Tempting Fate
Herodotus tells us that King Croesus of Lydia consulted the Oracle at Delphi on whether to make war with Persia. The Oracle famously replied “If you do, a great nation will be destroyed.” Croesus took that as a yes and attacked. Lydia was defeated and became part of a young and expanding Persian Empire. Croesus lived out his life as a guest at the court of Cyrus the Great, the same Cyrus that later conquered Babylon and, although Herodotus doesn’t mentioned it, freed the Jews from captivity and financed the building of the Second Temple. One can only wonder what oracle Saddam Hussein was consulting when he baited the United States. He is just the latest petty tyrant to get crosswise with Americans and lose his kingdom for his pains. The list is long and growing and none of the losers are anybody’s house guest. What do you suppose ever happened to Mullah Omar?
The astonishing thing is the list of regimes willing to tempt the same fate. What could possibly be worth that risk? Two of them are predominantly Islamic states headed by presumably rational dictators who would have more to gain as responsible members of a global trading community than as international pariahs. They have nothing to fear from outside their borders unless they become threats themselves, but especially if Americans feel threatened they have a great deal to fear. So why don’t they follow the lead of Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi and defuse the danger? Instead they seem determined to agitate until they provoke the response Saddam got, maybe even go so far as to sponsor an attack on America itself, oblivious to what happened in Afghanistan.
Of the two, Syria is harder to understand. President Bashar Assad’s goal appears to be reconstitution of greater Syria as it was in the Ottoman Empire. That would bring what are now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories together again under control of the Baathist regime. But that doesn’t explain why he would play with fire by contributing to the insurgency in next door Iraq. He isn’t even subtle about it. The Syrian mufti, a regime appointee, has been openly calling for volunteers to cross the border into Iraq and join in the fray. Assad is probably correct in his calculation that Americans have their hands full at the moment. We are in no position to make an aggressive intervention in Syria, but when Iraq gets back on her feet as she undoubtedly will, Assad will have some bills to pay. Iraqis will remember. He has his enemies in Lebanon too, some left over from the recently ended Syrian occupation, and some new ones from their role in sponsoring Hezbollah. He isn’t making any friends in Jordan either. That increasingly prosperous country wants no part of his fascism and I doubt whether Hashemite King Abdullah is amused.
Israel has to represent the greatest danger for Syrian belligerence. Israelis refrained from retaliating directly against Damascus for its support of Hezbollah in the most recent dust up but there is no guarantee they will in the future. The Syrian Army would be grossly over matched. Their only allies would be in Iran and Iran would have to cross Iraq to get there. Syrians are trying to pick a fight they are bound to lose. It’s hard to see how the Assad regime survives. Their capacity to act contrary to their own best interest appears to be limitless. They are unnecessarily antagonizing neighbors on four borders at the same time, not counting America. Do these people have a death wish?
Iran is a lot scarier than Syria but also easier to explain. Princeton Orientalist Bernard Lewis thinks President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad genuinely believes an eschatological end time is near, that Imam Mahdi is about to emerge and lead the world into the perfect Islamic society prophesied in the Koran. He also thinks the real power in Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is more cynical than Ahmadinejad, more concerned with his own aggrandizement. Lewis may be right. A driving desire to perpetuate themselves in power is certainly a common thread that runs through American Supreme Court Justices, Roman Catholic Popes, and politicians of every stripe. It’s that Lewis may be wrong that worries me. If the Ayatollahs share Ahmadinejad’s zealotry they could very well lead us all to Armegeddon. Even if they don’t, they could make the catastrophic mistake of believing they could escape the consequences of a major strike in the West by a proxy like Hezbollah.
The Mahdi prophesy comes directly from the Koran so it cuts across all branches of Islam. Details vary a bit from group to group but Iran is predominately Shiite and mostly Twelvers so that narrows it down some. Twelvers believe there were only twelve legitimate Caliphs, all direct male descendents of Muhammad’s son-in-law and heir, Ali. The last of them didn’t die but went into hiding to escape assassination. He is still there, waiting for the right moment to reemerge as the Mahdi. The moment will come at a time when the faithful are under siege at every corner. Ahmadinejad is not alone in believing the time is now. That’s the problem. Most Muslims, as do most Christians, adopt the more prudent view that the last days may not necessarily be just around the corner. If Iran’s leadership has abandoned that particular caution they may be prepared to take risks no sane person would venture. When they get their bomb, and I believe they will get it, they might actually use it. The Mutual Assured Destruction deterrent that kept us from a nuclear holocaust in the Cold War may not work with these folks.
Lewis expects them to acquire the bomb too, and to use it with “no return address,” as though Americans would wait for proof of origin before retaliating against a nuclear explosion in an American city. He may be right again. Muslim extremists aren’t known for their wisdom. But there are several reasons to hope for a less cataclysmic outcome. One is that the Iranians are smarter than Lewis thinks and the instinct for self preservation will carry the day. That may be a faint hope for today’s cast of characters but if the Iranian public can overthrow a Shah they can overthrow an Ayatollah. There are certainly signs of internal unrest and despite election rigging there are reports that some of the more repressive measures from the early days of the Islamic Republic have been eased a little. Also, security experts seem to think Iran is still a few years from building a bomb and even further from an effective means to deliver one. Given time there is always hope the danger will fade, but this is a powder keg that has been around a while. Iran never called itself Persia. That was the Greek name. They have been at war with the west more or less continually at least since the days of Croesus. I can’t think why we should expect that to change anytime soon. The difference is that now it is Persia interpreting prophesies and bent on self destruction. None of it is very comforting is it?
