Crystal Balling Iran
Scott: So back in June, I wrote a post telling people to hold off judging what was going on in Iran when things first started to erupt after the elections and the installation of the current regime, it seemed to me that many bloggers were premature in assessing a situation they were so far away from and getting so much information about second hand. And yet, it is increasingly apparent that that revolution in Iran is not just sincere and groundbreaking, but that it is a major geo-political event that isn’t going anywhere.
Andrew Sullivan, who it should be noted has done an amazing job along with Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner of providing among the best coverage on the unfolding of events in Iran, has called the response to the current regime’s crack down and the development of things on the ground, “a historic moment, the culmination of the biggest story of the year”. Increasingly I can’t but agree with him, though I offered my own missive about Sullivan’s enthusiasm around Iranian events. But Andrew does seem to have been correct and it strikes me that anyone who watches geo-political and military events with a keen eye should see the outcome in Iran as the most important happening since the US invasion of Iraq.
It is notable that even Obama now feels compelled to speak out against the crack down in much stronger language than anything close to what we’ve seen thus far. There does seem to be a perfect storm of momentum gathering around the future of Iran, thanks entirely to the bravery and blood of many, many Iranians, that, from a certain vantage, could have some pretty serious ramifications for the entire region, as I’ve been harping of late.
Chris: Some good points.
When the post-elections rioting took place in June I said that we had entered a situation in which The Reformers had “won” (i.e. totally de-legitimized the regime) and therefore were now about to face the real brutality. They had pushed the regime into a situation in which either the regime would have to back down and open the system OR they would have to become a completely brutal totalitarian regime and enter complete crackdown mode. Either way I thought the regime’s (halal?) goose was cooked. It was only a matter of time. Either way The Islamic Republic of Iran that had been the governing paradigm since 1979 was over.
I think the events taking place since the election and now have basically shown I was right (or at least not a complete idiot :). I still think history (and the future) is on the side of The Reformers, but there is no predicting when or where or what will be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back, nor exactly what will come out the other side of this political turmoil.
You mentioned Andrew and he linked to this piece suggesting a historic parallel to the Palestinian Intifada of 1987. I think that analogy has some merit to it, but I’ve always thought the best analogy is to Iran’s own 1979 Revolution. That Revolution took quite awhile. It went in cycles of flaring up and then (seemingly) dying down. This is why after the initial post-election protests in June and the bloody crackdown, I didn’t agree with (usually right-wing) US commentators saying “The Regime Won.”
So in that sense, I also wouldn’t automatically jump to over-estimating what the current round of protesting means. Of course, something could happen, something totally unexpected and miraculous that brings down the regime by January. That’s more or less how it happened with The Berlin Wall. But I think we are in for a much longer haul of constant protesting, civil disobedience, rioting, crackdowns and the like. I imagine it will ebb and flow but not end. I think The Reformers have reached a point where they will never give up. They may tactically lay low at different points, but there has been too much blood spilled at this point.
What needs to be remembered is why this latest round of protests/crackdowns has occurred. Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, the most learned (many believe) Ayatollah in the country and the leading light of the Reformers died. In Shia Islam there is a long history of days of mourning becoming political rallies, not unlike The Civil Rights Black Church movement in the US.
It was only infinitely more charged in the context of the Shia High Holy Day of Ashura. Here is what I wrote on June 19th:
The central myth of Shi’ism and therefore the moral-spiritual foundation of the Islamic Republic comes from the martrydom of Husayn. Husayn’s martrydom is the central guiding reality of Shia Islam: to truly practice in its most perfect form is to stand against oppression and to face death. This is why the reformers have been so shrewd to protest/resist non-violently. It is, in 4GW’s terms, attacking the moral foundation of the regime.
If the Iranian regime cracks down then they will be exposed as the oppressor’s, yet again murdering Husayn. Their official position as Islamic guardians will be lost as they will re-enact the very evil murder out of which was born (resurrected we might say) Shi’ism. If they do not crack down then everyday the resistance will grow.
