In case you missed it, Iran’s elected leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has once again threatened to destroy Israel if they engage in war with Lebanon this summer. Oh, and his government’s police has continued to crack down on “cultural invasion” by Western powers:
In a different gathering of mullahs for Friday’s prayer, Tehran’s police chief Ahmad Reza Radan said that since the execution of the “Elevating Society’s Security” plan more than 1,000 shops and businesses have been shut down and more than 1,200 automobiles have been confiscated. More than 75,000 warnings have also been given to both men and women for improper dress code. More than 3,000 arrests have been made.
Not to mention, of course, Iran’s continued insistence to pursue nuclear power. Iran’s position has raised the stakes for the west: will we allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons, and if not, how will we prevent them? That question is taken up by Norman Podhoretz, who defends what John McCain laughingly sang: the time has come to
Podhoretz’s case is comprehensive: He begins by arguing that we are actually engaged in a fourth world war that is parallel to the Cold War (which he argues was the third world war), but that the techniques and strategies of the Cold War (Mutual Assured Destruction, to be precise) would be ineffective with a tyrant like Ahmadinejad. After pointing out that Ahmadinejad, like Hitler, has global ambitions and will stop at nothing to achieve them, Podhoretz critiques the non-military options for deterrence, and offers this prediction:
Accordingly, my guess is that [President Bush] intends, within the next 21 months, to order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S. aircraft carriers already sitting nearby.
Podhoretz’s piece is intriguing reading, not least because he highlights the fact that the Islamic regime of Ahmadinejad will not allow patriotism to get in the way of acting in ways that hurt the Iranian people:
But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:
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 [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] 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.
Nor are they inhibited by a love of country:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
These were the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 to 1989, and there is no reason to suppose that his disciple Ahmadinejad feels any differently.
The notion that patriotism is “another name for paganism” underscores one of the deep differences between Christianity and that brand of Islam (I do not know the extent to which it is representative of Islamic thought on the whole). Christianity, with its emphasis on the doctrines of creation and incarnation, both of which affirm the goodness of matter and particularity, has room for patriotism. Love of country is not the highest love, but is a love nonetheless, and must be afforded its place. Even Paul, that man who so deeply longed to be where Christ was and who argued that we serve Christ, not Caesar, never denied his Roman citizenship but instead used it boldly and openly. He even went so far as to encourage us to interceed–the greatest act of love outside of martyrdom a Christian can do–for the rulers over us.
It makes me wonder, then, whethher the “invasion of culture” that threatens the Iranian regime is not a pagan culture, but a deeply Christian culture, because it is a patriotic culture. A man is tied to the land of his birth. While he can reject or embrace his land, it is the latter that has made America great, and that a strong position on the Incarnation seems to undergird and foster. If this is true, then there is little wonder that the patriotism of America has prompted the Iranian leaders to act in ways reminiscent of another historical figure: Herod the Great.
More reading on Christianity and patriotism: G.K. Chesterton, “The Flag of the World.“
You wrote: ‘It makes me wonder, then, whether the “invasion of culture” that threatens the Iranian regime is not a pagan culture, but a deeply Christian culture…’
According to Islam, Christianity is a form of paganism. Islamic scholars argue that the Trinity represents the worship of more than one God. The Trinity denies the “oneness of God,” obviously a central tenet of Islam. Indeed, I think that they regard the “invasion of culture,” Christian or consumer, as a pagan culture.
I’m not convinced that Paul’s use of his citizenship to further the Kingdom is the same thing as patriotism or devotion to Rome. You pose an intriguing question though. Interesting post:).
The Islamic Republic of Iran is among the clearest examples of the danger of mixing religion and politics. When a country indicates that it would suffer complete destruction so long as their God is ultimately victorious, it cannot be considered a rational actor in the international sphere but that was from the founder of the Islamic Republic.
Although Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric has been inflammatory, his actions in the international community have been largely rational and Iran should be dealt with diplomatically, not militarily. To attack a government so suffused with Islamic religiosity, the United States would be making a terrible mistake, worse than invading Iraq and, because Bush has so closely tied U.S. policy to his religious beliefs, it will be construed by the Muslim world as an attack by a “Christian” nation on Muslims everywhere.
Apocalyptic religious warfare is not a good idea, wouldn’t you agree?
