Last week, President Ahmadi-nezhad of Iran, the front man for Iran’s real leader Ayatollah Khamaeini, brought his propaganda blitzkrieg to New York. And although Mick Jagger once advised, regarding the Big Apple, “don’t mind the maggots,” it’s hard to do so in the wake of Ahmadi-nezhad’s pestilential preaching.
Iran’s jefe started his campaign with an obliging “60 Minutes.” 1 While Scott Pelley was much harder on Ahmadi-nezhad than was Mike Wallace last year, the interview still left a lot to be desired. There were some trenchant questions about co-existing with Israel (sorry, but make that—according to Ahmadi-nezhad—the “Zionist entity” which “is not a a nation) and Iran’s nuclear program (no need, you see, for “the time of the bomb is past”—no doubt is wishful thinking on his part). But the Islamic Republic’s leader still managed to get in, pretty much unchallenged, his attempts at exploiting the American domestic political situation: “the way the American people voted in the [2006] elections is very telling;” “they [the Bush Administration] should not bug telephone conversations of their citizens” and should “help the victims of Katrina.” Ahmadi-nezhad came very close to saying “Bush Lied, People Died” about Iraq, and claimed that U.S. evidence of Iranian weapons-running to the Jaysh al-Mahdi and other Shi`i militias comes from “fabricated documents.” When Pelley said that Bush, like him, was a “religious man” Ahmadi-nezhad asked what kind of religion tells a leader to occupy another country and kill people? At one point he reminded Pelley that “I am a Muslim, I cannot tell a lie.” This, too, went largely unchallenged. Perhaps Ahmadi-nezhad’s earlier remonstrances that this was an interview, “not a secret prison in Europe…[and]] not Abu Ghraib” caused Pelley to back off a bit. Amazingly, the interview ended with nary a question about the most frequently-expressed belief that Ahmadi-nezhad expresses: the return of the Hidden Imam as the Mahdi! Also, Pelley seemed unaware of the Shi`i practice of taqiyah, literally hiding what one truly believes (developed over centuries of living under often-oppressive Sunni rule) but tantamount to, well, lying. Grade: Pelley B; Ahmadinezhad, A.
The next, more public venue for Khameini’s mouthpiece was the now-famous Colubmia University speech. 2 Much praise has been heaped on Professor Coatsworth and President Bollinger of Columbia for what is seen by many as their merciless grilling of Ahmadi-nezhad. But, much like Pelley, these gentlemen often seem to miss the important Mahdist forest for the political trees. Ahmadi-nezhad began his talk by praying for Allah to “hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi.” Yet no one, in the ensuring Q & A, bothered to ask him about this! Shi`ism’s self-styled spokesman tried to garner favor with his audience by reminding them he is an academic himself and that he still teaches university students. But he then says that all too often Western scholars allow themselves to be “misused by bullying powers” as a rationale for “creating non-existent enemies.” The irony must have been thick enough to cut with the prophet’s sword, since undoubtedly many (if not most) of the Columbia faculty consider President Bush’s GWOT (Global War on Terror) in just this fashion—yet there they sat, accused by Ahmadi-nezhad of complicity with the Toxic Texan! The A-man sounded like Usamah bin Ladin when, in response to questions about whether Iran was trying to build nukes, he brought up “new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents” about whom we should be concerned—just as Bin Ladin has done in a number of his videotapes. Ahmadi-nezhad broke new theological ground, even within Shi`i Islam, by claiming that not only would the Mahdi come, but that “Allah himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Muhammad to rule the world.” This was allowed to pass without investigation, because the moderators were unprepared—or perhaps simply uncomfortable—with it. But again, as with “60 Minutes,” the clear and present danger of Ahmadi-nezhad’s Mahdist and eschatological beliefs was simply ignored, even when he prayed again in his closing comments.
