In his op-ed in the New York Times, Tom Friedman sets up a strawman: he asks us to suppose that the only choices we face are (1) a nuclear Iran, and (2) an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites “that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon’s helm?”
In these options were the only ones we could choose from, he’d “rather live with a nuclear Iran.” After scolding Rumsfeld for several paragraphs, Friedman elucidates:
So if our choice is another Rummy-led operation on Iran or Iran’s going nuclear and our deterring it through classic means, I prefer deterrence. A short diplomatic note to Iran’s mullahs will suffice: “Gentlemen, should you ever use a nuclear device, or dispense one to terrorists, we will destroy every one of your nuclear sites with tactical nuclear weapons. If there is any part of this sentence you don’t understand, please contact us. Thank you.”
Mr. Friedman, what’s happened to that sharp, analytical mind of yours?
1. Merely possessing nuclear weapons would change the balance of power in the Middle East, setting off a chain of nuclear proliferation, starting with Saudi Arabia. Deterrence can’t prevent proliferation.
2. Trading off the destruction of one or more of our or someone’s else’s cities for the destruction of their nuclear sites would probably sound like a pretty good trade to the mullahs. After they’ve taken their revenge on the West for all of its real and imagined misdeeds and sent the world economy into a tailspin, why would they still need their nuclear sites? If deterrence has a chance of working, Tehran and other population centers must be at risk. Remember the Cold War?
I think Friedman’s emotions have gotten the best of him.
Merely possessing nuclear weapons would change the balance of power in the Middle East, setting off a chain of nuclear proliferation, starting with Saudi Arabia. Deterrence can’t prevent proliferation.
That happened the minute we allowed Israel to posses these weapons. During the Cold War, superpower calculations kept the Middle Easter powers from pursuing nukes, once the Cold War ended the geopolitical landscape changed and the natural course of things resumed its course. Additionally, with India and Pakistan both entering the nuclear club, Iran had no choice but to follow, as it too considers itself (and is) one of the main powers in the region. Add to that the fact that we have knocked out the governments of countries to its east and west, and you have a very compelling reason for Iran to want to pursue the nuclear option.
Trading off the destruction of one or more of our or someone’s else’s cities for the destruction of their nuclear sites would probably sound like a pretty good trade to the mullahs. After they’ve taken their revenge on the West for all of its real and imagined misdeeds and sent the world economy into a tailspin, why would they still need their nuclear sites? If deterrence has a chance of working, Tehran and other population centers must be at risk. Remember the Cold War?
You generalize on mullahs as if they were a monolithic force within Iran, they are not. Even among the hardliners there is much discussion and dissent with regard to the nuclear option. Most of the establishment although wanting the bomb, want it not to use it but because it is a status symbol, something that acknowledges that Iran is a world power. The bomb in Iran is a national pride issue, and anyone within that opposes it stands to loose not only face, but also influence. There is a minority in Iran who would like to use the bomb (Ahmedinejad’s crowd) but they do not control the levers of power, ultimately Khameini is still the Supreme leader and nothing can be done without his authorization, and he has a vested interest in not following Ahmedinejad, as they are on opposing camps in the most important debate within Iran; the direction the country will take. It is one of the main reasons why Ahmedinejad wants to replace Khameini with Yazdi.
I wish I could read the rest of the Friedman article…from what little you reproduce above, it seems that all he is trying to say is that given the administration’s inability to plan for, or sustain a successful peacekeeping operation (see Iraq after deposing Hussein) we are self-deterred from being able to follow through in Iran, as that country is much larger, and far more cohesive and nationalistic than Iraq ever was. It’s the Barnett argument again, until we have a Sys Admin force that can establish security and get reconstruction going successfully we will not be able to take on the most pressing problems we are currently confronted with, be it Iran, N. Korea, Suda, Zimbabwe, etc. because no army, or nation will stick around to face our Leviathan force in the first phase of the war (invasion) but will wait until the second half of the game, and hit us when our occupation force probes to spread out and small to be able to fill the void left by toppled regime.
nykrindc,
The issue isn’t whether it’s understandable that the Iranians want nukes. It is understandable.
