War That Is Simply Satanic

In this time of widening war, it is humbling and horrifying to look back and recognize that the world is still so beset with folly and madness. For all the progress that we, as humanity, aspire to make, we still resort to ferocious aggression against each other. Is it necessary? We display levels of force and destruction as though we cannot help ourselves. I write from the United States where the most powerful nation in the world is also the most destructive, where power is pugnacious and punishing.

I cannot say it any more clearly and eloquently than Sayyida Salme, as she did in her withering critique of what “progress” really meant to Europe in her time. Shocked by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, she was more open to criticism of the East than hypocrisy from the West. I will quote at length here because it may surprise you what an Arab princess by birth had to say about her country of marriage more than a hundred years ago:

Now began a war between the two nations that you, on your peaceful island, cannot fathom. Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people were sacrificed on both sides. Somewhat in the manner that the devout Muslims, during their annual pilgrimage, sacrifice countless sheep on Mount Arafat, where it is said our father Adam and our mother Eve met again after being expelled from Paradise. When the war erupted, people here were as if electrified, for all the talk was of the war and nothing else. One has to marvel at the patriotism of the Germans, since their sacrifice of blood and goods was virtually unlimited at the time. What offerings of men and money such a war consumes mocks any description. To undertake such a war of attrition—nota bene: Christians against Christians—Europeans start to train their male youth already at a very early age for this purpose.

All European states suffer more or less from the same very bad malady, namely jealousy. No one grants the others anything, and every state always strives to be ahead of every other state, no matter the cost. Every state, even the very smallest, has its own host of spies, who are tasked with reconnoitering their dear neighbors. And naturally, all the statesmen are constantly striving to assure each other that they are not aware of the existence of any such individuals. Efforts are made across the board to invent the most terrible instruments of mass murder, in order to take the first opportunity to duly impress one’s own power upon the neighbor, without diminishing the lovely sounding words by which the statesmen mutually assure each other of the sincerity of their goodwill.

Woe to any nation that has the misfortune today of losing a war. On top of all its material losses, the ruthless imposition of taxes poses an added threat, as a screw that gets turned ever tighter, depending on how great the need or desire. Under these circumstances, it has always seemed to me that the so-called humanitarian principles in Europe were mainly studied and applied to free the slaves. But what does it mean for one African state to fight and raid another when compared to a single war in the North! The view here is that when a nation loses a war, its wings must also be clipped, to create a crippling effect that will endure a minimum of many years hence. And what an outcry there is here about the slaves we keep, even though these slaves are far better off than some of the people here. As you know, we are not remotely social democrats, and yet I have often had to consider whether it would be more appropriate if the individual European governments were to spend their countless millions on their own impoverished populations, who suffer such privation, especially in the winter, instead of using the money for the so-called “liberation” of Africans. But all this is mostly decided at the usual green table, which is to say by people who know just about as much about Africans, their temperaments, and their needs as you and I know about the inhabitants of other planets. …

And what indeed is the military draft if not a type of slavery, a system that, with the exception of England, is highly nurtured across all of Europe. As a result, when war breaks out in a country where this system of obligatory military service prevails, the male population from 17 to 45 years of age is, as needed, pulled into the field. This arrangement also signifies great justice, with no distinction made between rich and poor, or the son of a prince and the son of a cobbler. Even Jews must go to war, just like Christians. (Letters, pp. 41-42)

Make what you will of this comparison with slavery, there is undeniably humane progress wherever both the draft and slavery have been abolished. There is also no denying that warfare, just or unjust, undermines humanity on the part of both the attacked and the attackers.  She continues:

With this constant preparation and the ongoing new procurements for the military, the State takes on expenditures that completely exceed your ability to comprehend. For entirely impartial outsiders, meaning people who have no association with Christianity and know of the peaceful, love-thy-neighbor teachings of Jesus only through books and stories, it must appear totally incongruous to watch how its adherents seek to outdo each other in who can invent the deadliest and most en gros annihilating weapon. But this is called progress here. You, however, in your simplicity, if you were to consider all these arts that they call progress here, were you to see all of it and everything that goes with it, I am entirely sure you would call them—simply satanic. (Letters, pp. 42-43)

Some of this is jaw-dropping, especially knowing that Sayyida Salme came from a warring culture, including a father who “revel[ed] in war and conquest,” (Memoirs, p. 6), who killed to succeed his father and was venerated for his military accomplishments. Sayyida Salme was remarkably anti-war, for her time and ours. And she was remarkably willing to quote Christianity as commentary on her fellow Christians, even as the newest Christian among them.

In her Memoirs, we learn that it was war that forced her father back to Muscat from Zanzibar – and thus put him on the fateful journey from which he never returned alive (more on that in my next blog post). In the forever rhyming strains of history, is it any wonder that the land in dispute for him back then is also part of the land in play now?

This time my father had an especially urgent reason to travel to Oman. The Persians had made several incursions near Bandar Abbas[1] on the Persian Gulf, which were not so significant on their own, but could have easily led to military entanglements. This small piece of land within Persia, with its controlling location at the entrance to the Persian Gulf, had given us nothing but trouble since its conquest and proved very costly for the father. It was taken from us again later, which was surely no bad fortune. Until then, the Persians gave us no peace, for which we could hardly blame them. (Memoirs, p. 73)

Give the Omanis credit where credit is due. They – the same reigning Al Bu Said family – have been deliberately and decidedly at peace with Iran ever since,[2] and not just Iran. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Oman is the only country in the entire Arab world that has not broken relations with any other country in the world.[3] 

This past week, The New York Times featured an interview with an Emirati billionaire, Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, after he had deleted a viral post in which he said the quiet part out loud, criticizing President Trump's decision to go to war. After some reflections, he summed it up: “There are no friends,” he said, “there is only interest.”[4]

That very same day, The Economist ran a piece by Oman's foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, who took a different tack, putting forth "positive energy" and constructive suggestions for a consensus effort to end the war, saying the difficult part out loud. Even now, in the midst of drones and missiles on its own shores, Oman is still seeking to salvage the peace and keeping to its position: Friend to all, enemy to none.[5]

Sayyida Salme would, I think, be proud of her country. Hopefully her words will also still be heard.

Let history surprise you, let her voice inspire you – let her authentic voice speak to you.

Andrea Emily Stumpf, March 20, 2026

Photo credit: Adobe Stock. The image is nicely done, except that Musandam of Oman is missing at the tip.

[1] Bandar Abbas is the major, strategically-positioned, Iranian port city directly opposite Oman and the UAE, across the narrow Strait of Hormuz, as well as the main base and headquarters of the Iranian Navy.

[2] Fortunately, a brief 1980 plan with Iraq failed to materialize. The Oman Scare: The Untold Story of Oman’s 'Almost Military Strike' on Iran | Wilson Center

[3] At least since Sultan Qaboos came to power in 1970. Quoting Professor Joseph Kéchichian in my blog post The Qualities of a Statesman (February 24, 2025).

[4] “This Emirati billionaire put a voice to Gulf anger over Trump’s war in Iran,” Washington Post (March 18, 2026).

[5] Minister says Oman must speak uncomfortable truths in pursuit of peace | fm.gov.om Badr Albusaidi was also the chief mediator in the recent, upended nuclear talks between Iran and the United States. "America's friends must help extricate it from an unlawful war," The Economist (March 18, 2026).