxiliary forces has managed to consolidate its position and reap the benefits of its alliance with the country’s ruling elites. To provide an answer, Rudolf will present her analysis of how the PMU and their affiliates have sought to attain legitimacy within the political, religious, and civic fields – the main arenas of competition underlying the power dynamics within the fragmented Iraqi state. Biography: Dr. Inna Rudolf is a Senior Research Fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) and a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Divided Societies. Within the XCEPT consortium, she is analysing the implications of identity politics and the mobilisation of violent memories in conflict-affected borderlands. As part of her PhD thesis at the War Studies Department of King’s College London, Rudolf focused the hybridization of security sector governance, examining Iraq’s paramilitary umbrella – the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) – and their quest for legitimacy within the state. She received her master’s degree in political science and Islamic studies in 2012 at the University of Heidelberg, specialising in Conflict Resolution, Peace Building and Political Islam. In addition to her field work in Iraq, she lived in Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia and Palestine for several years. Prior to joining the research team at ICSR, she represented the BMW Foundation in the Middle East and North Africa region. She is also a partner at the Candid Foundation – an independent Berlin based think tank working on political, social and cultural challenges facing Muslim communities in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and beyond.

This talk explores the impact of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 on militant Islamism using new evidence. How did the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 affect the evolution of the transnational jihadi movement? The consensus view since the mid-2000s has been that the war fuelled militant Islamism, but there have since been few attempts to specify the effects and identify the mechanisms involved. In this talk I draw on a wide range of unexploited quantitative and qualitative evidence to understand the war's impact on transnational militancy. I find that the detrimental effects were even larger than previously assumed, and I make the case, through counterfactual analysis, that jihadism as a transnational movement could have largely fizzled out in the late 2000s had the Iraq war not occurred. Bio: Thomas Hegghammer is Senior Fellow in Politics at All Souls College. He is a political scientist and historian who specializes in the study of militant Islamist groups. His books include /Jihad in Saudi Arabia: Violence and Pan-Islamism since 1979/ (Cambridge 2010), /Jihadi Culture: The Art and Social Practices of Militant Islamists/ (Cambridge 2017), and /The Caravan: Abdallah Azzam and the Rise of Global Jihad/ (Cambridge 2020).

The evolution of religion-civil society relations in post-2003 Iraq. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 created a seismic shift in clerical-state relations. For decades, the Shia religious establishment had a contentious relationship with the Iraqi state, who feared their mobilization capacity and persecuted them as a result. After 2003, the Shia religious leadership played a powerful role in political affairs, guiding the country towards a constitutional referendum, earlier-than-planned elections, and intervening in critical moments to stem the flow of violence and to uphold order and stability. An onslaught of Shia Islamist parties seized control of the country through popular elections where the majority Shia population rewarded them for their opposition against Saddam Hussein. As the years drew on, however, these Islamist parties lost the public’s trust and Iraq’s population, and burgeoning civil society began to protest perceived religious control of the state. As the Islamist Parties were punished by civil society, so too were the clerical classes, who rushed to distance themselves from politics to salvage their reputation. How have clerics navigated their position amidst popular protests and an increasingly vocal civil society? Biography Marsin Alshamary is a research fellow at the Middle East Initiative at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs with the Harvard Kennedy School. She is also a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. She is an incoming assistant professor of political science at Boston College. Her research examines the intersection of religion and politics in the Middle East, looking particularly at how the Shi'a religious establishment in Iraq has intervened in formal politics, in protest, and in peacebuilding. She holds a PhD in Political Science from MIT and a BA from Wellesley College.

Katerina Dalacoura will presents her research project entitled ‘The International Thought of Turkish Islamists’, funded by a Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellowship. The project engages with the idea of a ‘global International Relations’ by exploring Turkish Islamist thought in the Republican period. Drawing on insights from global intellectual history, it shows that Turkish Islamism evolved in conversation with philosophical and political debates and trends in both Western and Muslim settings. The study examines texts written by iconic and minor Islamist intellectuals, and the ideologies of religious associations and political organisations in Turkey that underpin them, to investigate three overlapping themes about ‘the international’: history and historiography; civilisation and culture; nation and state. Biography: Dr Katerina Dalacoura is Associate Professor in International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has been awarded a Major Research Fellowship by the Leverhulme Trust for three years starting September 2021. Her project, entitled ‘The International Thought of Turkish Islamists: History, Civilisation and Nation’ will be a work of intellectual history that engages with the concept of a ‘global IR’. In 2015-16, she was British Academy Mid-Career Fellow and in 2016-19 she participated in a project on the ‘Middle East and North Africa Regional Architecture’, sponsored by the European Commission under the auspices of Horizon 2020 (2016-19). She previously worked at the University of Essex and at the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Dr Dalacoura’s work has centered on the intersection of Islamism and international human rights norms. She has worked on human rights, democracy and democracy promotion, in the Middle East, particularly in the context of Western policies in the region. Her latest research focuses on the role of culture and civilization in International Relations with special reference to Turkey. She has a continuing interest in questions of secularity and secularization in the Middle East. She is author of Islam, Liberalism and Human Rights: Implications for International Relations (I. B. Tauris, 2007), Islamist Terrorism and Democracy in the Middle East (Cambridge University Press, 2011) and of a number of chapters and articles in peer-reviewed journals. Dr Dalacoura teaches a third year undergraduate course on the Middle East and International Relation theory and a course on the international politics of culture and religion at MSc level; as well as undergraduate and post-graduate courses on international relations theory.

