Bernard Lewis's new book Notes on a Century : Reflections of a Middle East Historian was published ten days ago. "Replete with exceptional historical insight that one has come to expect from the word's foremost Islamic scholar" - THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.Actually, the book is replete with dry British humor and I could not stop laughing. However, it also discloses excerpts from the emails he had sent to Stephen Hadley,
President Bush's National Security Advisor, but judging by the reviews this part (page 333) does not exist:
Particular importance should be
attached to the policies, and perhaps still more the attitudes, of the present
rulers of Iran, who seem to be preparing for a final apocalyptic battle between
the forces of God [themselves] and of the Devil [ the Great Satan--the United States]. They see this as the final struggle of the
End of Time and are therefore undeterred by any level of slaughter and
destruction even among their own people . "Allah will know his own"
is the phase commonly used, meaning that among the multiple victims God will recognize
the Muslims and give them a quick pass to heaven.
In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during
the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will be general
destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of
the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers.
For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an
inducement...
Of the four reviews of the book I've read in Tablet Magazine , Amazon , Wall Street Journal and The Chronicle , not one mentions Bernard Lewis's opinions on MAD and Iran. True, in a short review one cannot touch all
the aspects of the book. But surely what
the leading scholar of Islam in the West has to say about the most crucial
threat facing humankind today is worth a comment? But the reviews completely ignore it . It is not that the reviewers of Notes
on the Century disrespect Bernard Lewis. On the
contrary. They are aware of his background
, the languages he speaks , the width and depth of knowledge he possesses. The reviews are positive. And yet,
the reviewers do not know what to do with MAD. On the one hand, here is a most erudite, respected
scholar and on the other, he is saying such, to them, off the wall
things no one else dares to mention. What
to do? The best thing is to ignore it. Perhaps
if someone else in the media would volunteer and bring up the topic, they would pitch in. No one
in the main stream media does. So much
for the information age we believe we
live in.
Video: Bernard Lewis on MAD in March 2009:
Transcript:
Dan Diker:
Professor
Lewis, if Iran, as you say, is racing for regional supremacy and upending,
destabilizing Arab regimes with the same
energy it plans to destroy Israel, what does it mean for places like Gaza and
the West Bank. To what extend are they part of the Iranian plan, or how should
we think about the closer battlefields to home?
Bernard
Lewis:
I think one
might divide them into two groups. On the one hand, you have the groups that
are themselves Shi’a. Shia are an
important part of the population of Syria and Lebanon. Hizballah is a Shi’at organization. Their
link with Iran and the Iranian revolution is clear and obvious. There are no Shi’a Palestinians. And as I said before, where the distinction
does not exist it is not important. That is why it is possible for groups of
people in Muslim Africa, which is solidly Sunni, or among the Palestinians who
are solidly Sunni, to take up the Iranian cause and that is why I think we find that Hamas has
accepted support from Iran and is
rallying to the Iranian cause, because for them, in their historical religious awareness
the Sunni-Shi’a difference is not that important .
Dan Diker:
So therefore on
balance, there Is a major debate, professor Lewis, that has been going on about
this conflict, meaning in the narrow
sense meaning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as part of a subset of the Arab –Israeli conflict,
that we are really in a ethno national conflict, some say, we are in political
conflict, some say, but from what you are saying, to what extent are we in a religious
conflict?
Bernard
Lewis:
I think in
the Muslim perception it is basically a religious conflict. It is to decide who
will dominate Islam , whose version of Islam will prevail in the Islamic world.
And there is no doubt that the Iranians
have plans going far beyond the Middle East, and extending eastwards into south
and south-east Asia, westwards into t Muslim Africa, and there are signs of
that in various places. The impact has been enormous. As I said, t had the same
kind of impact as the French and Russian revolutions in their days, with the
same kind of response.
There is one
other point, which I think I will mention if you would allow me, and that is
what I would call the apocalyptic aspect.
In Islam, as in Judaism , as in Christianity,
there is a scenario for the End of Time. When the final battle takes place between
the forces of good and the forces of evil, of which for Christians, Jews and
Muslims alike means between us and them, the us being differently defined and
them being more or less the same. In the Muslim view, no, let me correct that, in the view of a certain section within the
Iranian leadership, it is not by any means unanimous, that time is NOW. For
a group called the Hujtieh whose main leader is Ahmadinejad, the
apocalyptic time has come. The Mahdi, the Muslim Messiah is already here. The final
battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil has already
begun.
That is extremely
important for another, not immediately related reason. That is the question of
Iran’s nuclear weapon. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons right through the
Cold War, but neither side used them because both sides were aware that if
either one did the other would do the
same and this would lead to mutual destruction - MAD as it was known at the
time. Mutual assured destruction was the main deterrent preventing the use of
nuclear weapons by the Soviets For most of the
Iranian leadership MAD would work as a deterrent, but for Ahmadinejad and his
group with their apocalyptic mindset mutually assured destruction is
not a deterrent, it's an inducement and they believe that the End of Time has come, the final
battles are already beginning and the
sooner the better, so that the good can go and enjoy the delights of paradise and the
divine brothel in the sky and the wicked, that means all of us here, will go to
eternal damnation.
Dan Diker
On this point
of Iranian ascendency and dedication to the End of Days, you have written,
especially since 1976 when you wrote the “Return of Islam”, exactly two years
before the Islamic revolution in Iran, first Islamic revolution in Iran. Many in
the west of your colleagues have not seen it the way you’ve seen it. They have…
Bernard
Lewis:
Not
immediately
Dan Diker
You have
expressed concern in your writings, from the Return of Islam to The Roots of Muslim Rage, even to
more recent articles that the West is not getting something about Islam. What
are they missing?
Bernard
Lewis:
It is normal
for human beings to judge others by ourselves. We are now in the 21st
century of the Christian era. They are in the early fifteenth century of the
Muslim era. It is a different religion based on entirely different historical
experience, different message, different teaching, and it is therefore a grave
error to do what people normally do, and that is judge others by ourselves. It does not work and it is dangerously misleading. If one looks at Islam from within and for
that it is necessary to learn at least one Muslim language, something which many
Middle East experts, in fact most Middle East experts in the West, for one
reason or another are reluctant to do, if one learns he languages and reads
what they say among themselves, and understands it in the context of their own
history, their own culture, their own background, then I think I is not too
difficult to understand what is happening.
Dan Diker:
Then why is
it if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, the Palestinian Authority in the
West Bank are publicly condemning Iran and their servants, their Sunni and Shiite servants or proxies or surrogates, why is the Arab
establishment unwilling to fight when they are so frightened of what they
perceive is an existential threat to
them?
Bernard
Lewis:
