Bernard Lewis, writing in the Opinion Journal describes the problems with dealing with a culture that seems bent on Unilaterally Assured Destruction.
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.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights–the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
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.
I have mentioned that the Palestinians would also be eliminated if Iran tries to obliterate Israel. Given Iran's obvious intent to fight to the last drop of Hezbollah's blood, I can't see them caring who gets caught in the fallout. The West's foolish left makes a war more likely, not less by not coming to grips with Iran. The other problem is one a number of other people have touched on. What is Iran planning on August 22nd? It is a not insignificant day in the Iranian belief structure:
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.
A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. 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."
This chain of events has been happening since Jimmy Carter failed to support the Shah of Iran and allowed Khomeini and his ideology free reign. If war comes, history will remember Carter as the one who failed to stop it while it was still early enough to do so.
Why did you excerpt almost the whole article and leave out the novel part. The last 3 paragraphs are the main point:
In particular, the last sentence in the second last paragraph:
For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
is chilling.
I try to send people over to read the original.
Please don’t ask me to list the reasons I despise Dhjimmi Al-Karter, but I do want to get something on record.
“Allowing the Shah to fall” seems to me to be along the lines of “Who lost China” or, for today, “Of course the Thousand Years War between Arab Muslim tribes and Jewish tribes in Arabia is all George W. Bush’s fault. How could it be otherwise?”, etc etc.
I have, as an amateur historian, been arguing with many for some time now, that, shocking and incredible as it may sound, it is in fact possible for things to occur on planet earth WITHOUT the say-so of the President of the United States, that there ARE actors on the world stage with agendas and motivations all their own, and that the world does NOT consist of inert billiard balls lying perfectly still until the big bad US Cue Ball comes along (or fails to come along) to knock them this way or that.
Now, I am no authority on the Iranian revolution, but to simply say that if a US President had just done this or that, the Shah’s son would be in his tenth year of rule today, and all would be happy is a bit of a stretch. That revolution seemed to by against modernity in favor of a 7th-century ideology, and I have to have doubts that any US President could have magically precluded its occurance just by a few policy changes.
Now, our reaction to the hostage crisis? In hidsight, razing half of Tehran to the ground and sacrificing the 52 might have saved tens of thousands or more (though that’s big Monday morning QB-ing), and I’m happy to start my ‘Why Jimmy’s a Putz’ list with that.
But heading off Khomeini’s revolution? I don’t think so.
Possibly not, but he literally pulled the props out from under the Shah at a very critical moment. It may or may not have stopped the revolution, but the outcome may have been different.
The hostage situation is a no-brainer, I think. There is a very good reason why the did not try to grab Russians. Tehran would still be unihabitable.
If Lewis had any insight he would first check what was said in Persian and then come up with such a laughable fantasy. In fact it was said that Iran would respond by the end of Mordad, not Rajab 14th or Aug 22nd, and even not “on Mordad 31st”. As simple as that! You would expect Lewis to at least be familiar with the Persian calendar.