Instead, the issue is the consequences of a nuclear Iran (further proliferation in the most unstable and oil-rich part of the world and nuclear blackmail against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, to name a couple), and whether it’s in our national interest to face those consequences.
Yes, not all mullahs are the same. Do we want to base our policy on the assumption that the more moderate, pragmatic mullahs will prevail into the indefinite future?
True, but I was just responding to the italicized section of your comments, not to the overall question of the national interest. For that I would direct you to Barnett who has a really good post on Iran, nukes and the national interest.
One of the problems I have with Barnett, is that he believes radical Islam is just as mutable of a political philosophy as the teenage, marxist fantasy of Fark guerillas in Colombia. He assumes that once the Islamic world is connected to the global economy, and the terrorist leaders are expunged, Radical Islam as a philosophy will simply go away and won’t ressurect itself.
The whole reason for the Iranian revolution of the 1970’s in the first place was the cultural changes globalization was bringing to the Islamic world. Now imgine those Imams with nukes.
Barnett may be a little to confident that Iran contains within it a gaggle of peaceful secular humanists who are willing to sacrifice their lives and overthrow the psychotic, apocalyptic, militant mullahs.
Actually I believe Barnett sees the violent jihadi movement for what it is. Where he differs with many others is in the fact that he does not see ISlamists or radical Islam as the problem we have to confront, but rather as a symptom of a disease we have to treat. That is, the best way (I think the only way in the long run) to defeat radical Islam is to make it irrelevant, much like Marxism. This is not to say that once markets and globalization have a free hand in the Muslim world Radical Islam will go away, rather, it means that while we kill those who have raised arms against us, we also change the places from whence they come. After all, Osama (or the next guy) can’t complain about the plight of muslims in Palestine, if the Palestinians have their own state and become another Taiwan, can he? Even if he does, Palestinians wouldn’t listen to him. You make the rhetoric irrelevant and they become irrelevant. Yes, this will take time, and we will have to fight those who are fighting us with our military might, but we also need to address the underlying grievances that allow them to exist.
The Iranian revolution was not solely because of the change globalization was bringing about, rather it was because of the manner in which those changes were being brought; at the point of the shas’s gun. That’s been the problem in the Middle East for decades, you have people imposing either Sharia or secularity at the point of a gun. The Shah was too westernized and not in touch with his own people to understand that the changes could not be imposed from without or from above. That is what we are fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan, to secure the countries long enough for Muslims within to rework their social contract, to decide of their own accord what type of society they will have. Will they be secular like us, no, of course not, and any illusions to the contrary are simply that, illusions. The only way to achieve lasting change in the region is if it comes from within, globalization will help, but the people of the region will have to do it at their own pace.
The Iranian revolution is instructive in this regard. It was a backlash against the Shah’s ruthless reign (which tainted any moderism he sought to bring to his country, not unlike Saddam in his day), after the revolution (and after tempers cooled) most Iranians embraced a more moderate outlook. Currently, they are the only people in the Middle East who actually like us! Ahmedinejad is part of a small minority, which ultimately has to get approval for everything from Khameini, who I’ve pointed out has a stake in keeping a leash on Ahmedinejad otherwise he risks loosing his title and see it given to Yazdi…what we are doing now, strengthens Ahmedinejad’s hands, plays right into his political ploy and hurts our chances for furthering the big bang in the region.
The Friedman “solution” is rather simplistic. Why would Iran stop at one or a handful of nukes? Why would Iran give away or use only one nuke? If you are planning to engage in nuclear war, which based on Iranian statements is not an unwarranted conclusion, you would want quite a few of them first. So, say Iran produces 50 or 100 nukes? If they have the P2 centrifuges, this would not be that difficult to achieve. Then what? Say you wake up one morning and ten nukes have gone off in Israel? Then what? The whole process leads down a road that has no pleasant conclusions.
Oh, and nykrindc, where is your evidence that we “allowed” Israel to get nukes?
This is my point. I may be wishful thinking that Radical Islam is merely a response to the “palestinian question” or military bases in the gulf ect. If the Palestinian state is created and finalized, I guarantee you terrorists will simply shift focus to greater Israel, and as the muslim world grows more powerful perhaps Spain, Sicily, Greece, Hungary and every other Waqif will undergo a rising tide of terror. Besides, what do you say about Nigeria, Thailand, Indonesia, Chechnia, Egypt, Sudan, India ect…where there is no grievance that can be adressed materially?