So that has now come to pass. The Ashura demonstrations of the 1979 Revolution were key. They placed The Shah in the role of Yazdi, the villain murderer of Husayn. Now The Supreme Leader is Yazdi and the regime is un-Islamic. What has been noticed is the shift from protesting in more commonly assumed “Reformed” “Liberal” areas like Tehran, to protesting all over the country, even in very conservative centers (like Qom, Isfahan).
The Republican side of the Islamic Republic died with Khamenei’s ham-handed backing of Ahmadinejad and the followup brutalization. The Islamic piece is now gone by attacking on Ashura.
Ain’t nothin’ left but holding onto power. This regime is reaching a kind of apartheid white South African status.
As to it being the geopolitical story of the year, it’s definitely up there. Iran was the first (and one of the only few) Islamist states ever to exist. If it goes as I think it will, it will also be the first post-Islamist state. Countries like Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia are gradually evolving towards an Islamic modernity (politically and economically). Many of the Gulf States, like Qatar, Dubai, etc. while economically capitalist are still totally autocratic.
Iran might become the first (almost overnight) modern (politically and economically) majority Muslim state in the world. It would be the “Berlin Wall” like moment for the Islamic world. It would do this natively (not as in Iraq by outside invasion). It could even become the first indigenous “secular” Muslim state in the world. I use indigenous and secular in opposition to say a Turkey where secularism was enforced as dogma by the military.
In Iran this would be from within its own population.
European history suggests that when religions become linked to modern states (i.e. official religions) backing an old-guard aristocracy, that when the aristocracy-political regime falls, the country goes secular religiously and politically. We might see this in Iran, I don’t know. It could officially legislate–after a new government is formed–a “separation of mosque and state.”
The young, who make up such a huge proportion of Iran, are very religiously but also modern and want to see their religion out of politics (and their politics out of their religion).
As well, In this piece Andrew embeds, the President mentions that those protesting want “justice” and the regime is one of “tyranny.” Whoever Obama has writing his script is very sensitive to the thought world of Shia Islamic Iran. Justice is the central issue of Islam and Shia Islam in particular. And the great antithesis (represented by Yazdi) of justice is tyranny. This was not accidental on the part of Obama’s team.
Scott: It’s that piece about this being from within Iran’s own population that has captured my attention and is what makes this, I think, such an important geo-political event. Part of the fundamental flaws of neoconservative nation building is less about the desire to see disparate peoples realize and enjoy the benefits of a modernized nation (with, of course, all the attendant problems, as well), but rather the notion that that modernization is something that can be defined and created externally because there is, at base, only one kind of universal modernization. Iran seems truly poised to blow that notion out of the water in real time and so not only is it a momentous (and bloody) occasion for a majority of Iranians and a potential bell weather for the region, but I think it stands to act as counter balancing catalyst to foreign policy recalculation in the same, if not more productive, way that Iraq has.
Or, at least, I think it could act in such a fashion if people can bring themselves to acknowledge just what is occurring (as best we can from a distance). Obama’s change in tenor is, as note, very well-considered, but also indicates the possibility that the administration is starting to acknowledge the real potential of what is going on here. That possibility is a welcome change from the seeming tunnel vision of the approach to Afghanistan.
Chris: We could only hope in terms of foreign policy changes. The US is still (to my mind) weirdly over-focused on nukes and terrorism. Not that those aren’t important (and if there was a combination of the two that would be very dangerous), but it’s just not the place the rest of the world is at. In some ways Obama is different and in other regards, he still has a long road to travel. I mean the recent early response to the situation in Yemen–back an autocrat and see everything only in terms of Al-Qaeda–has not been particularly inspiring in that regard.
Obama’s still talking like he’s gonna stop Iran from getting nukes–which I understand the domestic politics on–but Iran is going to do what Iran is gong to do. The Reformers still want to be a regional power and are full of Persian nationalism. They just likely aren’t as insane about wanting to deploy proxies throughout The Middle East and roil the region.