Iran’s leader also showed up, via teleconference, at the National Press Club.3 And while the seasoned and jaundiced journalists did turn up the heat a bit on Ahmadi-nezhad, it certainly wasn’t the roast one might have expected. He was questioned about the persecution of Baha’is and of journalists in Iran, but by-and-large Mr. A was able to wax theological in a way that no Western leader would have been allowed. He began by quoting unspecified verses from the Qur’an and then shortly thereafter launched into a sermon about the “bright” prosperous future that we soon arrive, in line with what Moses, Christ and Muhammad all taught. Perhaps this frank expression of religious beliefs was meant for divine protection when the Iranian leader claimed things like Iran’s women “are the freeest in the world.” But the interview ended with a sycophantic softball of a question: “do you plan on running for re-election?” As if it’s up to Ahmadi-nezhad, and not his ayatollah handlers. And no one betrayed any glimmer of recognition that his hopes for the “bright” future are references to what the Mahdi will bring, and that there is a “Bright Future Institute” in Qom, Iran dedicated to preparing the way for the coming of the Mahdi!
Ahmadi-nezhad’s main event was at the U.N. General Assembly on September 26, 2007. 4 As he did last year in the same venue, he opened by praying to Allah to “hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi….” The usual transparent condemnations of the United States were issued: “certain powers” run “clandestine prisons” and “prosecute scientists and historians for stating their opinions on important global issues” (like global warming, one supposes; perhaps Ahmadi-nezhad has been reading DailyKos and Moveon.org). Iran’s leader fulminated against the usual suspects: “brutal Zionists” led the list, followed closely by “bullying powers” who “under the pretext of the overthrow of a dictator and…weapons of mass destruction” invaded and occupied Iraq. (Perhaps the A-man is angling to be invited to the next Democrat Presidential Debate?) But then, as he had at the previous venues, Ahmadi-nezhad turned into a theologian, telling the General Assembly that true monotheism is the only answer to humanity’s ills and stating publicly that “I invite everybody to line up a front of fraternity, amity…based on monothism and justice under the name of ‘Coalition for Peace.” He even advocated that “monotheism, justice and love for humans should dominate the pillars of the U.N.” After predicting the “imminent fall of empires” (candidates, anyone?), Ahmadi-nezhad opined that “the pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the world” once all nations come together in “striving…to give the rule to the righteous and the Promised One” who will “establish the bright future and fill the world with justice and beauty.” He ended by asking Allah that “this wish will be realized in the near future.”
Many Westerners are tempted to dismiss such Ahmadi-nezhadisms as either lunatic ravings or, alternatively, political posturing. True, the Islamic Republic does not hesitate to trumpet its President’s pronouncements for domestic 5 and foreign 6 political gain, those are not the primary purposes of his public utterances. Iran’s President, like many (but not all) of the ayatollahs at whose pleasure he serves, is a true believer in the eventual—perhaps imminent—return of the Hidden Imam as the Mahdi. While the elites of Columbia University, CBS News and the National Press Club seem unaware—or unwilling to discuss—this paramount issue, some other analysts fall off the horse on the other side and wrongly turn Ahmadi-nezhad’s Mahdism into a Shi`i death wish.7 This incorrect take is a variation of the idea of “hot-wiring the apocalypse,” first devised by Professor Reuven Paz. 8 It posits that there is a strain of Islamic eschatological thought which hopes to force Allah’s hand in sending the Mahdi, as it were, via sparking a major conflagration (nuclear, or otherwise) with the West (either the U.S. or Israel). This may be true of some of the Sunni jihadits with an apocalyptic bent, but there is very little evidence that such an idea is operative in the upper echelons of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The ayatollahs may be cut-throat, anti-Israeli and anti-American—but they are not stupid. They know full well that any nuclear attack on Israel of the U.S. would be met with a crushing retaliation. (Besides, what good would it do for the Mahdi to come and establish his global caliphate over smoking radioactive ruins?) Rather, the Iranian regime, through its spokesman Ahmadi-nezhad, is stoking the very real Mahdist yearnings in both the Shi`i AND Sunni world as a means for Tehran to grab the mantle of ecumenical Islamic leadership. And so far, it seems to be working.