What caused Omar to conquer Jerusalem in 638, or Abd er Rahman’s conquest of Andalusia in 721, or Suliman’s march to Vienna in 1638 ect? The same Islamic supremecism motivates terrorists today. While the West could shake off its imperialism through a period of enlightenment (which was due to a change in thinking, not material wealth), Islam has not undergone such change because the Koran itself forbids it.
I’m afraid you can keep killing all the terrorists you want, and connecting those countries to global capitalism, but if the problem of fundamental Islamic theology is not addressed, terrorism will continue to ressurect itself in newer and deadlier forms as the Islamic world grows in prosperity. Has more material wealth caused evangelical christians to abandon their archaine creationist science? (Who is more pro global capitalism then evangelical christians?) Do you think fundamentalist Islam will be any different in that regard?
Barnabus: Oh, and nykrindc, where is your evidence that we “allowed†Israel to get nukes?
I don’t think we’ve reported Israel to the IAEA, or brought up a security council meeting on the issue, a la Iran, to get them to give up nukes, have we? Nor did we raise a storm at their getting those nukes…a la India and Pakistan. I think that pretty much qualifies as our allowing them to get them.
Jimmy the Dhimmi : may be wishful thinking that Radical Islam is merely a response to the “palestinian question†or military bases in the gulf ect. If the Palestinian state is created and finalized, I guarantee you terrorists will simply shift focus to greater Israel, and as the muslim world grows more powerful perhaps Spain, Sicily, Greece, Hungary and every other Waqif will undergo a rising tide of terror.
You still don’t get it. It isn’t that they won’t find another thing to be mad about, the issue is how many other muslims will follow them, or even accept their “grievances” as legitimate! The answer is that as we address the real grievances, and provide a means for Muslim nations to reconnect to the world, these people will be sidelined because their reality will no longer be considered real, and they will become irrelevant (those who remain alive, that is). You have to think about this in a more rounded manner, focusing too much on the jihadists blinds you to the potential for stopping them and gets you in the mypic Huntington “Clash of Civilizations” mindset.
Besides, what do you say about Nigeria, Thailand, Indonesia, Chechnia, Egypt, Sudan, India ect…where there is no grievance that can be adressed materially?
What follows is a incomplete, I’m trying to fit alot within a given time frame, and hence is not a comprehensive analysis of each situation. Hopefully they give you a bit of what you wanted in terms of an explanation.
Nigeria: The problem in the Niger Delta has nothing to do with Islam…most of the people in the Delta are either Christian or animists. If you are referring to the implementation of Sharia that has its roots in local politics, that is, it is not so much about establishing a Caliphate but more about delineating rights between native Hausa fulani Muslims and the “foreign” southern Nigerians who in most cases are better educated (this is particularly true of the Yoruba). By declaring Sharia too, the Northern Muslim states are able to remain within the Nigerian state, with enough autonomy to have the local elites have all the power, since they do not claim independence outright, they can also still partake in the revenue allocation from the Niger Delta petroleum installations.
Thailand: Don’t know much about this, but the groups that are there, I believe are part of the larger al Qaeda “caliphate” crowd, they seek to partition part of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and other regions to create a caliphate with all the minority Muslim populations of non-muslim states within the new larger muslim (islamist state.) It is not my region of expertise, so I would have to leave that to someone else.
Chechnya: Russian control Chechnya with an Iron fist, they’ve slaughtered, masacred the local inhabitants trying to stamp out a chechen rebellion turned Islamists to garner more support from Muslims abroad…prior to Russian atrocities, there was little jihadist infiltration, that came as Basiyev and others turned to jihadists as their best source of revenue…the conflict is ultimately one about Chechen independence (autonomy) from the tyrannical Russian government. Putin has exacerbated the situation through his heavy handed approach. Granted, the jihadists make this easier for him, by making themselves look worse, but ultimately the Chechen separatists don’t want a caliphate, they just want an independent Chechnya.