A really good text on this subject (Islamic modernization) is Vali Nasr’s book Forces of Fortune. Historically it is always a middle class that first gets economic freedoms, then some (basic) social freedoms, who only later calls for political freedoms. The failure of neoconservatism was to get that order reversed to horrific consequences. Many places in the Islamic world are gaining a rising middle class–Lebanon, Turkey, Kurdistan, Iran certainly, Indonesia, Malaysia and we are starting to see the natural development take place. It’s not a perfect parallel nor simply a carbon copy of the West, but it clearly is moving in the same direction.
The development would be radically undermined, if not totally destroyed, by a bombing campaign in Iran. I’m also pretty skeptical that any form of sanctions the US could get together would actually a.) only target the hardliners in the regime and b.) get the support it needs from China and/or Russia.
Scott: We could hope, though we ought to become blinded in our hopefulness. Graeme Wood has a good “cold water bucket” piece (h/t: Andrew again) around the potential long term implications of the uprising where he writes,
But I do hope to hear more about the conditions outside Tehran, and away from the predictable sites of unrest. When I start reading reports of riots in Tabriz, Shiraz, and Yazd, the possibility of someday visiting a small grave, barely marked with the name “Khamenei,” will seem considerably less remote.
That’s a fair analysis and I was, as well, kind of skeptical, or at least hesitant to state with any kind of certainty what was “going on” in Iran at the outset of the protesting. There is a certain staying power that I think was a litmus test the protesters needed to meet in order to view their actions as more than just a blip and it is also worth noting that more often than not — though certainly not 100% of the time — the unrest that results in the kinds of permanent reforms we’re discussing starts in the urban centres of a nation moving towards greater modernization given the influx of populations into those centres of productivity.
You’re also right to note the other nations in the Islamic world that are moving in a similar direction and I find the whole prospect terribly exciting if only because it represents yet another iteration of modernization that is not a lock-step twin of westernization. I think the world would benefit greatly from competing, while at the same time ultimately complimentary, conceptions and manifestations of modernization. Without falling into a “naturalist” argument, it seems that competing conceptions/manifestations would help to cultivate a “strength via diversity” element to geo-political affairs that has been demonstrably needed vis-a-vis the recent global economic meltdown.
It is true that China doesn’t do business in the same way that India does business in the same way that Japan does business in the same way that Brazil does business and so on, but it seems like we have yet to witness a real alternative to the pre-existing global economic order and my admittedly amateur sense is that the Islamic world could provide such an important counterpoint.
My focus on Iran is due to the fact that I believe current US foreign policy with its, as you note, over-focus on nukes and terrorism plays can significantly hamper such a development. Which is not to say that nukes and terrorism aren’t a concern, but rather to notice that a myopic obsession with them can — and it often seems does — result in a, “when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” attitude. Insofar as Iran is most prominently on the US’ “hammer-and-nails” radar — far more so than any of the other nations you mentioned — I think current events within the walls of the nation stand the best chance of curtailing and ultimately catalyzing a shift away from that foreign policy cul de sac.
Which, needless to say, I think would be a good thing and is why I find myself so transfixed now with those events, understanding, as you noted earlier, that there is still a long ways to go yet.
Image via Flickrer: mydphotos
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- I'm amazed that everyone ...
- To add on to North's poin...
- Well, perhaps not entirel...
- on Ten BooksI take it as a reminder t...
- The fallacy here is that ...
- That's not fair at all, M...
- On a battlefield, it's co...
- "so by the same logic it ...
- There isn't anywhere for ...
- My favorite Big Star song...
-
22 comments
Good discussion, interesting thoughts though I feel like the idea that Islamic Iran could produce an alternative to the current capitalist global order is a bit whackadoodle. Then again, as a neoliberal of course I’d think that.
