Sunday, April 16, 2006
Facing a Frightening Truth
Amir Taheri believes a vision of global dominance by an "Islamic Superpower" is The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb: "In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic 'superpower' has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim 'ghazis' (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the 'Dr Kissinger of Islam', President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have 'run away'. Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by 'divine coincidence', corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys."
In the near term, he expects Ahmadinejad to finesse the UN deadline in April and the G-8 meeting in Russia in June by making announcements of "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment and of consideration of signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). These announcements would have no substance other than to delay or prevent international interference, while Iran builds a nuclear arsenal and a strong alliance of (or underground factions in) Mid-East nations.
In addition to Iran's existing influence in Syria and Lebanon, Tahiri notes that Ahmadinejad is trying to take-over the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza and has "reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco".
I suspect Taheri is right about Ahmadinejad's belief in his religious destiny and the above analysis fits that model. If Iran could achieve effective "control" in the countries cited, it would have a solid "Caliphate" base with a nuclear umbrella under which it could pursue global goals by a combination of low-level warfare and religious conversion. The objective of Islamic global dominance is politico-religious and need not involve major military battles. A gradual decline of resolve and will is sufficient; perhaps with some well-orchestrated acts of deceptive terrorism, along the lines of Robert Ferrigno's concept for "Prayers for the Assassin".
Of course, there are some glitches in the analysis and strategy. It gambles heavily on the concepts that Americans' prefer short wars and are tiring of this war. It fails to correlate those perceptions with the fact that many Americans do not see this war as existential - yet. Should Iran's strategy succeed enough to change the American perception of existential danger, the next war is apt to be very short, very violent and catastrophic for them. And the Iranians will discover that while Russia and China may play geopolitical games with them against America now, they will not join them in an existential war against America.
In a longer term context, the demographics of religion may not be so favorable to Islamist extremists. Those "hundreds of millions" of young Muslims may not be so ready for death when they have a real option of a good economic future and personal freedom. On this Easter Sunday, we should also note that Pope Benedict is preaching a new strong message against religious perversion by extremists and there are about as many Catholics in the world as Muslims. (And a lot of Hindus and Bhudists who are unlikely to convert or submit to Islam.) An open public conversation among religions in a free and prospering climate will favor Western goals far more than Islamist ones.
Taheri thinks Ahmadinejad's strategy is to seeks a slow conflict that wears down the West; I agree that's a danger, but think the combined Western political, economic and religious forces will prove too strong. America just won a 60 year long slow Cold War and the Catholic church and other religions have survived for centuries. The greater danger is that Ahmadinejad is truly fanatic and abandons the slow war strategy for a major nuclear dice roll to create a chaotic environment from which Islam can arise and be led to victory by the 12th Imam.
That's the contingency that is truly frightening and it must be addressed decisively and soon.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the 'Dr Kissinger of Islam', President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have 'run away'. Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by 'divine coincidence', corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys."
In the near term, he expects Ahmadinejad to finesse the UN deadline in April and the G-8 meeting in Russia in June by making announcements of "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment and of consideration of signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). These announcements would have no substance other than to delay or prevent international interference, while Iran builds a nuclear arsenal and a strong alliance of (or underground factions in) Mid-East nations.
In addition to Iran's existing influence in Syria and Lebanon, Tahiri notes that Ahmadinejad is trying to take-over the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza and has "reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco".
I suspect Taheri is right about Ahmadinejad's belief in his religious destiny and the above analysis fits that model. If Iran could achieve effective "control" in the countries cited, it would have a solid "Caliphate" base with a nuclear umbrella under which it could pursue global goals by a combination of low-level warfare and religious conversion. The objective of Islamic global dominance is politico-religious and need not involve major military battles. A gradual decline of resolve and will is sufficient; perhaps with some well-orchestrated acts of deceptive terrorism, along the lines of Robert Ferrigno's concept for "Prayers for the Assassin".
Of course, there are some glitches in the analysis and strategy. It gambles heavily on the concepts that Americans' prefer short wars and are tiring of this war. It fails to correlate those perceptions with the fact that many Americans do not see this war as existential - yet. Should Iran's strategy succeed enough to change the American perception of existential danger, the next war is apt to be very short, very violent and catastrophic for them. And the Iranians will discover that while Russia and China may play geopolitical games with them against America now, they will not join them in an existential war against America.
In a longer term context, the demographics of religion may not be so favorable to Islamist extremists. Those "hundreds of millions" of young Muslims may not be so ready for death when they have a real option of a good economic future and personal freedom. On this Easter Sunday, we should also note that Pope Benedict is preaching a new strong message against religious perversion by extremists and there are about as many Catholics in the world as Muslims. (And a lot of Hindus and Bhudists who are unlikely to convert or submit to Islam.) An open public conversation among religions in a free and prospering climate will favor Western goals far more than Islamist ones.
Taheri thinks Ahmadinejad's strategy is to seeks a slow conflict that wears down the West; I agree that's a danger, but think the combined Western political, economic and religious forces will prove too strong. America just won a 60 year long slow Cold War and the Catholic church and other religions have survived for centuries. The greater danger is that Ahmadinejad is truly fanatic and abandons the slow war strategy for a major nuclear dice roll to create a chaotic environment from which Islam can arise and be led to victory by the 12th Imam.
That's the contingency that is truly frightening and it must be addressed decisively and soon.