Egypt: Egypt is ruled by a dictator who has suppressed his people, and all political movements. Since Islam is sacred, however, they have not been able to silence imans or political discussions within the mosque, this has pushed most politics into the mosque where it can’t be touched by the government, but where it becomes susceptible to radical imams from teh Muslim Bortherhood and other such movements. Because they have a safe place to promote their politics/versionof religion, they can beat moderates and secular politicians in teh elections, who can’t campaign openly, and can’t organize without the government stepping up its repression…We support that government with subsidies (as a condition for the Egypt-Israel peace accords) and as such, we are seen as supporting their repression, it is one of the main grievances that Ayman azZawahiri has against us, because he knows first hand what that repressive state is capable of. This is not to say that he has a legitimate right to attack us, but that he does have a foundation for his beliefs…We might not support the state’s repression but in giving it money we are seen to either tacitly consent, or worse be complicit in what it does. Yes, we’ve pushed for democratic change (but this is a Bush II priority, not longstanding US policy prior to 9/11) even then though, we do not push hard enough, and allow repression of political parties and movements to continue, which due to the protected status of the mosque only strengthens radical elements. The people who fight in Egypt, however, for the most part are fighting the regime, they only fight us as an extension of that regime…that is why they hold on to Osama’s statement that if you cut off the head of the snake (meaning us) the various dictatorships in the region will fall. Ultimately though, the egyptian movements want to get rif of Mubarak. Yes, the MB, Zawahiri’s EIJ and GI all want to spread their version of jihad to the rest of the Muslim world, but it is mainly appealig because of the perceived and real injutice of the many dictators, royal families in the region.
Sudan: Again, not my region of expertise, but it seems to be a case of “arab” sudanese vs. African sudanese for control of land and resources, a quasi failed state ruled by one clan for ages, that continues to rule despite their own mismanagement. Like most conflicts this is more local than international, here however, unlike others, the “arabs” are the main aggressors. In Chechnya it is the Russians, in Egypt the government itself, in Nigeria amixture of tribal, ethnic loyalties that seek control of resources, autonomy, etc.
India: Mostly, though not totally, the terrorism is an extension of not only regligious tension between hindu nationalists and muslims, but also an extension of the conflcit between India and Pakistan. At least for those conflicts apart from Kashmir.
Kashmir is a difficult issue, it began with Muslims in the region seeking independence or autonomy (better governance) from India, but through the years, and as Pakistan got involved following the succesful Afghan jihad, it was hijacked by the ISI and jihadists who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Now most Kashmiris want peace, but the land is still the subject of dispute between Pakistan and India, and also part of the larger Jihadist fields of battle…
See, bin Laden and al Qaeda don’t create grievances, or the conditions for jihad they merely take advantage of those that exists to further their agenda. Through these conflicts they are trying to present to Muslims a vision of the infidel hordes attacking the Muslim world, and the Muslim faith. As long as we view this through a simplistic lense, there is no way we’ll defeat him, that’s what Huntington’s argument ultimately leadsyou to, and helps bin Laden bring about exactly what he wants. There’s a much better way…but to do it we need to more deeply understand these conflicts and the local conditions which spawned them.
I’m afraid you can keep killing all the terrorists you want, and connecting those countries to global capitalism, but if the problem of fundamental Islamic theology is not addressed
That is my point exactly in this exercise…you do continue to kill the jihadists, the whole point of reconnecting these places is to change the underlying conditions that spawned them, you do that you attack the very foundation upon which they depend to continue and further the cause. Pretty soon you get other muslims condemming them for their misguided ways, and eventually they get pushed to the sidelines, much like our neo-Nazis and White supremacists, Communists and Fascists…are they all gone? No, they’re still here in some form or another, but they are no longer a danger to our society. Why? because they have been sidelined, and their ideologies have been undermined by history.
Thanks for the info on those regions. I understand that every conflict has some microchronological events at their source, and that every region is different. I’m trying to generalize, and I think its fair for me to say that most percieved grievances in the Islamic world take a religious, rather than secular or nationalistic tone at their root. (One can consider Islam itself to be a “nationalistic movement” since there is no separation of mosque and state, and that the Islamic religion is also a form of civil government)
Maybe we are arguing around the same point, but I think Islam is more dangerous than Naziism, Communism, ect… because those are very humanistic and rational political philosophies that are rather recent in their origin. They are therefore muted or changed as material developments change in society.