The problems that an overthrow of the Iranian Regime would solve are myriad. I hope that Obama has every expert he can buy, beg or steal peering at this issue. America needs to deal with this like the smoldering hot potato it is, with a very hands off approach. Thank goodness for whatever reason Bush wasn’t able to muster the will to take a whack at Iran. It looks like the Iranians are working on the issue themselves so we probably would be best served by doing what we’ve been doing, keeping well enough alone and mouthing the appropriate platitudes. So far I think Obama has been pretty on target on this Iranian issue. I hope the Israelis are watching and taking the unrest into their equations when trying to determine if they should strike.
Bob Cheeks
January 7th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
North, old palsy, I agree with you re: the Big O’s position on Iran…hands off, mind your own business. But, what would you say if the Israeli’s take out the Iranian nuclear facilities with bunker busters or small nukes?
North
January 7th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Bob, in general the Israelis have a ~lot~ more to lose than we would if the Iranians decided to sling a nuke. Accordingly if they determined that Iran’s weapon constituted an unacceptable risk and tried to Osirak it I would say that they were within their rights to do so.
Now specifically I’m of the opinion that it’s highly unlikely that they’d be able to really put a stop to the program without anything short of a small invasion. The Iranians learned the lessons of Osirak far too well. I also am dubious that even the Israelis would be so tone deaf as to actually deploy an nuclear weapon to that purpose, they’d have to have some smoking hot recorded conversations from Iranian Turban A to Iranian Turban B about how fun it’d be to nuke Tel Aviv to justify such a reaction and even then the stigma of being the first country in history to deploy such a weapon offensively outside of total war conditions would plague them (and justifiably so).
Interesting discussion gentlemen, a couple of things to address/question. So the obvious (Sunday morning talk show) question is, “what does the possibility of future instability in Iran mean for the us and our allies?”
I think the smart money is on little to nothing good in the short term but after a coherent new government/social arrangement forms, greater stability in the region and the possibility of reconciliation between Iran and the West.
I would also guess that the US’ strategic goal is to push back or delay nuclear arms weaponization as long as possible in the hopes that the collapse of the Iranian governing paradigm occurs before Iran becomes a nuclear power.
What concerns me is the proxy question. Should we be concerned that Iran may follow a path like Russia’s? Iran’s extensive security operations foreign and domestic may not be as developed as the KGB’s but they exist and if the rule in Iran collapses or grows significantly unstable, the people who are best able to retain control of those networks and apparati within Iran and the region will have the power to affect the establishment of a new governing paradigm.
While Iran doesn’t have the same historical border insecurities as Russia, its use of proxies over the years have had the effect of acting as cheap deterrents, keeping enemies off balance and off the gates. Reformers might not be as interested in playing the same traditional Iranian hand but a Neo-Putin strongman rising in Tehran will have every incentive to do so.
Finally, I wonder to what degree “Persian nationalism,” as Chris describes it, will end up looking like a West/South Asian version of Chinese anti-colonial nationalism.
Personally, I think Asia east of Iran will contribute more to shifting global paradigms in the coming century. As far as Iran matters the only question I have is whether it will fall into the fold with the other post-imperial rising powers (China and India) or create an Islamic third way. The vitality and importance of any potential Islamic third way, however, is not in Iranain hands but in the views towards Iran of Sunni Muslims.
North
January 7th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I’m hesitant about the parallels between Iran and Russia Kyle. I see the Iranian populace in general as a much more feisty lot than the Russians and culturally they’re very old.
I’d see the removal of the current regime as an unmitigated good. We have already demonstrated for instance that we can live with a nuclear power if we’re confident that they’re rational. Any changing of the guard in Iran now would pretty much necessarily result in a government that is less explicitly religious and more rational I would think. I can’t imagine that they’d institute an administration that’s even more hard line.
Kyle
January 7th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Yes and no, right? I mean I think the only people who believe in the mad mullahs theory are Bill Kristol, Maria Liasson, and probably the Cheneys. Iran’s pursuit of the bomb has always been supremely rational. So I don’t really think rationality is a particularly useful (or helpful) characteristic to deny the current regime or give to some hypothetical United States of Persia.
