That's why even if someone has politics I disagree with, I mind that much less than when their argument is based on easily debunked information.
I have a relative, let's call him Great-Uncle Milt. Milt is a nice guy, though a bit of a right-winger. That doesn't bother me, though, what bothers me are the arguments (or lack thereof) that he uses to justifying his politics.
Take Israel. I support Israel's right to exist and right to defend itself. I've supported it throughout the "Tammuz War" (is that final?), even while noting that not everything it's been doing is necessarily smart or entirely justified.
But Milt's not satisfied. He's been sending the whole family emails comparing the number of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners to Muslim ones. You know, because that's got so much to do with this. Obviously the problem is Hezbollah doesn't have enough authors or physicists.
Milt and I once got in a fight because I wasn't entirely convinced (back in 2000) that Yasser Arafat qualified as "evil"- no matter how much I tried to explain my problems with categorical statements, or the issues with determining "real evil", Milt didn't want to hear it. We didn't speak for a while after that.
The latest from Milt arrived this morning- it's an op-ed by Bernard Lewis. I haven't read Lewis, but I've heard of him. Supposedly he's somewhat controversial for his Middle East analysis, which tends to be overwhelmingly pro-Israel. He's a proponent of the "clash of civilizations" thesis, and doesn't seem terribly enamored with Muslim civilization. Then again, he has been a professor of Islamic studies and Muslim History for over 60 years, so there might be some justification here.
That aside, his latest article isn't very impressive.
During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction... Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?Lewis is making a big mistake here- judging the whole nation of Iran by the rhetoric of the President. While the President is directly elected by the populace, a few things need to be noted here.
...There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
A- In the Iranian primary, Ahmadinejad received 19.5 percent of the vote. This put him in second place and got him into the run-off- but notice, there were plenty of other candidates that the voters were interested in. Not everyone in Iran loves Ahmadinejad. In the run-off campaign, Ahmadinejad got 62 percent of the vote- a clear majority, yes, but again, far from unanimous.
B- Ahmadinejad's rhetoric during his campaign mostly focused on internal Iranian problems, not nuking Israel or America. He was, and remains in Iran, a populist, and that was what people seemed most interested in. He promised to help the poor and stand up to the global community. Fairly attractive proposals.
His ranting about, well, everybody, came later, and so it doesn't quite follow that, assuming Ahmadinejad actually believes what he's saying (and I'm guessing that at least some of it is sabre-rattling rhetoric), that everyone in Iran agrees with him.
The point? Ahmadinejad wasn't voted in as an apocalyptic candidate. And it remains unproven that Iran is an apocalyptic state, either in government or populace. Textbooks exalting martyrdom are disturbing, but what are the statistics of Iranian suicide bombers? I haven't heard of any recently.
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.
The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.
Some examples here would be really nice. And they should be easy enough to find if they're so rife, right? Or are we categorizing every "death to Israel" speech as apocalyptic?
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.I agree with the prof here. It's always good to keep totally cracked-up conspiracy theories in mind, just so you don't get surprised. Best-case scenario, you get to be the smart guy. "Told you so!" Worst case? Children throw garbage at your house. But hey, that stuff washes off if you act quickly. Plus there's stuff you can do as deterrence. You know, steal their toys, hold them hostage, etc...
What was I saying? Oh yeah. Doomsday scenarios are great, but don't forget Occam's Razor: "the simplest solution to a problem is probably the correct one". (I also like Hanlon's Razor: "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.") In other words, yeah, Mahmoud might be planning a big bang, but it could just as easily be something like, "I'm busy Monday, reschedule my 'fuck-you' memo for Tuesday, will you, Hassan?"
Lewis closes with a 20-year-old quote from Khomeini where he talks about fighting against the world powers and spreading Islam around the world- "Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."
Lewis says this means that the Iranians don't care about dying, only about where they end up- Heaven or Hell. So much for MAD. Lewis says the only way to avoid this is to appeal to Iranians without a death-wish.
perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.This is all correct, but the assumption that most of Iran is PRO-national suicide has not been proven. Should Americans be on our guard? Sure. Should the Israelis? Definitely. But Lewis is not telling us anything new- or even particularly informative. Ahmadinejad and the Imams may be apocalyptic, but it remains an open question whether the rank-and-file Iranians are. We would do well to avoid making assumptions either way.
No comments:
Post a Comment