Religion, on the other hand, creates its own universe and is based on the intangable and ephemeral. Religious revivals can happen irrespective of material circumstances in society (see my comparison to evangelical christianity). Islam is based on a 1400 year old document that claims to be the actual vocalized words of God, which demands obedience to a set of archaine laws which include territorial conquest and medeival civil laws.
We were allowed to challenge communism and Naziism intelectually and point out their flaws as we connected societies formerly under their rule. In our PC, multi-culti world can we then challenge Islamic theology and the Koran? should Iran ban the Koran (nice rhyme), as Germany banned Mein kamf?. Could we have eliminated Naziism without a regime-changing war? How much of the Islamic world needs to undergo a regime change then?
I guess the whole argument comes down to numbers: How many secular or lapsed muslims do you think there are in Iran? Are they willing to stand up to the 9 million Basiji fanatics that live ther now?
Does moderate Islam even exist, and if so, is it so strong and popular a philosophy that it can guarantee the elimination of huge fundamentalist movements in the future? (the way democracy and civil rights have essentially ended white-sepratism in the U.S., or the Catholic church has ended for all time the practice of persecuting heretics.) Can all of this be done simply by global connectedness without a serious discussion about fundamental Islamic theology and the Koran?
I think you are generalizing a bit too much. Yes, the ideology we are fighting is based on Islam, but it is not Islam…that is real distinction. In many ways, the battle is within Islam itself, between a violent minority and the muted majority (at this point). The process we have to start is basically one of getting the majority to stand up and challenge the minority’s legitimacy. Qutb’s writings, on which Islamim is based, are to an extent heretical in Islam proper, mainly because they do what has been forbidden in Islam. His philosophy reinterprets or interprets Islam and its history to draw its own philosphy…according to the traditional view of Islam the gates of Ijtihad (interpretation) were closed long ago and hence Qutb, Zawahiri, bin Laden and others are really stepping outside of Islamic teachings themselves. The reason they are big now, is because the region is bereft of leadership, mainly based on the conditions I mentioned before (dictatorships, monarchies, dynasties etc.)
There are in fact muslims who are challenging them, some are even former members of the Muslim brotherhood and cell mates of Zawahiri who challenge his views. We have to encourage that, globalization is the tool, mass communications, education and job opprotunities..in short, a chance for a better life.
Islam and democracy are about as incompatible as Christianity/Judaism and democracy are…really it all depends on interpretation..that is why allowing Islamist groups to compete in elections is so important, because in competing they tacitly acknowledge the legitimacy of the process. Also look at Iraq, the people didn’t have elections just because we took Hussein down, they had elections because they wanted to elect their own leaders. Indonesia is a case in point, there the Islamists though violent have a hard time recruiting and pushing their views on others…and there is democracy. Finally, the discussion regarding Islamist ideology will have to be had and won by Muslims themselves. It will be a long process, but it can be done.
I hope you’re right, and when it comes down to it, the only thing we can do from the Core is to promote global connectedness and cross our fingers.
Its not simply democracy per se that is the antithesis of radical Islam, but it is the only means to give political power to the moderates, the “muted majority” as you call them; however, what they choose to do with it is another question. If you agree with the goals of OBL, but not his violent tactics, then you are still an extremist.
Both Afghan and Iraqi constitutions have the stipulation that no law can contradict democracy, nor Shar’ia. Let’s see if the Afghan supreme court will uphold any law that defines apostasy, homosexuality, or adultery as private matters with no bearing on civil law or public enforcement. Lets see if laws will be enacted that protect the rights of such people.
The following 2 premises remain the cornerstone of Islamic theology: 1)the words of the Koran are the eternal, uninterpretable, immutable words of God, including the commandments therein, and 2)Mohammad was the al insan al kamel i.e. the perfect man, who’s example in life all men must emulate.
From what I have read of the Koran and Hadiths, as long as these premises remain steadfast in the minds of devout muslims, I see nothing unislamic about violent jihad, nor strict sharia law enforced by a fundamentalist theocracy. All 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence, all 7 grand Ayatollas, and hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide agree with that, and unfortunately disagree with you. Thats what scares me so much.