1 http://www.cbsnews.com3 http://www.washingtonpost.com
5 “Ahmadinejad Revealed US, Israeli Lies,” IRIB News, Sep. 28, 2007: http://www.iribnews.ir; “US Efforts to Pass Resolution against Iran Foiled by Ahmadinejad’s Statements,” Fars News Agency, Sep. 30, 2007: http://english.farsnews.net
6 “Turkey Praises Ahmadinejad’s Address at US Columbia University,” Fars News Agency, Sep. 28, 2007: http://english.farsnews.net, for example.
7 Such as Joel Rosenberg, http://joelrosenberg/ or “The Telegraph,” “Will the 12th Imam Cause War with Iran?”, Sep, 28, 2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk
8 “Hotwiring the Apocalypse: Jihadi Salafi Attitude Towards Hizballah and Iran,” August 2006: http://www.e-prism.org
Interesting article; one point to raise
As always, a very interesting and provocative article. Very, very good.
I note one point of possible question. You write:
It posits that there is a strain of Islamic eschatological thought which hopes to force Allah’s hand in sending the Mahdi, as it were, via sparking a major conflagration (nuclear, or otherwise) with the West (either the U.S. or Israel). This may be true of some of the Sunni jihadits with an apocalyptic bent, but there is very little evidence that such an idea is operative in the upper echelons of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I note, however, that it is not just Reuven Paz who so believes. So does Bernard Lewis. This is what he told The Jerusalem Post:
I have no doubt at all, and my Iranian friends and informants are unanimous on this, that Ahmadinejad means what he says, and that this is not, as some people have suggested, a trick or device. He really means it, he really believes it and that makes him all the more dangerous.
MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the Cold War. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that they do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again.
In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights, the divine brothel in the skies. I find all that very alarming.
Lewis indicates that Iran's behavior will depend on which element among the ruling clique controls things. He says (from the same source):
That depends entirely on the balance of forces within the regime. There are people in Iran who know that using nuclear weapons, even threatening to use nuclear weapons, could bring terrible retribution upon them. On the other hand there are people with an apocalyptic mindset, and their supporters...
Lewis may not go quite as far as Paz but he goes most of the way in that direction. I would like to think you are correct about this matter but I cannot dismiss a scholar like Lewis. And, I might add, Benny Morris also agrees with Lewis. He, while not a scholar of Islam like Lewis is, is no slouch.
I would like you, if you would, to address Lewis' argument for his proposition.
An Assumption
Will the American people allow the USA to be used once more ??
-The legality of the "Zionist Entity"
and
-the , hypothetical, Iranian A-bomb.
My question IS:
-how much do both these issues affect US security and much do they affect Israeli security ?
(Let us just ignore the Bush comic-tragic myths of spreading Democracy and/or regional stability.)
With or without the, hypothetical, A bomb Iran can in no way deter or affect substantially American security.
To pretend otherwise is not only ignorant but naive verging on the moronic.
So it is that Furnish is playing his (predetermined? allocated? self appointed ? )role of pushing the USA into a new war on behalf of Israel.
Derzhowitz "advised" President Bush recently , according to the Guardian, with a similar consul but much more explicitly.
It is now their turn to replay the role played earlier by Wolfowitz re Iraq!
Will the American people allow the USA to be used once more ??
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
Ahmed and George
Time to replace Mr. Bush by a more reasonable President.
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
Yes, he is the same Bernard Lewis. Being a first rate scholar - in fact, a leading scholar of the Islamic regions -, which he certainly is, does not mean having the correct prescription to address the problems he saw. That is a completely different skill.
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
I think that an issue for the Bushites was their underestimation of the role of the Muslim religious revival for, not to mention the role of religion in the lives of ordinary, Iraqis. I also think he likely thought that the quick disposal of the Iraqi army would be proof enough to Iraqis that the US could not be challenged. And, he may well have underestimated the divisions in Iraq.
I note that Lewis might have said two arguments to the Bushites, when he spoke with them early on about Iraq. He might have said that Iraq had some prospect to follow the pattern of Turkey's progress that began under the great Attaturk. Or, Lewis might have said that a violent message dropped on Iraq could potentially send a message to religious fanatics that Arabs would suffer massively if they messed again with the US.
Whatever Lewis said, the US did what it did for reasons yet to be entirely learned. Whether the US will get control of the situation in Iraq - something I doubt - is another matter. But, stranger things have happened.