The astonishing thing is the list of regimes willing to tempt the same fate. What could possibly be worth that risk? Two of them are predominantly Islamic states headed by presumably rational dictators who would have more to gain as responsible members of a global trading community than as international pariahs. They have nothing to fear from outside their borders unless they become threats themselves, but especially if Americans feel threatened they have a great deal to fear. So why don’t they follow the lead of Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi and defuse the danger? Instead they seem determined to agitate until they provoke the response Saddam got, maybe even go so far as to sponsor an attack on America itself, oblivious to what happened in Afghanistan.
Of the two, Syria is harder to understand. President Bashar Assad’s goal appears to be reconstitution of greater Syria as it was in the Ottoman Empire. That would bring what are now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories together again under control of the Baathist regime. But that doesn’t explain why he would play with fire by contributing to the insurgency in next door Iraq. He isn’t even subtle about it. The Syrian mufti, a regime appointee, has been openly calling for volunteers to cross the border into Iraq and join in the fray. Assad is probably correct in his calculation that Americans have their hands full at the moment. We are in no position to make an aggressive intervention in Syria, but when Iraq gets back on her feet as she undoubtedly will, Assad will have some bills to pay. Iraqis will remember. He has his enemies in Lebanon too, some left over from the recently ended Syrian occupation, and some new ones from their role in sponsoring Hezbollah. He isn’t making any friends in Jordan either. That increasingly prosperous country wants no part of his fascism and I doubt whether Hashemite King Abdullah is amused.
Israel has to represent the greatest danger for Syrian belligerence. Israelis refrained from retaliating directly against Damascus for its support of Hezbollah in the most recent dust up but there is no guarantee they will in the future. The Syrian Army would be grossly over matched. Their only allies would be in Iran and Iran would have to cross Iraq to get there. Syrians are trying to pick a fight they are bound to lose. It’s hard to see how the Assad regime survives. Their capacity to act contrary to their own best interest appears to be limitless. They are unnecessarily antagonizing neighbors on four borders at the same time, not counting America. Do these people have a death wish?
Iran is a lot scarier than Syria but also easier to explain. Princeton Orientalist Bernard Lewis thinks President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad genuinely believes an eschatological end time is near, that Imam Mahdi is about to emerge and lead the world into the perfect Islamic society prophesied in the Koran. He also thinks the real power in Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is more cynical than Ahmadinejad, more concerned with his own aggrandizement. Lewis may be right. A driving desire to perpetuate themselves in power is certainly a common thread that runs through American Supreme Court Justices, Roman Catholic Popes, and politicians of every stripe. It’s that Lewis may be wrong that worries me. If the Ayatollahs share Ahmadinejad’s zealotry they could very well lead us all to Armegeddon. Even if they don’t, they could make the catastrophic mistake of believing they could escape the consequences of a major strike in the West by a proxy like Hezbollah.
The Mahdi prophesy comes directly from the Koran so it cuts across all branches of Islam. Details vary a bit from group to group but Iran is predominately Shiite and mostly Twelvers so that narrows it down some. Twelvers believe there were only twelve legitimate Caliphs, all direct male descendents of Muhammad’s son-in-law and heir, Ali. The last of them didn’t die but went into hiding to escape assassination. He is still there, waiting for the right moment to reemerge as the Mahdi. The moment will come at a time when the faithful are under siege at every corner. Ahmadinejad is not alone in believing the time is now. That’s the problem. Most Muslims, as do most Christians, adopt the more prudent view that the last days may not necessarily be just around the corner. If Iran’s leadership has abandoned that particular caution they may be prepared to take risks no sane person would venture. When they get their bomb, and I believe they will get it, they might actually use it. The Mutual Assured Destruction deterrent that kept us from a nuclear holocaust in the Cold War may not work with these folks.
Lewis expects them to acquire the bomb too, and to use it with “no return address,” as though Americans would wait for proof of origin before retaliating against a nuclear explosion in an American city. He may be right again. Muslim extremists aren’t known for their wisdom. But there are several reasons to hope for a less cataclysmic outcome. One is that the Iranians are smarter than Lewis thinks and the instinct for self preservation will carry the day. That may be a faint hope for today’s cast of characters but if the Iranian public can overthrow a Shah they can overthrow an Ayatollah. There are certainly signs of internal unrest and despite election rigging there are reports that some of the more repressive measures from the early days of the Islamic Republic have been eased a little. Also, security experts seem to think Iran is still a few years from building a bomb and even further from an effective means to deliver one. Given time there is always hope the danger will fade, but this is a powder keg that has been around a while. Iran never called itself Persia. That was the Greek name. They have been at war with the west more or less continually at least since the days of Croesus. I can’t think why we should expect that to change anytime soon. The difference is that now it is Persia interpreting prophesies and bent on self destruction. None of it is very comforting is it?
posted by Onfoot at 10:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home