January 30, 2007
Would the Iranian government ever launch a nuclear weapon at another state?
Most people would say 'No.' This seems like a reasonable way of thinking. To our ears, this is logical.
If the Iranian leadership ever carried out a nuclear attack, they would likely find themselves the target of a retaliatory strike which would result in their own deaths, and millions of others. The country would be crippled. For decades, this desire for self-preservation, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), was a primary war deterrent between the United States and the Soviet Union (notwithstanding notable challenges along the way, like the Cuban Missile Crisis). It's also played a role in other nuclear flashpoints, like Pakistan and India (although, granted, the red lines in that conflict have sometimes been less clear).
But what if a state player or non-state player didn't perceive certain death as a deterrent? What if causing others to die was viewed—in certain contexts—as an act of kindness? What if someone was so was convinced about this, that they encouraged their children to engage in behaviors which they knew would kill them?
In an article published last year, respected scholar Matthias Kuentzel broached this subject. In it, he recalled the policy of the Iranian regime during the Iran-Iraq war, of sending children to clear minefields on the battlefield—using their bodies to detonate landmines, as part of the war campaign.
In pondering the behavior of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I cannot help but think of the 500,000 plastic keys that Iran imported from Taiwan during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. At the time, an Iranian law laid down that children as young as 12 could be used to clear mine fields, even against the objections of their parents. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children's necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise...
"In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettela'at, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the mine fields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them...
Already in one of his first television interviews, the new President enthused: "Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr's death?"
Examining the Iranian behavior during that war as a "glimpse of things to come," and applying this cult of martyrdom to a potential nuclear threat, Kuentzel asks:
What is the implication of atomic weapons in the hands of those who interpret death in the battle field as a spiritual triumph?
In December 2001, then Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani broached this question. He explained that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything". On the other hand, even in the case of a nuclear response on the part of Israel, it "will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."… Some hundred thousand or so additional martyrs for Islam – the price is not too high to pay.
Rafsanjani's counting on a hundred thousand deaths might seem on first glance like a worst-case scenario. But it is not. For Rafsanjani is a representative of the "pragmatic" wing of the Iranian Revolution. In contrast to the apocalyptic wing of the Revolutionary Guard, who in 1988 wanted to pursue the war against Iraq no matter the costs, the "pragmatists" are concerned that any war should have a "worthwhile" outcome. What atomic weapons could mean in the hands of the "apocalyptic" faction is virtually unimaginable.
It can be difficult to fathom that death or MAD would cease to be a deterrent, and that someone would be content—perhaps even see it as divinely inspired—to put a compatriot's life in jeopardy. It seems illogical, because people in Europe and America and many other parts of the world were not raised with these values. But that is what we face today with the Iranian regime.
Only by understanding the threat can we hope to defeat it.
The article can be found in its entirety at: Matthias Kuentzel
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#01302007
January 23, 2007
The threat from Iran (and other Islamist leaderships) is frequently explained in the context of a political response to the overall conflict in the Middle East, or the threat from American aggression. In truth, the crisis with Iran is rooted in the religious perspective of its ruling theocracy. To remove the crisis from that context is to completely misunderstand their motivations and goals. An additional challenge, compounding the crisis, is the lack of response from most Western leaders, indicating that they don't take seriously their words or actions. Until we understand the problem, and are willing to confront it head on, it will be impossible to find an enduring solution. Former CIA director Jim Woolsey, had the following to say at a recent conference in Herzliya.
I believe that the Vilayat Faqih 1 in Iran is a theocratic totalitarian movement for which destruction of Israel and the United States is not a policy but its very essence. It defines itself in that way. Saying that is should change its policy with respect to destroying Israel and the United States is like trying to persuade Hitler away from anti-Semitism. It was his essence and it is the essence of the Iranian Vilayat Faqih. I believe that the nuclear weapons program of Iran is an important part of this and as Bernard [Lewis] said the recent up tick in fanaticism, the Hujetia—the End of Time Movement—does represent a real and crazed part of Iranians today and the Iranian Shiite ideology...
In 1979, which I think is probably the key year of the modern explosion in fanaticism in this part of the world; the seizure of the great mosque in Mecca and the rise to power of a Shiite theocracy in Iran produced an intense increase of Wahabi fanaticism as expressed in the madrasas of the Middle East and Pakistan. These expressions in the sermons, in mosques, and in the United States, are all very heavily funded by the increased price of oil. Little boys are being taught to dream of being suicide bombers in both Pakistani Madrasas and in the West Bank with Wahabi oil money, and that money is a huge part of our problem...
