History teaches lessons, but not everyone interprets them the same way. In the West, the defeats of World War II led to a new world order. Japan, devastated by the atomic bomb, and Germany, crushed under occupation, did not merely accept their losses - they used them as a foundation for reconstruction. But in the Middle East, defeat does not seem to function within the same logic. Occupation did not lead to surrender, and decades of conflict have not resulted in the acceptance of the status quo.
In a region where borders have often been redrawn by force, the West assumed the Middle East would follow the same trajectory as Germany and Japan. Instead, it discovered that defeat is not just a military event but a deeply complex phenomenon - one where faith, history, and identity are inseparable. Was this a miscalculation by the West, or was the Middle East never meant to become another Germany or Japan?
The Defeat that led to reconstruction: When Japan emerged from the devastation of 1945, its capital lay in ruins, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been incinerated by nuclear fire. Emperor Hirohito, once considered divine, renounced his status as a god. The army had collapsed, the swords were sheathed, and the country fell under American occupation.
From the rubble, a new reality emerged. Japan had no choice but to submit - not to humiliation, but to a complete restructuring dictated by its victors. A new constitution, drafted by American hands, stripped Japan of its military identity, transforming it into a state that could no longer defend itself independently. Instead, it was protected by Washington’s nuclear umbrella. Resistance was not an option; the country embraced its assigned role, replacing military banners with production lines. Its economic ascent was not a self-determined success but part of a carefully orchestrated plan by those who had conquered it. Japan was permitted to rise - but only within the limits set by the West. It became an industrial powerhouse that supplied the armies of others, while being forbidden from building its own.
Germany’s fate followed a similar trajectory. The Third Reich crumbled under relentless Allied bombardment. The homeland was divided, occupied, and stripped of its imperial ambitions. Millions were displaced. With no avenue for resistance, Germans had no choice but to submit. Their old leadership was purged through the Nuremberg trials, and the country was rebuilt on foundations dictated by the victors. Military aspirations were abandoned in favour of economic strength, integrated into the Western bloc under the Marshall Plan. Germany was allowed to recover, but on the terms set by those who had dismantled it.
The West’s lingering question: Why not the Middle East?
A persistent question in the West remains: Why did this model not take root in the Middle East? When Western scholars discuss the region, they often frame the question not as one of understanding, but of bewilderment - or even denial. Why did these societies not "learn" the lessons of Japan and Germany? Why did they not surrender to what the West perceives as an inevitable fate?
Explanations vary, but they often centre on the idea that the Middle East has refused to accept defeat. Some argue that this is due to collective psychological factors - that these societies remain trapped in the echoes of past glories, unable to accept that the world has changed and that the era of conquest and holy wars has ended. In this view, the Middle East remains in a state of historical adolescence, awaiting a shock that will force it to redefine itself - just as Japan did after Hiroshima and Germany after the Allied invasion.
Others offer a harsher analysis: that the region simply has not been defeated enough. Its capitals have not been razed entirely, its will not crushed to the final breath. In this logic, total surrender has not yet paved the way for reconstruction, as it did in post-war Europe and Asia. This is the perspective of the Israeli historian Benny Morris, who controversially argued that Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, did not go far enough in ensuring a decisive resolution to the 1948 conflict - implying that the incomplete nature of that war is what allows the struggle to persist today.
But is this comparison valid? Were the conditions ever similar enough to yield the same results?
A different kind of war, A different kind of defeat: The reality is that when the West rebuilt Japan and Germany, it did not treat them as mere conquered territories, but as future allies—strategic assets in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Middle East, in contrast, was never afforded such a privilege. Instead, it was ensnared in a cycle of external manipulation, oscillating between traditional colonialism and modern geopolitical dependency.
There is also a critical factor often overlooked: religion.
Neither Japan nor Germany had a spiritual connection to an occupied land. Their defeats, however catastrophic, did not carry a theological dimension. In contrast, the Middle East is defined by a deep-rooted religious and historical consciousness. Even those who are indifferent to politics cannot ignore a simple numerical reality: Israel, with its seven million Jews, exists in a region surrounded by over a billion and a half Muslims. This is not just an abstract statistic - it is a persistent equation that makes the idea of "accepting the status quo" nearly inconceivable.
This is perhaps where proponents of the so-called “Abraham Accords” have miscalculated, believing that peace could be dictated through diplomatic agreements while overlooking the fact that the conflict is deeply embedded in the collective consciousness of the region.
An unfinished conflict: Thus, the question lingers: Was this a lesson that was never understood, or a conflict that was never meant to be resolved?
Did the Middle East need its own Hiroshima - a cataclysm so overwhelming that surrender became inevitable?
Or was it simply denied the opportunity to rebuild on its own terms, instead being cast into an endless cycle of wars designed to keep it in limbo - somewhere between defeat and victory, between history and the future, between what was and what was meant to be?
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
