This Bloody Strife - "Let Me Tell You, ... ."

Media Photo

It is quite beyond this columnist why, apart from very odd political reasons of which a need for reasonable explanation, the unpopular and now widely covered bloody mess in Syria even continues at this point.  It is possible as indicated by the Russians declaring this mess to be their business as well, that the regime in Syria fears passing into history, either as the result of the current guerilla - rebel uprising or another explosive and elite revolt, as an effeminized system of government after the death of the elder Assad in Syria and the accession to power of the current Assad.  This fear is part and parcel of any conflict, armed or with simple verbal exchanges, in which attention is directed at Hezbollah as a participant and dates to the channeled and isolated violent ideas of the Abu Nidals of some years ago and the violent chaos they advocated in spirit and practice.  I do not know specifically the Arabic terms for "ready, aim, ... ," and like many reasonable persons have no interest in them, and the current Assad regime has incurred additional moral and other debts of a sinister character by inviting Hezbollah and its sponsors from the East into this unviewable and violent home fracas.  Even the network news coverage of the conflict is physically sickening, though also see press reports, of which:  Lebanese press, "Wall Street Journal", P.B.S. "News Hour", U.K. Economics Publication, U.S., Virginia newspaper, ... (there is an outstanding C.B.S. television report from August 17 on this topic as well):  All as perpetrated by those espousing in name, and tacitly and directly ignoring the culture and teachings of the prophets of Islam.

Media Photo

  While assuming the leaders of this madness to be educated and thinking people in their public statements and discussion, what is one to do and with whom here?  That Yitzak Rabin and his own were still alive begs this question and some resolution to this political and societal disintegration in the Northern Middle East.  That the impossible violence and chaos there is completely internal and has summoned external armies to settle accounts in calling for the destruction of the rebels with overwhelming force invites and engenders even judgmental curiosity about the Syrian government's legitimacy as ruling in that country, and any related constitutional integrity as to even remotely legitimate or justifiable actions in escalating the repressive violence.  All this in opposition to the quite enlightened and braver parties of the "Arab Spring" having proposed a modern challenge to the Syrian status quo of old.  "Entendu, que les gents comprennent le ruban noir du massacre." 

... [Hidden] Dragon (informally.)

Without respect to a single statistic, it is important to have the idea, if you are an informed person, that the development and proliferation of massively destructive arms is dangerous.  Dangerous not only as far as the intended use of the weaponry and its proliferation (again,) but to the makers of such arms and the danger of retaliation.  It is clear, in the nuclear arms developments in countries like Iran, the purpose of such things is primarily twofold:  a.  Such things serve to signify and determine the arrival and importance of nation - states like Iran on the international stage, and b.  As a retaliatory threat against any attack on any area of Iranian influence in the Middle East.

No one has doubted for a long time that Iran is an important country and that even in the time of its recent revolution, as a country, it influenced politics and ideas in many areas, especially Islamic ideas, that have provoked major and salient debates and discussions for a long time, both among national leaders and men in the street.  That Iran wishes, and this apparently, to assert its nuclear power and by that nuclear threat(s,) not only in the Middle East, but in prepondering fashion, as a bargaining chip to invite and extract tribute from other nations in its immediate vicinity and beyond does indeed lack some sense in what it might otherwise do to make friends and influence people.  Many people, and this due to what came out in the debates among the so - called great powers in the 1980's, do understand the visceral fear Eastern culture has about western ideas and society approaching and then invading its regions, among other things.  The argument of Iran in its tacit avoidance of speaking about this gives cause for suspicion about its motives in developing a massively destructive arms complex.  The same is true of other states who are developing nuclear weapons as well.

The visceral fear about societal and cultural influences invading and corrupting Islamic culture are indicative of pre - nuclear age nationalism as applied to the modern world and its present and potential security risks without respect to not only what is (the international status quo, to use old language,) but what might be.  A reasonable person, when examining things like the financial expense and energy, and other outputs necessary to the inputs of a nuclear arms complex, and the proportions of effort in a country such as Iran as used to develop such a complex and its capabilities resulting from deployment of such arms, probably will not agree that this state should have them.  This level of analysis comes from a strict examination of the scope of developing and deploying such arms, maintaining them and so forth; and this against NPT and other rules that are widely accepted by the great powers.  In fact, the strident call for such nuclear attributes in that country appear to be out - of - balance with any analysis of the allocation of its national assets, investments, income and / or capital.