My concern has to do with the realities of post-WWII state collapse/transformation. Iran has existing networks of police, military, religious and economic power. Those who are best able to hold onto chunks of those during any kind of realignment will be able to exert influence over constructing a new social and governing paradigm that supports their influence and interests, in much the way the Russian oligarchs and Putin were able to do in the wake of the USSR’s collapse.
As for the hard-line aspects, I think there are two important things to keep in mind. India and Pakistan are rather clear examples of how democracy isn’t a pacifier. Second, the only states with the same post-colonial cultural baggage that Iran has are either failed, autocratic, or India. None of which are exemplars of peaceful integration in regional or global communities. Much of which I would ascribe to the historically inherent bellicosity of post-colonial nationalism in emerging powers.
North
January 7th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
I think I agree in general with a caveat. India’s democratic character is pretty much unimpeachable but I don’t think that Pakistan really qualifies for the purpose of indicting the democracy as a pacifier theory. Isn’t it more like a Juanta that stumbles from one stong man to the next?
Kyle
January 7th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
My understanding of history is that Pakistan has floated between civilian and military rule over its history but in its 3ish wars with India both have been instigators. Of course my point here is that it’s entirely unclear (and thus still a possibility) that a reformed Iran may be just as belligerent as the old one.
North
January 7th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I think the point may be that a reformed Iran that is even slightly more answerable to the populace has bigger problems to deal with than belligerance. They have an economy that’s just tottering that could soak up their entire attention. Certainly it’s likely the a more strongly democratic Iran might ask itself why it’s shelling out millions to sponsor the likes of Hezbolla.
Art Deco
January 10th, 2010 at 11:08 am
I mean I think the only people who believe in the mad mullahs theory are Bill Kristol, Maria Liasson, and probably the Cheneys. Iran’s pursuit of the bomb has always been supremely rational.
Why? Nuclear weapons draw heat.
Kyle
January 11th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
First, it would bolster Iran’s standing as a regional power.
Second, nuclear power would free up more of Iran’s domestic oil supply for export, strengthening their economy
Third, no nuclear power has been invaded since their development of the bomb.
Fourth, national prestige and the desire of a strong former colony to come into its own right as a great power.
There’s a reason that among the calls for reforms and change, not pursuing the bomb is not among them.
Sure people criticize India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, and they’d rather they didn’t have nuclear weapons, but the international community and this country aren’t prepared for war between nuclear powers at any level and the Iranians know that.
It’s probably worth noting that my suggestion around the emergence of a modernized economic paradigm that would act as an alternative to the current global system doesn’t focus on Iran as much as it does such an emergence within the Islamic world — insofar as one can talk about the future and movements of Islamic nations as a whole. I focus on Iran because of the US’ foreign policy focus on it, not because shaping such an alternative would lie substantially in Iran’s hands.
And the idea may be whackadoodle, I’ll admit to heavy speculation here as I did in the piece. But I do think we need to reconcile ourselves to the fact/wrap our heads around the notion that while modernization in various parts of the world will have broad similarities and substantial converging buy-ins, there will also likely be substantial differences in both form and function — beyond what we see with, say, China right now. Insofar as you buy that as a reasonable prediction, I think it implies the kind of diversity to which I refered in my last point.
North
January 7th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Didn’t intend it as a slight Scott me lad. My incredulity at the thought is more likely a sign of lack of imagination on my part than weakness in the premise. That the Iranians will have their own way of doing business is to be expected in my mind of course. My skepticism is more towards the idea that the Islamic world has some form of paradigm shifting contribution to make to the global concepts of capitalism that the world runs under today. Probably this is my own ignorance, but outside if a dislike of usury I’m not aware that Sharia/Islam has much to say on the subject of commerce.
Scott H. Payne
January 7th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Wasn’t taken as a slight, I was more acknowledging the speculative nature of the suggestion.