So, what do we need to move forward today? First of all we need to take their theocratic totalitarianism authority seriously. We should pay attention to what they say. Hitler meant it when he said he wanted to exterminate the Jews. It was all spelled out in Mein Kampf. We need to take seriously what people like Ahmadinejad and others say to their own followers. They are not lying; they are stating their true objectives. Secondly, we need clarity. We need to make sure that we call a spade, a spade. That when we are accused of being Islam-phobes, I think it's fair to say: No, we are not, but we are theocrat-phobes. We should not let our sense of fairness lead to creeping Shari'a. It is beginning in Europe and even a bit here in the United States among the Muslim communities.
You can read his full speech here:Herzliya
Conference
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#01232007
January 11, 2007
Recent incidents at two college campuses show the challenge confronted in engaging a public debate on the issue of Radical Islam. In both incidents, a student group was prevented by administration or the MSA, in their attempts to screen Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West.
David Andreatta wrote about one incident at Pace university.
Pace University administrators threatened to sic the cops on a Jewish-student club if it went ahead with plans to screen a critically acclaimed film about radical Islam, the head of the group charged yesterday.
Michael Abdurakhmanov, president of Pace Hillel, said two deans warned that showing the documentary film would implicate club members as suspects in two hate crimes involving the desecration of the Koran at the university's lower-Manhattan campus last fall.
In addition, Abdurakhmanov said an assistant dean physically restrained him as he attempted to defend the film and his group in a meeting with administrators.
"The message was pretty clear, if you show this film, you're going to incriminate yourself," Abdurakhmanov said.
Phil Orenstein wrote about another incident at Brown University.
A similar scenario took place at Brown University when the Hillel club planned to invite one of the featured speakers in Obsession, FrontPage Magazine contributor Nonie Darwish, to give a talk exposing the radical Islamic in Gaza. Again, the MSA chapter at Brown protested the event, complaining that Darwish was "too controversial." After a heated debate, Hillel timidly backed down and cancelled the event, not wanting to "upset its 'beautiful relationship' with the Muslim community." (Brown's Muslim community had no trouble marring the "beautiful relationship" by holding anti-Israel events during "Palestinian Solidarity Week.") One FrontPage article notes that Nonie Darwish's is an Arab voice that needs to be heard, and it is "too bad the young Muslims and their Jewish enablers at Brown won't hear it."
Students, educators, and citizens alike should be concerned, and respond to these and similar actions stifling public debate, as they serve as indicators of the overall climate today on many college campuses. Without a free exchange of ideas, and open critical debate on many other uncomfortable issues, our universities sacrifice their very ability to act as true institutions of higher learning. The potential long term impact on America as a liberal open-minded society is chilling.
You can read both articles in their entirety here:
NY Post
FrontPage Magazine
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#01112007
February 12, 2007
"Arouse the Spirit of Islamic Jihad" as a Mainstream Educational Goal
In Saudi Arabia—a country viewed as an ally of the U.S. in the war on terror—mainstream educational goals include arousing the spirit of Islamic jihad.
A Saudi Education Ministry document titled "Educational Policy" stated that one of the educational goals was "to prepare students physically and mentally for jihad for the sake of Allah" (Goal No. 104). Another goal was "to arouse the spirit of Islamic jihad in order to fight our enemies, to restore our rights and our glory, and to fulfill the mission of Islam" (Goal No. 60).1
In their schoolbooks, Saudi students learn that
The Crusades never ended, and identify the American Universities in Beirut and in Cairo, other Western and Christian social service providers, media outlets, centers for academic studies of Orientalism, and campaigns for women's rights as part of the modern phase of the Crusades.
Jihad in the path of God – which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it – is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.
Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Koran literally.2
Wahhabism, a radical strain of fundamentalism—with which these kinds of teachings are often identified—has historically been the ideological backbone of the Saudi Kingdom's approach to Islam.3 As the government's oil wealth has grown, so, too, have Saudi activities outside the Kingdom, spreading these ideas. According to an article in US News & World Report.
Over the past 25 years, the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism, while its huge, unregulated charities funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world.