Drea,
Thanks for the comment. You make a good point about Christianity as “paganism” to Islam. In fact, I don’t have a good reply beyond commending it!
wdepickert,
It’s not at all clear that attacking Iran would be seen as “apocalyptic religious warfare” by the United States. I’d love to see ways in which Bush has “tied” U.S. policy to his religious beliefs. And some evidence that Ahmadinejad’s actions have been “rational” (see: holding British sailors hostage for no reason).
Simply because Iran has mixed religion and politics does not mean that attacking them would be a religious action by the U.S. Even if it is perceived as such, if the only other option is them developing nuclear weapons and attacking Israel, then frankly, who cares what motivation they think we have? Isn’t it better to attack them and prevent them from destroying Israel?
Question: what solution do you expect diplomatic tactics to provide to this problem? It’s clear what bombing Iran would do–prevent the destruction of Israel. Do you think Iran is capable of negotiating in a responsible fashion with the West?
For me, the capture of the British sailors by Iran for entering their waters called to mind the Gulf of Tonkin incident that drew the U.S. completely into Vietnam. That is, a provocative action by the U.S. (in this case, its allies) to create an excuse to widen the conflict to include Iran.
As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and has adhered to this treaty, despite the secretive manner in which it has conducted much of its research. And its President’s inflammatory statements regarding Israel. It’s odd that the U.S. recognized India as a nuclear power, a country not bound by the NPT, and refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Iran’s right to nuclear technology. It is a double-standard that many in the Muslim world consider a slight against a Muslim nation. Hinduism is, after all, a more peaceful religion.
The behavior of the United States, especially its dealings with the so-called “axis of evil,” has only encouraged Iran to pursue nuclear technology (possible weapons) because we invaded one, Iraq. The one that actually possessed nuclear weapons, North Korea, has been dealt with diplomatically by the U.S., to much success. What is fundamentally lacking in American-Iranian relations is respect and both sides need to recognize that before progress can be made.
Bombing Iran would likely lead to an all-out war in the Middle East and the likelihood that Israel would be attacked (by conventional weapons) would greater than if Iran was simply allowed to develop the nuclear technology to which it has a legitimate right under international law. Weren’t there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Bush is a born-again Christian and the language he has used in the war on terror implies that the national interest of the United States somehow coincides with the will of God, which is insane. So it is easy to anticipate how the Muslim world will react if the U.S. decides to invade another Muslim country. I’m sorry, Matt, but God is not exclusively on the side of America. Allah is on their side and he is their God. No government should act as if God is on their side. It is hubris and justifies nothing.
I don’t know that this is particularly coherent but I tried to answer your questions in an indirect fashion in most cases.
wdepickert,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. A couple of questions and comments.
1) You wrote: “That is, a provocative action by the U.S. (in this case, its allies) to create an excuse to widen the conflict to include Iran.” Do you seriously mean to suggest that it was Britian that was responsible for the hostage situation, not Iran? Really? What are you reading that indicates that? That’s the sort of claim that I don’t get at all.
2) “As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to develop nuclear technology and has adhered to this treaty, despite the secretive manner in which it has conducted much of its research.” I thought part of the treaty meant that they had to open themselves to inspection, which they haven’t. If that’s true, then they clearly haven’t kept the treaty. Perhaps I’m wrong on that, though. Also, the question of Iran having “the right” to have nuclear weapons is a difficult one. If they use such weapons to destroy Israel, do they have a right to them? India, as far as I know, has made no such promises regarding their use of nuclear power, hence the disparity in the treatment from the international community.
3) You wrote: “What is fundamentally lacking in American-Iranian relations is respect and both sides need to recognize that before progress can be made.” Actually, it seems like what is lacking in American-Iranian negotiations is an Iranian leader that is rational enough to negotiate with. What happens, wdepickert, if Ahmadinejad is actually cut out of the Hitler mold? Do you think we should appease him? If it seems like he’s cut out of that mold, then shouldn’t we work to undercut his regime and take any measures necessary to prevent him from gaining nuclear weapons?
4) “Weren’t there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?” It’s not clear that there weren’t, and it’s also not clear that Hussein wouldn’t have used them had they been developed. Plus, Ahmadinejad is more unhinged (which is saying something) than Hussein, it seems.