Why is this so apparent?  While people like me do not read nor watch Arabic or Farci broadcasts, nor do we read publications in these languages, the thing is there is a common and known premise upon which Iran carries out its policies as evidenced by news reports, mostly trusted in free countries, that country is doing the bidding of others who are fed up with western ideas about society and specifically about government (bicameral legislature, separation of powers, rule of law (constitutional, civil, and others,) equality and rights, freedom of travel and expression, and the list goes on,) and the approach of the great powers to a little country called Israel.  This begs the question "How can an Islamist have any regard for Israel with its reform - minded and cosmopolitan people and ideas?"  This question, and its variants and derivatives is an old, nationalist - type question that invites direct slurs and epithets on the part of people who are not prejudiced among their own, but they are thereby highly nationalist and belligerent, and the smaller the better the country with fewer people, the easier the target for this mindset - and this has been true on the part of Middle East neighbors for years.  The implications of this question by association to Israel can be scaled upward to apply to more populous and important places, even entire regions whose applecarts are for the upset by Iranian nuclear, and other political ambitions.  With respect to this, and with respect to Iranian influences and politics now in evidence everywhere, the post - nationalist question might be proposed as "What can we do [together] to make a new approach to nuclear proliferation in view of these nationalist ideas?"

That this could be accomplished, just proposing a new approach to nuclear arms in the Middle East and elsewhere with some acknowledgement of the belligerence that goes along with some forms of nationalism, might itself be a way to invite a response to end the currents of what people like me know to be overt racism in the area as a tabled or distinctly different avenue of discussion apart from the current linkage racism and nationalism have there.  This, combined with a discussion about the visceral fears of being struck from outside, would serve to de - escalate at least some of the tensions that caused, for example, the 2006 war, continuing problems in Lebanon, and the useless formation of paramilitary brigades and other activities counter to peace in the area.

THS

abbas milani and the commonwealth club.

Sir:

Just within the past few days, I have heard a talk with the Commonwealth Club as given by Professor Abbas Milani of Stanford in view of his new book about the Middle East and more specifically the case of Iran at present.  Dr. Milani has asked the question by his new writings and in his talk on how or what did someone in our system do so that in fact we now have extreme worries about nuclear proliferation and terror as related to Iran at present.  In the time of communism, Milani proposes, the place of the Shah, and in fact what directed his fall from grace and eventual demise, were the forces of fundamentalist religion, namely Islam as embodied in Islamic political clerics who primarily had ties to the soviets.  

Today, much of the political / administrative activity in the Middle East is ascribed to oil – pricing policies, and efforts at “democratisation” in Iran eventually have become known more popularly as “islamo – fascism” despite the long – time efforts of the soviets and their contribution to the expansion of socialist and communist influences.  In retrospect, the political upheaval around the Shah was caused not by rightist tendencies, but by the reaction to the Shah’s efforts to try to live with the religious left and centrist political figures of the day.  The case of Bin Laden in Afghanistan, formerly in places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Sudan, as a former U.S. ally against communism and presently a saboteur against the U.S. in its approach to the clerics in Iran, presents the impossibility of using a secular approach for the most part to Middle Eastern culture, even governance, and this as shown by the political missteps of the Iranian regime before the 1979 revolution.  

There has been literature published to the effect that, in Pahlavi’s words (to paraphrase here,) most Iranians and Arabs were ignorant of the Shah’s motives and policies, even internally, and most people in the region never comprehended these and never made the effort to do so, or even to plainly understand what he attempted to do for his people.  Hopes for actual democracy have been dashed for years by the use of Pahlavi as a scape – goat in his secular promises, and the false promises of the current clerical, even teleological regime.  It is possible there is another “perfect storm” brewing politically in Iran again after that in 1979 comprised by the dormant Middle East policies of Jimmy Carter, British policies as well, the fitful political attitudes of Iranian people along with the promises of the clerics around Khomeini and Khomeini himself.  All this seems additionally to be tied to petrol politics and the price of oil:  An unusual way to try to determine or work for democratisation and civic and political freedoms anywhere.

THS