AT WAR

BY BERNARD LEWIS
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

During
the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but
neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual
assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their
use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan.
In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a
nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late
Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the
United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It
seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon
will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own
researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging
neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language
used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the
reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

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.

In
Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs
concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog,
anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited
return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of
good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his
followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal
struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even
have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president
to giving his final answer to the U.S.
about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by
the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

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 (cf 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."

In
this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so
well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time,
there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the
final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for
the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint;
it is an inducement.

How
then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and
death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary.
In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is
to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share
these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much
threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be
many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the
time for them to save their countries, their societies and their
religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).

___

[More on Lewis in perspective …]

Bush’s
historian… eminent orientalist… ‘guru of the neocons’ who predicted the
Iraq invasion would lead to a new dawn, that US troops would be greeted
as liberators

Oliver Miles: Lewis gun  

Shahid Alam: Scholarship or Sophistry? Bernard Lewis and the New Orientalism

<< Back