Bernard Lewis was a well-known scholar and historian of the Middle East who passed away in 2018. He was known for his expertise in Islamic history and culture, and his views on contemporary issues in the Middle East were widely respected.
In his writings, Lewis expressed concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its potential to destabilize the region. He warned that Iran's leaders might not be deterred by the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which is the idea that two nuclear-armed countries would not launch a first strike against each other because they know that the other side would retaliate with overwhelming force, resulting in mutually assured destruction.
Lewis argued that for some leaders in Iran, the prospect of MAD might not be a deterrent but an inducement. In other words, these leaders might believe that a nuclear exchange with Israel or the United States would be a desirable outcome, either because they believe they would emerge victorious or because they believe it would hasten the arrival of the Islamic messiah.
However, it is important to note that while Lewis was a respected scholar, his views were not universally accepted, and there are other experts who hold different opinions on the issue. Furthermore, geopolitical and strategic considerations are complex, and the situation in the Middle East is constantly evolving, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to these challenges.
Overall, the world is not necessarily ignoring what Bernard Lewis said, but rather engaging in a robust debate about how best to address the challenges posed by Iran's nuclear program and its role in the region.
It is possible that Bernard Lewis's quote on MAD and Iran is not as widely known or cited as some of his other ideas, such as his contributions to the field of Middle Eastern studies. However, it is worth noting that the debate on Iran's nuclear program and its potential implications is ongoing, and many scholars and policymakers have expressed concerns about the issue.
In terms of political leaders citing Lewis's views on MAD and Iran, I do not have access to current political speeches or statements to provide a specific example. However, it is possible that some policymakers and experts have taken Lewis's ideas into consideration in their assessments of the situation in the Middle East.
Regarding experts who disagree with Lewis's views, there are a range of opinions on the issue. For example, some analysts argue that the Iranian regime is rational and would not launch a nuclear attack on Israel or the United States because it would result in the destruction of Iran itself. Others point to the fact that Iran has not yet developed nuclear weapons, and argue that there is still time for diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring them. Still, others argue that the best way to deal with Iran's nuclear program is through a combination of economic sanctions, diplomacy, and deterrence.
Ultimately, the issue of Iran's nuclear program is complex, and there are a variety of opinions on the best way to address it. It is important for policymakers and experts to consider a range of perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue to find the most effective solutions.
Could you name some of the experts who disagreed with Bernard Lewis on his stand on MAD and Iran?
There are a number of experts who hold different views on the issue of MAD and Iran, and I can provide some examples:
Kenneth Waltz, a prominent international relations scholar, argued that nuclear proliferation can have a stabilizing effect on international relations, as it can deter aggression and reduce the likelihood of war. He also argued that the fear of MAD is a powerful deterrent, and that Iran's leaders would be rational enough to avoid a nuclear conflict.
Scott Sagan, another prominent scholar of international security, has argued that the concept of MAD can be effective in deterring nuclear war, but that it requires clear communication and credible signaling between the nuclear-armed states. He has also noted that the situation in the Middle East is particularly complex, as there are multiple actors with different interests and incentives.
Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the founder of the National Iranian American Council, has argued that Iran's leaders are rational actors who are motivated by a desire for security and regional influence, rather than a desire for martyrdom. He has also noted that Iran has consistently denied that it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, and that the international community should engage in diplomacy to address the issue.
These are just a few examples of the range of views on the issue of MAD and Iran. It is worth noting that the situation is complex and there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and that experts may have different opinions based on their own expertise and analysis.
All these examples you mention are people who think that Iranian leaders are rational. From what do you conclude that Iranian leaders are rational when Mahdi Khaliji, an Iranian Shi’ite scholar... has noted that there are apocalyptic hadiths [received Shi’ite traditions] that the Mahdi will not return unless one-third of the world population is killed and another third die? Ahmadinejad and his followers believed man can actively create the conditions for the Mahdi’s arrival in the here and now. Do you consider that rational?
It is important to note that the term "rational" is often used in different ways in political and social sciences. In the context of international relations, it generally means that political actors are seeking to achieve their objectives in a strategic and cost-effective manner, based on a rational calculation of costs and benefits. However, this does not necessarily mean that their goals or beliefs are always objectively rational or based on empirical evidence.
Regarding the specific issue of apocalyptic beliefs in Iran, it is true that some Iranian leaders and religious figures have expressed beliefs in the return of the Mahdi and the end of the world. However, it is worth noting that these beliefs are not necessarily unique to Iran or to Shi'ite Islam, and that they do not necessarily imply a desire for self-destruction or the destruction of others.
Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between religious beliefs and political objectives. While some Iranian leaders may hold apocalyptic beliefs, it does not necessarily follow that they would seek to bring about the end of the world through military means or by launching a nuclear attack. In fact, most experts on Iran agree that the Iranian regime is primarily motivated by a desire for security and regional influence, rather than a desire for martyrdom or the end of the world.
Ultimately, the situation in Iran is complex, and it is important to avoid simplistic or reductionist views of the country or its leadership. The best approach is to engage in constructive dialogue and diplomacy, based on a realistic understanding of the interests and perspectives of all parties involved.
But Bernard Lewis disagreed, and he believed that Iranian apocalyptic beliefs would trump political objectives, at least for some leaders like Ahmadinejad, and yet there had never been a serious discussion on this point. Why? Why was Bernard Lewis's quote ignored? After all, he was a respected scholar.
It is possible that Bernard Lewis's quote on MAD and Iran has not received as much attention as it deserves because the issue of nuclear proliferation and the role of MAD in deterring nuclear war is a complex and highly technical topic, and it is not always easy to communicate the nuances of the debate to a wider audience. Additionally, there are many experts who hold different views on this issue, and it can be difficult to weigh the evidence and arguments in a balanced and objective way.
Regarding the specific issue of Iranian apocalyptic beliefs, it is worth noting that there has been some debate among scholars and policymakers about the extent to which these beliefs may influence Iranian decision-making on nuclear issues. Some experts have argued that Iranian leaders are primarily motivated by a desire for security and regional influence, while others have expressed concern that apocalyptic beliefs may override rational calculations of cost and benefit.
Ultimately, it is important for policymakers and analysts to take a balanced and nuanced approach to understanding Iranian motivations and objectives
