Believing in historical lessons from the Bible = good and rational and soundly strategic; doing the same with Koran = bad and irrational and messianically fanatical
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 3:20AM SUNDAY OPINION: "Israel's Fears, Amalek's Arsenal," by Jeffrey Goldberg, New York Times, 17 May 2009.
It's always interesting to me that whenever Christians or Jews cite the Bible, it's considered deep and meaningful: remember the lesson of so-and-so.
And we have our beliefs, to include the rather fantastic notion of God's return to the planet. When exactly? A fudgey notion at best. But we believe and consider these attributions to be quite sacred and thus suitable for people of great faith and understanding.
But when we are confronted by very similar concepts in other faiths, they typically strike us as bizarre (You celebrate what? You expect THAT guy to suddenly show up again on earth and usher in some new era? Are you nuts!!).
We get a lot of reports about Iran's "fanatical" leaders, their innate desire for self-immolating total war, etc., and yet the historical record since 1979 indicates nothing more than your run of the mill revolutionary movement that seeks to sow mischief abroad, fights asymmetrically when confronted by superior power, and cynically manipulates proxies to go just far enough to cause its enemies great problems but not enough to cause those enemies to directly attack the sponsoring source (how Soviet . . .). As always, the revolution fades at home (so much young fervor was burned off in the Iran-Iraq war, where Iran, BTW, eventually negotiated for peace with its arch-enemy Saddam--but that time doesn't count, of course), as follow-on generations by and large can't be bothered to give a rat's ass about what--for them as young people (70% of Iran is under 30, meaning they were at best kids during the deadly war)--is now ancient history. Yes, they will perform as minimally required, and good shows are always had for foreign cameras, but these follow-on generations are essentially lost. They opt out. They withdraw from public life and lead lives largely hidden from state view, indulging in their petty vices (such as they can be achieved) while maintaining the proper public face.
Ah, but up on top, the revolution thrives in the most rhetorical manner. "Blows" against "demon enemies" (required for all revolutionary movements once in power) are constantly being struck--to huge effect, their leaders claim. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, everything just seems to get old and decrepit and dysfunctional, while "infidels" nearby seem to live the good life with a vengeance.
Covering the bankruptcy at home, the "glorious revolution" continues abroad by having the regime buy alliances opportunistically with those looking for proper sponsors. The people back home often grumble about how much all this useless "solidarity" is costing them, but no one agitates too much. Why bother?
But, of course, all that mendacity and predictability pales in comparison to the death-wish religious fanaticism on top. While, outwardly, this crew may resemble stalled revolutions the world over and throughout history, these guys are different: they want death more than life, which is why they cling so decisively to power. They are ready to sacrifice the entire nation in the name of their God, which is why they're so eminently patient in extending their influence--such as it is purchased--regionally at great cost. All of this--all of it, is readily sacrificed at a moment's notice for the greater revolutionary/spiritual goal. Moreover, despite making such efforts to solidify their rule at home for decades and to make great efforts to achieve defense against their mortal enemies, if given even the slightest chance to pass on deadly technologies to their proxies, thus giving those proxies the right to determine the timing and conditions under which their entire nation is sacrificed, they will do so immediately, because their beliefs tell them that any big enough blow leveled against their opponents is worth the entire destruction of their civilization.
Naturally, the people are behind the regime on this score--100 percent. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is just itching to end their lives. When you meet Iranians, you know what I mean: they all talk about national suicide like it's a fantastic holiday just around the corner. That's why no one bothers with education, much less college in Iran. There is no point when the country is so close to its deathwish goal! I mean, if Israel doesn't light up the place with several hundred warheads (as it intimates it's so ready to do), then the Americans will jump in with just a few of their thousands!
Ah, to commit suicide simultaneously at the hands of the Little Satan and Big Satan! Tell me this isn't the dream of an entire nation!
So when these Iranians cite their religious beliefs, I can guarantee you that they're completely nuts. I know, because I read about it all the time in the newspapers.
But if somebody on our side was willing to risk nuclear war in the region, to include their possible self-destruction on a grand scale, and did so because their reading of their spiritual past says God gives them the right (in the end, aren't we all chosen people?) to do whatever is necessary to their enemies--including attempted genocide, then we say this is reasonable and good and not nutty whatsoever.
And I get to read that in the newspaper all the Times too.
Cool how that works, isn't it?
In the end, I get the feeling we're being told that it would be a good thing to pre-emptively wage genocidal war against Iran to make sure it can't try the same with Israel, and because our version of God okays it, it must be the right thing to do.
Yes?
Reader Comments (12)
If you browse neuropolitics.org then you will see some past articles in the archive that explain how religiosity is linked to political dispositions.
The gist of it is that brain testing for socioeconomic and religious biases should be required for entry to political positions of power like the (now outdated) polygraph is in certain circumstances (i.e. if you want to make decisions that potentially impact the world then you should demonstrate that your brain is sufficiently developed).
It is indeed heartening to know the young population of Iran is largely pro-Western and not radical like its leaders. But until these people grow into power and are making policy for Iran, what do we do?
Contain with soft power and keep the lines of communication open?
I suppose this is the rhetoric of the new cold war.
This is serious question to those who feel that Iran is not really a threat. Give them what they want, but make sure they don't proliferate. Why is this a dumb idea?