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
Re: Will the American people allow themselves to read articles d
Re: Ahmed and George
The more I see such quid pro quo, zero-sum game, my enemy's enemy is my friend thinking, the more I think that people deserve the government they get. The man at the top is not responsible for what the little guys at the bottom decide NOT to do for themselves.
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
He was a college professor and, perhaps, among the greatest scholars of Islam and Islamic history of all time. That makes his insights worth listening to.
Consider: a person who understands an issue is not necessarily a person who knows how to solve a problem, even if the person understands the problem.
So, he is important to listen to as a person who may understand the problem. Whether he had the correct approach to dealing with the problem is another matter. Since we do not know what he advised, we cannot say whether his approach would have been a good one.
I would think we are better off listening to a person who studied the matter than one who has not bothered. That, to me, is common sense. That does not mean that his approach to solving the problem is the one to follow. But, it does mean that we should consider his points and take them seriously.
So, if he says the Iranians are sufficiently fanatic to be dangerous, that is a point to consider. What one should do about the Iranians is a completely different matter. He may or may not have any good ideas on that score.
Re: Will the American people allow themselves to read articles d
Had it been solely a question of an alternative religious vision, say in New Zealand or Honolulu ,would Furnish be as interested in following it??
The trouble with the herd and associates is that they fail to recognize the fact that peoople see through them the minute they put pencil to paper or open their mouths (so to speak).
I believe that the greatest advance achieved in the anti Zionist cause is that its advocates and defenders can no longer speak without being unveiled for what they really are.
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
First, I never said that Lewis was not worth listening to. I am saying that we need to know who he is and what assumptions and biases he brings to the study of Islam. Lewis was a supporter of the US War in Iraq and and a supporter of the neocon agenda in the Middle East.
Second, if Lewis and the neocons want to claim that all Shiites are "fanatics" and therefore "dangerous" they have to explain why they installed a Shiite regime in Iraq that is aligned with the "fanantically dangerous" Shiite regime in Iran.
Re: Ahmed and George
There was of course a PKK before Mr Bush invaded Iraq, it was supported by the European Union and fought a succesful war until Clinton got them to stop it. Mr Bush started them fighting again. So yes, the US president does have the influence to start and stop terrorists hitting Turkey.
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
Lewis did not claim that all Shi'a are fanatics. He said that there is a group of fanatics that rule the country. And, among those fanatics, he said that some are pretty crazy.
In the case of Iran, it is, if we go by what its leaders - and not just Ahmadinejad - say, difficult to call the regime (and not all Shi'a) anything but fanatical. Whether the regime is suicidal is the question raised by Professor Furnish, who thinks it is not, and by Professor Lewis, who thinks it may be.
So far as biases, Lewis' bias is pro-Turkish and he sees the Turkish approach, under Attaturk, as the way forward for Islamic civilization. He is of the view, generally speaking, that Islamic civilization is a great civilization that has made substantial contributions to the world and, as a religion and civilization, is comparable, in some ways preferable and in some ways not preferable, to Christianity and Christian civilization. He has played a role in Turkish history, not only as a scholar but as an adviser. Among things, he had something to do with establishing Turkey and Israel's alliance. He is favorable toward Israel's existence but friendly also to Muslims.
His understanding of the relationship between Muslim civilization and European Christian civilization is one of rivalry in which, at different times, Christians or Muslims had the upper hand. He notes that Islam has a more realistic understanding of war than does either Christianity or Judaism.
With reference to that rivalry, he believes that the current mess between Muslims and the US and other Westerners arises out of the failure of Islamic civilization to address its own problems going back to the 16th Century, when Europeans began to encircle the Ottoman Empire and when the impact of the scientific revolution and political changes in Europe began to place the Ottoman Empire at a disadvantage. Rather than address what was occurring in Europe, the Empire imagined its problems away until they destroyed the Ottoman Empire and Islamic political power.
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise/Mr Rodden
" Lewis was a supporter of the US War in Iraq and and a supporter of the neocon agenda in the Middle East."