5) “Bush is a born-again Christian and the language he has used in the war on terror implies that the national interest of the United States somehow coincides with the will of God, which is insane. So it is easy to anticipate how the Muslim world will react if the U.S. decides to invade another Muslim country. I’m sorry, Matt, but God is not exclusively on the side of America. Allah is on their side and he is their God. No government should act as if God is on their side. It is hubris and justifies nothing.”
Which statements did Bush make about Iraq that stem from his religious beliefs? Where can I read them? I hear this claim a lot, but rarely see it associated with anything Bush has actually said.
Also, your statement indicates that you think I believe God is “exclusively on the side of America.” I think nothing of the kind. In fact, neither I nor the author of the original article makes anything close to a religious case for bombing Iran.
There is more to say, no doubt, but I’ll (eagerly!) await your reply. What fun!!!
1) All I said was that it reminded me of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and, although that implies an intentional violation of Iranian territorial waters by the British, territorial water boundaries are disputed between Iran and Iraq. And it is well-established that the Bush Administration has had a war plan in the works for Iran and are looking for a reason to use it.
2) No nation has the right to nuclear weapons but, under the NPT, nations have the right to develop nuclear technology. Iran has obstructed inspectors from the IAEA at times but has been cooperative more often than not.
3) You had to use the H-word and the A-word, by that I mean Hitler and appeasement. Hitler had all of the resources of an industrial powerhouse, Germany, at his disposal to realize his insane vision. Ahmadinejad is startlingly anti-Semitic as are many Muslims; Hitler’s anti-Semitism was self-loathing and the culmination of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.
4) Ahmadinejad has not slaughtered thousands of his people and I would not say that he is more unhinged than Saddam Hussein. Despite rabidly anti-Semitic statements, his actions have been largely rational as President of Iran. I think we’re using the term ‘rational’ differently, as well.
Here’s a quote: “It is now a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so–it is so because most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith.”
Before you Google it to find out who wrote it, tell me what you think about its meaning.
5) I will get to it but I have to be somewhere.
Prufrock,
Sorry for the delayed response. I was out of town last week.
“1) All I said was that it reminded me of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and, although that implies an intentional violation of Iranian territorial waters by the British, territorial water boundaries are disputed between Iran and Iraq. And it is well-established that the Bush Administration has had a war plan in the works for Iran and are looking for a reason to use it.”
Well-established? Really?
“3) You had to use the H-word and the A-word, by that I mean Hitler and appeasement. Hitler had all of the resources of an industrial powerhouse, Germany, at his disposal to realize his insane vision. Ahmadinejad is startlingly anti-Semitic as are many Muslims; Hitler’s anti-Semitism was self-loathing and the culmination of centuries of Christian anti-Semitism.”
And Ahmadinejad, if the West sits on its laurels, will have all the resources of a nuclear bomb. Why doesn’t the parallel hold?
“4) Ahmadinejad has not slaughtered thousands of his people and I would not say that he is more unhinged than Saddam Hussein. Despite rabidly anti-Semitic statements, his actions have been largely rational as President of Iran. I think we’re using the term ‘rational’ differently, as well.”
If we’re equivocating, then I would love to hear in what sense you think Ahmadinejad has been “rational.” You seem to be dividing his rhetoric from his actions–why? It seems like in the political sphere these days, rhetoric is used to gain certain political advantages. What is “rational” about the rhetoric he has used?
But this is the question I really want you to answer: why shouldn’t we take Ahmadinejad and his public statements of his desire to eradicate Israel at his word and think that he will actually do it? If he will actually do it, do you think appeasement is the proper strategy?
“Here’s a quote: “It is now a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so–it is so because most Muslims are utterly deranged by their religious faith.”
Before you Google it to find out who wrote it, tell me what you think about its meaning.”
I don’t know what to make of it–I don’t think it’s true that all Muslims are deranged, but I think certain strands are (I would say the same about certain strands of “Christianity.”). To the extent that their particular religious commitments are deranged, I should think that reform from the outside would be impossible. However, it’s not clear that the majority of Muslims (even in Iran) think like Ahmadinejad or the Mullahs (this is especially true of university students there).
But it seems like the more important question right now is the question I asked above: even if reform from the outside is impossible, does that mean the West should do nothing and allow Ahmadninejad to get nuclear weapons? That seems a course that is full of folly.