Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Sorry, but I don't think Lewis deserves a dunce cap. He is probably the foremeost Islamic scholar in the West. He is very knowledgeable about, and sympathetic to, the Islamic world. He is, however, fully aware of the dark side that exists among the entrenched Islamic fundamentalists.

I understand your optimistic approach to Iran and it is a welcome relief from the right wing blogosphere where turning Iran into radioactive glass is often suggested.

But my opinion differs from yours almost 180. I think Kim Jung Il is deterrable. He's just a two bit dictator who uses strong arm tactics on the West to extort money to feed his army. He knows that his life is forfeit if he actually takes any offensive action. He likes the high life to much to take that chance.

On the other hand I tend to believe that Ahmadenijad really believes in the Mahdi in the well and would welcome a nuclear conflagration. You seem to believe that the Mullahs can control him and that they are deterrable because they don't buy the end of times scenario. I hope you read is the correct one. If it isn't we may be in for some very difficult times ahead.

many warnings against Islam come with the tag 'because I know more about it than you'.

well, i know the dynamics of faith pretty well, and underneath it all is a big helping of human nature, which Tom is pretty good at describing. he says (in effect if not precisely) 'i bet on greed. i bet on the fact that people want to make a better life for themselves than their parents had and that they want to build a better life for their children than the one they themselves have'.

in addition, most religious practitioners are nominal. there are very few zealots. give the nominal majority the opportunity to make a buck and make their way in the world and they will.

Iran has some connection to the outside world. with a little more, we can 'corrupt' them with our dollars and dvds. Kim's iron hand in NKorea precludes any connectivity, thus our inability to 'corrupt' there.

My understanding was that Khruschev's "bury you" remark was made in the context of asserting communism's ability to outlast America's -- in his view -- dying social system. It wasn't a prediction about a nuclear exchange, but his view of social evolution.

Like Glendenning, I have reservations about Iran's leaders viewing a mass seppuku against Israel as a means to great rewards. Greedy for a better life, indeed. That said, I discount the date-specific predictions in Tom's Lewis take away.

I like the explanation Tom uses for Irans "rationale" nature in the calculating way they use a war by proxy, namely Hezbulah.

From a historical context, there has been a 'vision of the end' virtually every century since Christ. Richard Abanes well done book: "Road to Armageddon" deals with this in a well documented way.

Regardless we will know on Aug. 21/22!

Sean,
I agree that there are citizens in Iran that like the technical advances of the western world, but do they have any ability to change the regime? If they do, we should be encouraging them. But there is the memory of our encouragement of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs against Saddam. So we hold back.

I agree that the North Korean population cannot be enticed into the light because it is such s complete dictatorship. On the other hand I don't think they are nearly the threat that Iran is.

There are over one billion Muslims in the world. Many are sitting on the fence waiting to see if the West has got the cajones to stand up to the fundamentalists. They will go with the winner. Guess what that means? If they perceive the West as weak and losing they will support the fundamentalists. No more long war. What we are then faced with is a war of the civilized world against the barabarism of Islam. Just my opinion.

The Iran v North Korean situation is difficult because of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. Kim is easy to read sort of a Cold War type dictator after the same thing, just enough technology and resources to keep his country afloat and himself in power. In Iran the question comes down to: are these guys true believers or just using the apocalypse as rhetoric?

I wouldn’t discount people with faiths willingness to go to extremes and the use of symbols. As an evangelical I know many people that believe whole hardily that the end is near. Fortunately I know enough history to know that this isn’t anything new, as another post mentioned. Most apocryphal writing is symbolic and therefore open to all kinds of interpretations of events. In the past in small and large groups fanatics have manipulated people’s beliefs to awful ends (see- self castration to hop on the mother ship). Iran may not have a nuclear bomb now but they are trying and then we may have a case of an entire country drinking the nuclear Kool-aid.

In the end I agree with Dr. Barnett’s suggestion of the grand bargain with Iran, but with the President Reagan caveat of “trust but verify” (except in this situation it may be “don’t trust and verify”). At least this way we can try and root out their true intentions and co-op their use of the West as the bad guys with the Muslim population.

Jim: i don't personally know, but Tom says we can influence this population and that they and influence the gov't.

i agree that NK is not a big threat. iirc, Tom's concern is they keep all of us on our toes in an otherwise stable NE Asia and those resources could be put to much better use, not least of all locking in China...

looking for cojones? si. but it's because of their Occidentalism that Tom rails against. we've shown we'll stand and fight for years now. we've taken it to them. many of them keep fighting because they don't have better alternatives. that's why the exit strategy for this whole war is jobs. but i agree with you: if we walk away from this fight we shoot ourselves in the foot and waste a lot of money and, more importantly, blood.

not to put too fine a point on it, but civilization isn't fighting all of Islam, but only this radical jihadist part of it. would you agree?

Seth: as the resident proofreader, i'm pretty sure you mean 'apocalyptic' and not 'apocryphal'. though some apocryphal writing is apolcalyptic, not all is, nor is all apocalyptic apocryphal ;-)

I agree with Dr. Barnett, but not because of the arguments he makes here. I find it hard to equate Israel’s “theocracy” and Bush’s Southern-Conservative Christianity with the Islamic Republic in Iran. With the very dangerous very extreme streak running through Islam right now, I think there is certainly cause for concern. But. I don’t believe Ahmadenijad or any of the rest of them have the same “purity” of motive as a holy warrior who has made his suicide pact (state level suicide bombing?). They are “corrupt”. Ahmadenijad for instance, behaves too much like a politician to not really be one. The power they enjoy and the power they can achieve by having the bomb and being connected is more attractive to them than is their faith. They see China hovering over East Asia clearly and they envision themselves hovering over the Middle East in the same way. Start talking to Iran to be sure, and be wary, but, I wouldn’t give them the bomb over Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a great opportunity to force the international community to get its hands dirty. For starters, I would have to be completely convinced that with Iran, we can solve Iraq.

Greg: i totally agree with the 'corruption' argument.

interesting (to me, at least) tangent:

'true believers'/fanatics do not compromise their faith. politics is, in essence, compromise. got a politician who claims to be a 'true believer'? i doubt it.

one of the 'temptations' is 'we have to act, we have to make a difference'. if you believe that, you'll compromise. this is the way, for example, the Christian Right ends up in bed with the Republicans. (i'm not slinging mud. plenty of people would call me both of those names!)

got somebody who won't compromise their faith? who is willing to do whatever they think is right and trust God for the results? look out. they can do some real damage...

Sean,
My take is that we may have to take on and defeat to a point of unconditional surrender several Muslim countries (Syria and Iran might be two) before the majority of the ummah would accept that we can't be intimidated nor cowed by Muslim terrorists. It is an unfortunate thing if it comes down to that because so many of these nations could be so much better off if they would follow the lead of countries like Qatar, the UAE, or even Afghanistan.

Sean: Typed too fast and trusted spell check. I just hope we pick the right apocalypse, the even not the word.

Wow!

I was begiining to think that Tom might be on the WSJ payroll!! This post kicks ass :) Not only on Mr Lewis, but also on the WSJ :) Keep it up Tom !

Hi Tom.
It is surely nice to encounter theese sites.
I will now provide Limeted personal information.
Nationallity: Danish
Age: 36
Proffesion: Officer/Specialist/
Special operations/
Intelligence and more.
Personal: I began to receive Serius training, in 1976 by my psycotik ex-mil-intell (father).
Later i received intensive special training, antiterror/security/special ops and more, by my level a bit tame.
Total training time: 30 years.
Total Special Forces: 18 years.
Total active combat: 11 years.
Loki.