The Saudi funding program, [Alex] Alexiev [a former CIA consultant on ethnic and religious conflict] says, is "the largest worldwide propaganda campaign ever mounted"—dwarfing the Soviets' propaganda efforts at the height of the Cold War. The Saudi weekly Ain al-Yaqeen last year reported the cost as "astronomical" and boasted of the results: some 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers, 202 colleges, and nearly 2,000 schools in non-Islamic countries.4
North America has not been immune to this activity. The United States has been the recipient of millions of dollars of Saudi largesse. Journalist Stephen Schwartz testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, that Saudi-Wahhabi entities have invested over 100 million dollars in promoting Islam in the United States, with influence in over 300 mosques.5
Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, said in 2003, that
There is mounting evidence that Saudi sponsored groups are trying to hijack mainstream Islam here in the United States – in mosques, in schools, and even in prisons and the military—and replace it with Wahhabism....
Prominent members of the Saudi royal family – including Prince Naif, Saudi Arabia's Interior Minister and anti-terror czar – have set up charities that funnel money to Wahhabi madrassah schools throughout the Middle East and Pakistan, making these areas hotbeds of anti-American sentiment and extremism....
The Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] – perhaps the most famous of these groups – reportedly received financial support from Saudi-funded organizations to build its $3.5 million headquarters here in Washington. This may explain why in April 2001, the Council released a survey saying that 69% of Muslims in America say it is "absolutely fundamental" or "very important" to have Wahhabi teachings at their mosques.6
Senator Schumer goes on to note that he doesn't believe the figures presented by CAIR "reflect the true feeling of the American Muslim community because the extremist Wahhabi ideology is violent, exclusionary and intolerant." Nevertheless, Wahhabism seems to be making inroads in its control of U.S. Islamic institutions. Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi sheik and leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, said that extremists control "more than 80 percent of the mosques that have been established in the US."7
Given what is being taught in Saudi schools, how does all this translate to what is actually being taught in Saudi funded institutions in the United States?
In 2005, the Center for Religious Freedom did a study of Saudi ideology being promoted in American mosques. Among the teachings the study found being disseminated were:
To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government. The military education is glued to faith and its meaning, and the duty to follow it. (From a textbook collected from the Islamic Center of Oakland in California.)
[O]ur doctrine states that if you accept any religion other than Islam, like Judaism or Christianity, which are not acceptable, you become an unbeliever. If you do not repent, you are an apostate and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran. (Collected from King Fahd Mosque, Culver City, CA)8
A 2006 report by the Center showed that these messages have also been found in teaching academies run by the Saudi government. The report states that the Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria, VA "is the American branch of a worldwide network of 19 schools supervised and funded by the Saudi state.
In 2002, the Washington Post provided a rare glimpse into what is taught at the Academy: "Then [the students] file into their Islamic studies class, where the textbooks tell them the Day of Judgment can't come until Jesus Christ returns to Earth, breaks the cross and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews." An American citizen who was the valedictorian of his class there was convicted on March 29, 2006 of plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush and of being a member of al Qaeda, and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.9
That Saudi funded institutions in the United States would teach such things should not seem surprising, as they are the same ideals the Saudi government promotes at home. It's logical that they'll espouse the same values at institutions they fund abroad, whether they be universities, day schools, consulates or mosques. Why would they teach anything other than the same ideals they espouse in their homeland?
What can be done about this state of affairs?
Saudi reformists have articulated the process of transformation that needs to occur within the Kingdom, saying, "We need these young people who are being misled [by extremist perceptions] for building the homeland. But we must do this by directing the students in the educational institutions, and by correcting their ideological deviations..."10
While it is unlikely Americans will convince the Saudis to change their policies on the Arabian peninsula, it is possible for them to influence Saudi funded endeavours, on their own shores.
On a basic level, citizens can be watchful of the ideas being promoted in institutions and programs that receive Saudi-Wahhabi grants. Muslim families can ensure sure their children are not being inculcated with this hatred, by playing an active role in the schools. Arabic speakers can review the Arabic language materials being distributed at their local places of worship. College students in Saudi funded Political Science or Middle Eastern Studies programs can be watchful that the instruction they receive is balanced and scholarly.
On the level of public policy, Americans should consider whether a nation that espouses such views can be considered a true ally.
Concerned citizens of all faiths can engage in dialogues and activities that will give them an opportunity to transcend their differences in peaceful ways, and speak out against this hatred. For both children and adults within the local and national community, such actions can send a strong message of the vision they want for their world, and help provide foundations for building it.
Link to this Entry: http://www.worldunderfire.com/inthenews.htm#02122007
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment