On February 2, 202, the New York Times published a provocative column by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Friedman, comparing Middle Eastern geopolitics to the animal kingdom. The piece, now removed from the paper’s website, sparked widespread discussion before its abrupt disappearance, leaving readers and commentators questioning the decision to pull it.
In the article, Friedman employed vivid metaphors drawn from nature documentaries to critique the United States’ waning influence in the region, Iran’s geopolitical strategies, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political manoeuvres. While some hailed the piece as a creative and insightful take on Middle Eastern dynamics, others criticised its reductive approach and potential insensitivity to complex political realities.
The lion, the wasp, and the caterpillars
Friedman began by likening the United States to an aging lion, a king of the jungle no longer commanding the fear it once did. “We are still the king of the Middle East jungle — more powerful than any single actor,” he wrote. “But we have so many scars from so many fights that we just can’t show up, roar loudly, and expect that everyone will do what we want or scamper away.”
This analogy set the stage for a discussion of Iran, which he compared to a parasitoid wasp. Drawing on a study from Science Daily, Friedman described how the wasp injects its eggs into live caterpillars, with the larvae consuming the host from within. In Friedman’s analogy, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq were the caterpillars, devoured by the eggs of Iranian influence: groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Kataib Hezbollah.
“We have no counterstrategy that safely and efficiently kills the wasp without setting fire to the whole jungle,” Friedman concluded, encapsulating the challenge of countering Iranian influence without destabilising the region further.
Hamas, the trap-door spider
Turning his attention to Hamas, Friedman drew a parallel to the trap-door spider. “The spider leaps out at great speed, seizes its prey, and hauls it back into the burrow to be devoured,” he explained, referencing the group’s ability to launch surprise attacks before retreating into concealment. The analogy underscored Hamas’s capacity for sudden violence and its adeptness at blending into its environment, making it a persistent threat.
Netanyahu as the sifaka lemur
In a lighter yet pointed critique, Friedman likened Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a sifaka lemur, a primate known for its sideways hopping and constant arm movements. “That’s Bibi,” he wrote, “always shifting side to side to stay in power and avoiding going decisively backward or forward.” This depiction highlighted Netanyahu’s political agility and his tendency to navigate contentious policies without fully committing to one direction.
Backlash and removal
The column’s blend of zoological analogies and political critique drew both praise and criticism. Supporters lauded Friedman’s ingenuity in simplifying complex geopolitical issues, while detractors argued that the comparisons risked trivialising the human suffering and intricacies of Middle Eastern conflicts.
Human rights advocates expressed particular concern over the depiction of Middle Eastern nations as helpless caterpillars, suggesting it undermined the agency of the people within those countries. Similarly, Friedman’s portrayal of Iranian influence as parasitic drew accusations of cultural insensitivity.
More Read
The New York Times’ decision to remove the article from its website only added fuel to the controversy. No official explanation has been provided, but speculation ranges from editorial concerns about tone to fears of backlash from readers and advocacy groups.
A familiar approach
This is not the first time Friedman has used unconventional metaphors to analyse international affairs. His penchant for blending geopolitical commentary with pop culture or natural world references has been a hallmark of his writing style, garnering both admiration and criticism. The column’s removal, however, marks a rare instance of the Times retracting one of his pieces.
Legacy of the article
Though the column is no longer accessible on the Times’ website, its content continues to circulate on social media and in discussions about Middle Eastern politics. The debate surrounding the piece underscores the challenges of balancing creativity with sensitivity in political commentary.
For Thomas Friedman, the episode is a reminder of the fine line between provocative analysis and controversy. For readers, it highlights the enduring complexities of the Middle East — a region as intricate and unpredictable as the animal kingdom itself.