I’m not an expert on Sharia or Islam, so I don’t have much to offer in regards to its relationship to commerce either. I would offer that, insofar as there invariably winds up being an intersection of culture and commerce, that different inflections of how a given culture of people engage in commerce could arise as a sort of soft result of the influence of the two spheres on one another rather than being dictated from specific axioms of particular cultural texts.
Culture on the streets seems generally more fluid than culture of the book, so to speak.
Roque Nuevo
January 8th, 2010 at 8:57 am
You’re not an expert on Sharia or Islam and yet you say you can see that it will somehow “converge” with Western free-market doctrine. You note that Japan, India, and China have evolved their own “versions” of capitalism and then simply hope for Hope N’Change in the Islamic world. Well…one thing Japan, India, and China lack is Islamic law—or anything comparable—and a doctrine that makes it apostasy to violate it.
Not only does Japan, for example, lack any equivalent to Islamic law, but its culture is based on the exact opposite of it, even without capitalism. It’s based on the adaptation of foreign cultures to its own needs. Even the Japanese alphabet is an adaptation of Chinese. There is nothing in Japanese culture that can be considered indigenous except the Japanese genius for adaptation (and perhaps its unremitting aesthetic angle on daily life).
In fact any capitalist nation will be the result of the evolution of capitalist theory with its own culture. That’s simply the nature of capitalism—it evolves. Alone among the “competing” economic systems of the world and of world history, capitalism is recognized even by its most successful practitioners as being fundamentally imperfect and in need of reform, or whatever. It’s the only system that functions based on criticism.
Now, do you honestly think that this can happen in Islamic society, which functions based on so-called knowledge revealed in the Sixth Century? Islam society known for exterminating its critics, not listening to them.
One reason capitalism took root in Europe was simply that continent’s fragmentation. So many kingdoms in competition and so forth led to innovation. Just think about Columbus: his project was denied in Italy so he went to Spain. Nowhere else on Earth would have given him this possibility. And mentioning Columbus is not just an irrelevant example. His achievement ultimately meant that Europeans could cut the Islamic world out of commerce entirely in their search for sugar, spice, and everything nice (before that sugar, for example, was an Islamic import, as the word itself shows: its derived from Arabic, not matter what Western language.) Plus, the gold and silver discovered by the Spanish as direct result of Columbus’s expedition caused Europe’s first bout of inflation, which hit the Islamic world like a plague from the gods: they had no idea what was going on. They haven’t recovered since.
Since then, there has been no evolution of the Islamic world. It is mired in medieval backwardness wherever you look and Iran is a prime example. The only thing that saved them from Africa-like poverty is the capitalism of the West: the industrial revolution ran on oil, oil that the West discovered, extracted, refined, and distributed from the Islamic world. If we ever get an alternative to oil, the Islamic world will sink back into oblivion because that’s just where they want to be.
The only way for the Islamic world to get the chance to evolve is for it to be defeated and to know that it is defeated. That’s exactly what happened to Japan in 1853: defeated by the US “Black Fleet,” they were forced into allowing Western influence into their isolated island nation. Ten years later, a four-hundred-year-old military dictatorship (the Shogunate) was overthrown and Japan embarked on an amazing course of modernization.
US national security certainly is focused on nukes and terrorism. That’s the job of our national security authorities. What do you suggest? Offer them workshops on the Deming quality-circle methods? Here’s some news for you: Iran has been attacking us since 1979 with their terror organizations; they hold weekly hate-sessions against us. So no, there is not an “undue” focus on nukes and terrorism—its the only rational focus we can possibly take if we value our own survival. Paradoxically, this is the only “focus” that will lead to Iran’s modernization under their own Islamic culture. Once they’re defeated, like Japan, they may get their own version of the Meji Revolution.
Bob
January 9th, 2010 at 8:48 am
A different point of view via Sullivan,
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/how-well-do-islamic-parties-do.html
“Now The Supreme Leader is Yazdi ” and “They placed The Shah in the role of Yazdi” should change to “Yazid” just a typo but means totally different thing.