(Re: Interesting article; one point to raise (#114151)
by Glenn Scott Rodden on October 2, 2007 at 12:28 PM)
***Is not that to expected from a die hard pro Israel "historian"?
***Does NOT that reflect the neocon Zionist/Israeli agenda for the Middle East?
Sooner rather than later American public opinion will find out the whole truth about the Bush misadventure in Iraq.
All you have to do is to ask:
"Who is the primiary BENEFICIARY from this American debacle?"
Press coverage
What is Furnish's main evidence that media elites didn't sock it to Ahmadinezad? No one grilled the president about Furnish's academic speciality -- the eschatology of the Mahdi.
I think there might be another reason no one asked about this -- such as the fact hardly anyone has heard of the 12th Imam besides Furnish and MESA.
The Iraq war and Israel
by Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.
Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.
In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.
Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”.
Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.
His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”.
”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.”
To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.
Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.”
Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.
”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said.
Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.
”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said.
Copyright © 2004 IPS-Inter Press Service
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise/Mr Rodden
Arguably, Iran is the primary benefactor, at least so far, from the Iraq war. Certainly, Israel has gained very little, if anything, so far from that war and, further, Israel, as has now been widely reported, did not even want a war with Iraq because Iraq - as they advised the Bush administration - was not a big concern to Israel. Iran was Israel's big concern, then and now.
As it turns out, the US has built up Israel's most potent enemy, at least for the moment. So, presumably, if we go by who stood to gain, the answer seems to be those Persians who hate Sunni Arabs, including Palestinian Arabs, and hate Jews.
You might also note that Arab regimes seem to see the matter the same way Israel does. That may well explain why there was essentially no comment from Arab regimes when Israel recently bombed Syria - Iran's ally. Vis a vis Iran, Israel and the Sunni Arabs are pretty much on the same page.
A nonsense theory from Omar
According to Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department and not a neo- con, Israel was consistently warning the administration that Iran was the main threat, not Iraq.
According to Wilkerson: "The Israelis tried their best to persuade us that we were focused on the wrong enemy." In fact, according to Wilkerson "they were very leery of destroying the balance of power in the Middle East. But once they understood that we were going to war, come hell or high water, they weren't going to get on the wrong side of the president of the United States."
Why wasn't A-jad arrested in NYC for violations of international
Great headline, not sure about the article
Not convinced
Can someone provide some actual analysis of the relevant twelver beliefs insofar as they are held in the particular sect to which Ahmedinijad and Khameini adhere?
It would be interesting, and perhaps of great importance, to determine exactly what they do believe along these lines, and what the main point of amassing these weapons might be, in their way of thinking ... I don't expect them to tell us directly.
Re: Not convinced
Re: Why wasn't A-jad arrested in NYC for violations of internati
are you sure he is the only one planning war and genocide?
Re: Not convinced
Thank you for summarizing the views of Professor Lewis. That is the type of exchange I always wanted to see on the HNN, but it rarely happens.
It is ironic that Lewis supports Turkey and its alliance with Israel. If Lewis is concerned about genocidal Islamic regimes, why would he support a nation that still denies that it committed genocide? How can Israel, a country founded by holocaust surviors, having anything to do with the Turkish regime? Furthermore, how can the Bush Administration talk about a war on terror and then support two Islamic terror organizations in Iraq: 1. the MEK; 2. the PKK?
Lewis is interesting but not convincing when he claims that Iran is ruled by genocidal/suicidal leaders. Iranian foreign policy looks like it is based on national security concerns and not fanatical ideology.
Most of what is being written by Furnish, Lewis, et al. is aimed at justifying another war in the Middle East.
I do agree that Israel did not want and is not benefitting from the US War in Iraq. Iran has clearly the winner in the Iraq War.
Finally, three things concern me about the Bush Administration's policy toward Iraq and Iran:
1. The Bush administration is claiming that the military surge is working, but the Maliki regime is failing; 2. The administration is blaming all problems in Iraq on Iran; 3. The administration is entering into an alliance with Iraqi Sunnis.
Re: Why wasn't A-jad arrested in NYC for violations of internati
That would be a case of selective prosecution and an about face for the neocons in the Bush Administration. President Bush himself openly mocked international law when he was preparing to launch the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Why appeal to the international law now?