A Middle East Centre Seminar on Salafism. Salafism was the religious idiom that dominated Egypt's aborted political transition in the wake of the 2011 revolution and up to the 2013 military coup. The leading political actors of the moment all mobilized strands of Salafism in a fight for religious legitimacy against each other: the Salafi Call and its political party al-Nour (itself internally divided), Hazim Abu Isma'il and his movement of revolutionary Salafis, and even the Muslim Brotherhood, which now openly borrowed from Salafi references and relied on Salafi religious figures, despite the movement’s distinctive political-religious history. That reality stood in staunch contrast with the aspirations of Egypt’s more secular-leaning youth protest movements, which had played a key role in the initial uprising. How did this hegemonization of Salafi discourse in the Egyptian religious sphere come to be? And how do the resulting dynamics explain some of the Egyptian political transition's eventual shortcomings? Biography: Stéphane Lacroix is an associate professor of political science at Sciences Po, a senior researcher at Sciences Po’s Centre de Recherches Internationales (CERI) and the co-director of Sciences Po's Chair on religion. His work deals with religion and politics, with a focus on the Gulf and Egypt. He is the author of "Awakening Islam: The Politics of Religious Dissent in Contemporary Saudi Arabia" (Harvard University Press, 2011), "Saudi Arabia in Transition: Insights on Social, Political, Economic and Religious Change" (Cambridge University Press, 2015, with Bernard Haykel and Thomas Hegghammer), "Egypt's Revolutions: Politics, Religion, Social Movements" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, with Bernard Rougier) and "Revisiting the Arab Uprisings: The Politics of a Revolutionary Moment" (Oxford University Press, 2018, with Jean-Pierre Filiu).

A talk with a focus on the contemporary militant group referred to by the acronym ISIS (or ISIL) and its views on the “caliphate.” As this group sees it, its so-called Islamic State represents the resurrection of the historical office of the caliph after its abrogation in 1923. ISIS anchors this position in the concept of “the creed of Abraham” (millat Ibrahim) mentioned in Qur’an 2:124 in order to derive a scriptural and theological mandate for their project. The lecture analyzes how credible this position is by resorting to a survey of the views of several influential Muslim exegetes on the concept of millat Ibrahim and explore whether their views align with those of ISIS. It concludes by reflecting on what the larger implications of this survey are for the contemporary period. Biography: Asma Afsaruddin is Professor of Middle Eastern Languages and Cultures and Class of 1950 Herman B. Wells Endowed Professor in the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. She received her PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies from Johns Hopkins University and previously taught at Harvard and Notre Dame universities. Her research interests include Islamic religious and political thought (both modern and pre-modern); Islamic intellectual history; Qur’an and hadith; and gender in Islam. She is the author and editor of eight books, including Jihad: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2021); Contemporary Issues in Islam (Edinburgh University Press, 2015); Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought (Oxford University Press, 2013), recently translated into Indonesian, which won the World Book Award in Islamic Studies from the Iranian government (2015) and was a runner-up for the British-Kuwaiti Friendship Society Book award (2014); and The First Muslims: History and Memory (OneWorld Publications 2008), which has been translated into Turkish and Malay. She has also written over fifty research articles and book chapters on topics as diverse as Qur’anic hermeneutics, hadith criticism, pluralism in Islamic thought, inter-faith relations, war and peace in the Islamic tradition; Islamic feminisms, and modern reform movements in Muslim-majority societies. Professor Afsaruddin is currently a member of the academic council of the Prince al-Waleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and is a past member of the Board of Directors of the American Academy of Religion. She was previously the Kraemer Middle East Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at the College of William and Mary (2012) and a visiting scholar at the Centre for Islamic Studies at the London School of Oriental and African Studies (2003). She has also been a fellow with the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) based in Cairo and the American Research Institute of Turkey (ARIT) based in Istanbul. Afsaruddin lectures widely on various aspects of Islamic thought in the US, Europe, and the Middle East and has served as a consultant for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the US Institute of Peace, and other governmental and non-governmental agencies. Her research has been funded by the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which named her a Carnegie Scholar in 2005. In 2019 she was inducted into the Johns Hopkins Society of Scholars in recognition of the scholarly and professional distinction she has achieved in her field.