Discussion makes the classic mistake of confusing a second order issue ( Iranian reform) with a first order issue: stop the Mullahs from getting a bomb. If an airstrike impedes Iranian reform that is a negative, but is simply not as important as the first order problem of denying Iran the bomb. Besides, look at the Falklands in 82, it lead to free elections in Argentine. Could happen in Iran, not saying will, but it could.
The worst thing would be to attack Iran from the outside.
This would help the regime regain its power.
I have the feeling that Israel wants to achieve this.
Israel with its current government has no intention to WANT peace in the region, and thus could decide that it is time to launch an attack in “an act of self defence”, thus radicalizing the whole area and giving legitimacy to the iranian regime in a followup crackdown.
Roque Nuevo
January 9th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
You say that attacking Iran “from the outside” would cement the regime’s hold on power. Maybe and maybe not. But then, “Israel wants to achieve this.”
Come again? Israel wants to help a regime that holds weekly hate-sessions against it, that proclaims its desire to “wipe it off the map,” that deploys paramilitary organizations like Hizbollah to commit murder against it, and so forth, and so on, to cement its hold on power? This is so obviously out-of-touch with reality that I must ask for clarification.
Then, you say that “Israel with its current government has no intention to WANT peace in the region.” Leave aside the confusing and redundant writing. I’m not your English teacher (if you ever had one).This also flies in the face of reality as it’s accepted by the world: Israel has every intention and has demonstrated this intention since its founding as a state, and even before that, to achieve a peace treaty with the Arabs (before the late ’60s) and the Palestinians (after the late ’60s). Again I would like clarification.
What is this ‘alternative’ the islamic world can provide to the west? That’s exactly what the islamists in 1979 Iran wanted to show and look where it got them. Look where it got Afghanistan. Look where it got Pakistan. Should I continue?
Irrational beliefs based on a 7th century text are as much of an alternative to western modernity as a nation led by jerry fallwell and pat robertson would be.
If Iran moves beyond this madness it wouldn’t be like a secular western state because of medieval beliefs still lingering and not any rational ‘alternative’ anyway close to being equal.
And the same for other muslims states, who btw I don’t think will be influenced in anyway like people here are saying. Berlin Wall? Please. Fundamentalism in the muslim world is getting stronger everywhere except Iran. Besides, their views of persians and shias will greatly color what happens in Iran. It could actually backfire and paint secularism as not the evil of the west but those apostate arrogant persian shias too. Either way this won’t matter, I’m typing this from an arabic country where I grew up and the only future I see for the muslim world is more misery and backwardness and hate for quite a while.
Eventually I think biotechnology will enhance human intelligence and most societies will be rational and reasonable ones that don’t cling to medieval texts or tradition.
Those societies won’t see ‘western modernism’ and ‘alternative modernism’ or any other pretentious phrases, they’ll just see what’s rational.
Until then, tighten your seatbelts.
To add to my previous post, an alternative would look something like this: Iran would have ‘free speech’, much better then now, but still have blasphemy laws that send cartoonists and atheists to prison or execution. Enlightened westerners nod and talk about the strength this alternative offers by making the world more diverse.
Actually I’m not sure free speech would be even that advanced in Iran. I saw in a poll of Iranians that the majority (or a substantial amount of people, I don’t remember) think that the government should have the power to censor ‘disruptive’ things out of media.
Really, I don’t buy this idea that the Iranians are on the verge of becoming this modern, secular country. They’ll end up in civil war or have a religous insurgency and still a huge amount of backward laws that would be right at home in the islamic republic. all the ‘positive’ reports I see are about a small shallow minority in north tehran that make really back underground music and think america is cool. Please.
To go back to the point on technology, before biotech will enhance human intelligence , technology will crash oil prices and profoundly disrupt the muslim world. We’ll see how they handle that. Here’s a hint from history: not well.