And why single out the leader of Iran for special treatment? The same day A-jad was speaking at Columbia University, the president of Turkmenistan was speaking at the same university. This man is a brutal dictator who rules his country with an iron fist. Would you support his arrest?
What about President Bush himself? Shouldn't he be arrested for supporting and causing sectarian violence in Iraq and threatening war with Iran and Syria? Shouldn't the president of Israel be arrested for the recent bombing of Syria? Or do we have a double standard?
Re: Not convinced
The topic which focuses the minds of every Israeli I have ever met is the survival of their small state. In order to survive, Israel has close relations with even Germany.
Lewis has commented, and later seemingly contradicting himself, about the label to be applied to the fate of the Armenians. In his brilliant book, The Emergency of Modern Turkey, he notes - albeit does not focus on - the extermination of the Armenians. However, when he has played politician, he may have downplayed somewhat the label he thinks ought to be applied to the horror into a question mark. He, along with some scholars at Princeton, according to scholar Peter Balakian in his excellent book, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response. I do not think that such is due to the discovery of important new facts.
There is a point to note. Those involved in the genocide of Armenians are all, with very few exceptions, dead quite a long time ago. The current generation of Turks, continuing denial notwithstanding, are not to blame for what their great, great grandparents did, at least not to the extent of being entirely shunned. This is not to say that recognition of reality is acceptable but only that moral blame goes to those who did the killing. One might also hope that Kurds acknowledge their role and that Syrians acknowledge their role in that horror. I do not see that happening either.
One might also note that Israel has good relations with Kurds in Iraq, Kurds, as noted above, having played a very significant role in the extermination of Armenians. Turkey, however, clearly does not have good relations with the Kurds. Israel, on the other hand, does not have any peaceful relations with Syrians, who also played a significant role, although more so in the warm up massacres of 1894 - 1896 than those which occurred during WWI. Presumably, Israel's motivation is the desire to survive.
You note that Lewis is not persuasive. In that what I quoted is from a newspaper interview, I do not think he was presenting any evidence for his proposition. He was merely stating his conclusions from evidence he saw. My point in quoting him is to note that a major historian - and I am assuming he is not making things up but, rather, presenting his views based on what he has examined - sees things in a different way than Professor Furnish.
So far as what is occurring in Iraq, I am inclined to agree with most of what you say. I would, however, note that the US is attempting to build not only an alliance with Iraqi Sunnis (in order to assuage their concerns) but as part of a wider Sunni alliance against Iran. And, to that extent, I note that such alliance includes, strange as it may sound, a tacit Sunni alliance with Israel, Shia Persia being the graver threat, as seen by Sunni Arabs.
Re: Not convinced
As always, you present your views cogently. I find myself not fully agreeing with you although I agree that at least some - but this bears noting, not all and probably not even most (a lot of it being self-inflicted denial of homegrown problems and desires for glory and privileges lost to history), although a good deal - of the hatred stirred up among a great many Muslims is the result of Western, most actions.
On the other hand, I cannot say I agree with you when you write: "Talking about hidden imams and the Mahdi to analyse their policy is nonsense." Surely, you cannot dismiss the role of religion, including about the Mahdi, in the policy, including the foreign policy, of Iran, a country that expressly defines itself as a theocracy and is ruled by a clique of people who - although there are obviously exceptions - believe in theocratic governance including people who are clerics. So, religious ideology, including about the Mahdi, surely plays a role in how these people think.
The question to ask is how large that role is. I note that Iran is not Turkey. It has not made a clear decision to adopt a modern way of thinking. So, your own experience may mislead you to some extent, if your view is based primarily on an analogy about how things work in Turkey. Imagine, if you will, a very different Turkey where the current religious group that has some power were the extreme left of the governing spectrum but the opposition was not secular, for the most part, but ultra-reactionary men of unreformed religion. Place Ahmadinejad and, arguably, most of the ruling mullahs, perhaps, in that ultra-reactionary group.
Iran's leaders are mainly religious clerics and the country is, by its own definition, a theocracy. While it can be imagined that the leadership would use religion to advance a secular cause, there is also the possibility that that secular cause is, for them, also a religious cause, as their conception of religion, if it is traditional in any sense, makes no distinction between religious and political.
My point being that there is likely a combination of what you and I would call Iranian national and religious agendas at work but which they may well see as advancing a religious agenda, in which case the religious agenda would tend to play an important role in what they do. Maybe. It is always difficult to know.
By way of analogy, the great Mehmet II appears to have wanted Constantinople both because it made him and his empire a more conspicuously obvious successor to the Romans and fulfilled an Islamic agenda, as he understood it, among several other things that surely inspired him.
Also against your view that the role of religion here is nil, I note that if you are correct, Ahmadinejad has gone to a great deal of trouble to sound like a complete fruitcake and religious fanatic. Recall that he stood up, previously, at the UN, in front of the leaders of the entire world, and claimed to have seen a vision of the hidden imam - again, this was in front of the leaders of the entire world. Your theory would dismiss that entirely. Mine says that it is part of the mix.
For what reason would he do such a thing? Was it for home consumption and used cynically? If so, is there the danger of Iran being pushed into actions by that ideology whatever the true beliefs of its leaders? Or, is he a true believer hoping to persuade those in his country? I certainly do not know.
I also note that this time around in New York, he also made a pretty impassioned explanation of his religious views. I note a recent analysis of his speech. One does not have to agree with her view to take what Ahmadinejad says seriously. However, I think she fairly accurately summarizes what he said.
For what it is worth, I think that one cannot wholly dismiss what the lunatic says as being unconnected to what Iran does. The connection may not be one to one, as Ms. Glick's above noted article proposes, but it is not unrelated and it is probably not something to ignore - which she correctly notes that newspapers tend to do.
Re: Not convinced -Armenians??
Ahmedinejad
Yo are right of course that I don’t not really understand the religious mind. I try to pick out the rational core of what people do but as you say that might be misleading. I do tend to believe that Ahmedinejat is as interested in the hidden imam as George Bush is on free elections in Qatar. Mehmet II by way of analogy did conquer Constantinople but then his advisors had to talk him out of becoming a Catholic to have himself recognized as the Emperor of Rome by the Pope. He wrote poems about how wonderful the service was in the Catholic churches in Constantinople. As they say power corrupts, not only in Washington.
Kurds
It is wrong to say that Turkey does not have good relations with the Kurds. Quite a lot of Kurds are good integrated citizens. The problem is with nationalists, who would like to break away a chunk of Turkish territory. That is something no state will accept. Remember the American Civil war.
Re: Not convinced -Armenians??
Note that I did not raise the issue of the Armenians. I merely responded to what Glen wrote.
I do not plan to answer you in detail about what occurred to the Armenians, which is not the issue for today, except to note that the worst of the massacres occurred during WWI, not in any civil war. In fact, most of the killing occurred from 1915 to 1916.
Your other comment is more interesting. Without addressing or necessarily remotely agreeing with your understanding of the facts for each of the examples you mention - and some is plain incorrect -, it is certainly the case that Europeans - and most especially Europeans -, Americans and everyone else employ a great deal of hypocrisy, especially to advance an agenda. On that, we certainly agree.
Re: Ahmedinejad
My view is to take religions - especially other peoples' religions - as sets of ideas - albeit not subject to refutation by simple argumentation -. The ideas can be read and understood as such. And, religious people can and sometimes do make very pragmatic plans based on such ideas.
I thus think when a seemingly religious lunatic takes power in a country and then lays out a plan to further, seemingly, his religious vision, those ideas must be examined. Why? Because they somehow must have something to do with that person's plans and thoughts and way of thinking - most especially of a person who would say the sort of loony, scary things that Ahmadinejad says when the entire world is listening, not to mention to his own people.
Re: Not convinced -Armenians??
Re: Ahmed and George
Re: Will the American people allow themselves to read articles d
Re: Why wasn't A-jad arrested in NYC for violations of internati
As for the rest of your post, it's hard to even know where to begin. But self-defense would be a good concept to familiarize yourself with. So would the difference between military action as a humanitarian intervention versus wars threatened to end a state's existence just because you don't think it should exist, in apparent disagreement to the wishes of the large majority of the people who vote to continue that existence.
Re: Not convinced -Armenians??
Please provide me with some sources for your assertions. They differ markedly from what I have read. I want to see what you are referring to so that I can consider your points.
Re: Why wasn't A-jad arrested in NYC for violations of internati
I think not and tend to believe that the world sooner than later will express its impatience with this member of the international community that has been tolerated into lawlessness for much longer than its over used, over dramatized, over milked tragedy, or services to the common cause, warrant or deserve.
The colony has come to develop feelings and attitudes of extra legal powers and supra legal prerogatives which not only reflects the old, but never totally dormant, "chosen people" complex but reminds its friends and allies that it is doing their own dirty work for them.
However in dirtying its hands for the common cause the colony is exacting a higher price than was reluctantly tolerated at one time and is rapidly turning into an exorbitantly unacceptable one.
What a few billions could settle in the past a religious cultural WAR is now the exacted price.
The colony due to its abnormal birth conditions will never have, will never be allowed to have, a settled normal life like other normal states.
It will, per force, continue to behave and act as the anti legal amoral , criminal entity that it is and thus increase the circle of revulsion and rejection surrounding it which will in turn goad her into more activities that cause greater revulsion that will cause…etc etc .
A bleak future indeed.
Lewis and Me on Iranian Apocalypticism
Regarding my disagreement with B. Lewis and R. Paz on the "hotwiring the apocalpypse" scenario: I bow to no one in my respect for Dr. Lewis, who has forgotten more about Islamic history, in general, than I know. However, in his writings on this topic, I have yet to see any Persian Shi`i sources adduced which establish an apocalyptic mindset among Shi`i theologians; that is, I know of no Twelver Shi`i theologian or scholar over the centuries who has argued that the re-emergence of the Hidden Imam as Mahdi will be preceded by mass destruction. I am not saying such do not exist (and I am primarily an Arabist, not a Persianist), but isn't the burden of proof on those who argue for the mindset, to prove it exists--rather than on me, who is simply saying "I'm not convinced?" As for the estimable Reuven Paz on this topic, he is absolutely right about this mindset existing among SUNNI jihadist-apocalyptists; but he has yet to demonstrate that such an idea is regnant (or even exists) in Shi`i Islam. I am currently working on some Shi`i Arab (Hizbullah) books (in Arabic) and perhaps that will shed some light in the future on this important issue.
(I wonder how Omar will find a way to attack me on this, and/or work Israel into the equation?)
Re: Interesting article; one point to raise
I posted a reply, separately, way down at the bottom on the comments.
I await your response.
Re: Lewis and Me on Iranian Apocalypticism
I did not take Lewis' position to be based on a close reading of Shi'a theology. I think he was based on what the country's leaders, including Ahmedinejad, seem to believe, based on what they say and what like minded people say. As Lewis noted, the view among some of Iran's leaders is that death does people a favor. As Lewis noted:
In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights, the divine brothel in the skies. I find all that very alarming.
You might also want to read this article.
Re: Lewis and Me on Iranian Apocalypticism
And I think that to truly make that argument, one has to ground it in some Iranian Shi`i texts. That's all I'm saying.
Re: Lewis and Me on Iranian Apocalypticism
I certainly hope that your view is correct.
Re: Lewis and Me on Iranian Apocalypticism
Well Prof Furnish it seems your scholarship has led you where you always wanted to be with it or without it, to Friedman's Acclaim or without it !
The way the erudite society of Pipes, Furnish And Friedman are getting to the scholarly objectives they have been after ,though hardly distinguishable from the fruits of their own collective and individual wishfull thinking ,should be a
source of comfort for the Iranians ; should they bother to look at it. .
Never the less it s truly a sad bad day, for science and manners, when terms like “…the divine brothel in the skies” are used by their master the “august scholar” Bernard Lewis to convey his idea as much as to vent his hatred .
Re: Lewis and Me on Iranian Apocalypticism
Re: Ahmed and George
The Europeans believe that they are far ahead the US on the moral ethical stuff. They presently have nothing to gain by joining the US or supporting Israel.