Professor Mohammad Khalil scrutinises the claim by New Atheists like Richard Dawkins that Islam is a fundamentally violent religion Is Islam fundamentally violent? For influential New Atheists such as Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Richard Dawkins, the answer is an emphatic yes, largely because of the Islamic doctrine of jihad. According to this view, when al-Qaeda plotted 9/11 or ISIS planned any one of its recent terrorist attacks, they were acting in accord with Islamic scripture. In this presentation, Mohammad Hassan Khalil will scrutinize this claim by comparing the conflicting interpretations of jihad offered by mainstream Muslim scholars, violent Muslim radicals, and New Atheists. Mohammad Hassan Khalil is a Professor of Religious Studies, an adjunct Professor of Law, and the Director of the Muslim Studies Program at Michigan State University. Before returning to his hometown of East Lansing, Michigan, he was an Assistant Professor of Religion and visiting professor of Law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He specializes in Islamic thought and is author of Islam and the Fate of Others: The Salvation Question (Oxford University Press, 2012; Indonesian translation published in 2016) and Jihad, Radicalism, and the New Atheism (Cambridge University Press, 2017); editor of Between Heaven and Hell: Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others (Oxford University Press, 2013) and Muslims and US Politics Today: A Defining Moment (ILEX and Harvard University Press, 2019); and lead investigator of the Muslims of the Midwest digital archive (muslimsofthemidwest.org). He has presented papers at various national and international conferences and has published peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters on various topics, from early Islamic historiography to bioethics. Speaker: Professor Mohammad Khalil (Michigan State University, USA) Chair: Professor Eugene Rogan (University of Oxford) Recorded Friday, 14 October 2022, Investcorp Lecture Theatre, St Antony's College

How historians can gain new insights from global history, and how historians and histories of Iran can contribute Elahé Omidyar Mir-Djalali Annual Lecture - Centres, Peripheries and New Histories of the Left in Iran What can historians working on Iran gain from new insights generated in sprawling fields associated with global history such as global urban history and global intellectual history; and what can historians and histories of Iran contribute to these fields? With examples from recent and ongoing work on the history of the Iranian Left, and in particular, the revolutionary organization Sazman-e Charik-ha-ye Fada’i-ye Khalq or Fadais, Rasmus Elling will present examples of such dialogues between global fields and Area Studies. In particular, Elling will discuss two cases from his research to show how theoretical and methodological prisms such as 'urban/rural' and 'center/periphery’ can illuminate understudied aspects of Iran’s modern social, political and ideological history. These cases raise two overall questions: What was ‘urban’ about a quintessential urban guerrilla movement of the 1970s such as the Fadais? And where did minorities on Iran’s geographical periphery fit into the Third-Worldist views of a movement such as the Fadais? Tuesday, 29 November 2022 - 5:00pm to 6:30pm Venue: Investcorp Lecture Theatre, St Antony's College Speaker(s): Rasmus Christian Elling (University of Copenhagen) Chair: Dr Stephanie Cronin (Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies) Biography: Rasmus Elling is Associate Professor and Unit Coordinator of Middle East Studies at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, where he teaches Iranian and Middle Eastern history as well as Cross-Cultural Studies. He is a social historian studying modern Iran through four attention points: urbanism, ethnicity, political movements and ideology. Elling has worked with Iranian society, culture and politics for more than 20 years and written extensively on minorities, nationalism, student movements, urban violence and the Iranian revolution.

Prof. Esther Hertzog gives a talk on the vulnerable situation of motherhood in the Israeli welfare state. This talk will examine the role of state authorities, especially the welfare system and the courts, in undermining disadvantaged women's motherhood. State authorities undermine mothers' custodial rights over their offspring, especially through the discourse on 'child's wellbeing' and 'parental capability', blaming mothers for physically endangering and neglecting their children. It will be argued that while the formal discourse emphasizes the value of biological motherhood, yet in practice underprivileged mothers' custody over their offspring can be easily expropriated. Single parent mothers are a susceptible group from which babies can be taken away to adoption and their children taken to welfare institutions. The research on 'single parent mothers' ignores the phenomenon of expropriating disadvantaged mothers' parenthood by State authorities as well as the coercive means that are employed in the process. This talk will propose a critical analysis of the connection between "children at risk" discourse and disadvantaged women's motherhood.