I’ve always been fascinated by those brilliant souls who think they can see years ahead. I usually warn my corporate clients that whenever they hear somebody talk about what’s going to happen in the next five years, they should run. Fast. Nowadays you’re doing well if you can anticipate the events of next month, sometimes next week.
That’s one of the features of living in a revolutionary moment. Times of relative stability are different. During the Cold War, for example, you could analyze a large part of the world according to the situations of the two superpowers. We knew the rules of that game — within limits — and so did most of the world’s policy makers. We also knew the rules of the international economy — again, within limits — and Wall Street called most of those shots, so one could make forecasts with some degree of confidence.
But the old paradigms are shattered, and if the new ones have taken shape, we don’t know what they are. Thus, forget about the forecasters. It all depends…
Above all, it all depends on leaders. These are times when leaders have a greater-than-usual capacity to shape events. Men can make their times. Which is why the comings and goings of leaders are so important just now. As they have been for some years, ever since Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, John Paul II, Lech Walesa, King Juan Carlos of Spain, and the others in that amazing generation dismantled the old paradigm and opened the floodgates to this age of revolution.
(ASIDE: Interesting, isn’t it, that many, maybe even most, of those revolutionary leaders were branded “conservatives” at the time?)
So if you want to deploy your crystal ball, get it to focus on leaders, keeping in mind that, whatever they may be saying today, there is such turbulence in The Force that they may turn out to be very different tomorrow. And keep in mind also that celebrity and leadership are very different. Some leaders are very boring, and some celebrities can’t lead worth a damn.
Two examples: Obama and Mousavi.
A recent essay in the Middle East Quarterly, relying on statements from Iranian Green Movement leader Mir Hossein Mousavi during last year’s election campaign, states flatly that “There is no hope at all that if Mousavi ever comes to power he will do more than a little regime house-cleaning.”
Yet anyone who followed the campaign of 2009 should have seen that Mousavi was changing, and becoming more outspokenly revolutionary. In fact, even during the campaign — and much more thereafter, once the demonstrations started — you could see that he intended to dismantle the Islamic Republic. The clearest evidence came from his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, who, while proclaiming her own Islamic convictions, called for toleration of all religions, and of non-religion, and said that women should be permitted to dress as they wished, even if that meant abandoning the veil on their heads. Since the Islamic Republic is based on misogyny, the Mousavis’ intent to do away with the theocratic tyranny was quite clear. And it has become ever clearer in the fourteen months thereafter.
To be sure, Mousavi and his associates often speak in code, but it isn’t very hard to see what they are up to: relentlessly demanding investigations of the regime, exploiting the many divisions within its ranks, trying to produce an implosion. Nobody knows if it will work, but it’s an audacious enterprise. The mission is to create a new kind of government (he has often said that the Constitution is not a sacred text, and can be reformed whenever the people desire it) based on popular sovereignty.
This is obviously a grim prognosis. Why is it that my gut has had this same forecast for coming up on two years? I choose to be an optimist. But I am not blind to such worst-case scenarios such as these; and I wouldn’t discount the possibilities. Our President is not up to the task to which he’s been assigned, and there are no others in his circle to shore up his manifold weaknesses.
That’s what happens when you hire a 30 mph experience level to handle Mach 5 job. It is embarrassing ….. and frightening.
I don’t believe Obama has an original neuron in his brain. An empty suit and a product of marketing. The emperor has no clothes and the minions are becoming cynical. Tyrants laugh. Freedom fighters will go it alone.
I’ve thought since the days of Jimmy Carter that Tehran would make a lovely glass parking lot.
I say nuke them before they nuke us~!
It’s probably a good thing that I’m not in charge of anything.
Question to those cheering on the Green Revolution in Iran.
Just what gives you the slightest indication that the next Iranian
leader, Mousavi, or whoever will abandon the Iranian nuclear program?
Pakistan went through several regime changes..but the nuclear program
never ceased. And what is a greater danger is that the next Iranian
leader will make all the gestures liberals love. A little pluralism here
a few womens rights there, but meanwhile the centrifuges will keep on spinning.
And as we all know the liberal Left and the Eurotrash love conciliatory gestures. They will seize on them greedily as justification for doing what they love doing more
than anything,, and that of course is doing nothing. How much harder it is
to bomb an Iran led by some “new breed” of Iranian leader, photogenic, with a
photogenic wife and kids, all appearing on People Magazine and the Today Show.
But bombing the nuclear plants will be no less imperative, because as 1500 years
have taught us, Islam never changes.
I am an Iranian expat living in the US and, as such, I have to agree with ehunter. The fundamental difference between the 3 Abrahamic monotheistic religions is the question of deification. In Judaism, the Law as given to Moses by the Tetragrammaton (respecting Dr. Ledeen’s beliefs I will not use the name of the Lord) is deified. In Christianity the Son of Man is deified in the body of Yeshua of Nazarene. In Islam the Book (Koran) is deified as it is referred to as Kalam-o-Allah (The Word of God). Put differently, Mohammad acted as a glorified stenographer jotting down word for word what Allah was telling him to write. So, it is quite reasonable for a Christian to disagree with parts of the Bible and still call himself or herself a Christian as long as he or she believes that Yeshua is the Son of God conceived immaculately through the good offices of the Holy Spirit and rose after crucifixion. After all, the Bible is not the word of god but an accumulation of Gospels and the Pentateuch put together in Nicea under orders from Constantine. If you call yourself a Muslim and yet feel that parts of the Koran are harsh and unreasonable then you can only be someone who has fondness for parts of Islam but you are NOT a Muslim. As I have fondness for certain parts of the Bhagavad Gita but cannot call myself a Hindu. To be a Muslim you have to accept the totality of the Koran as the Word of God, Alpha to Omega. I am afraid that people such as Moussavi are just another manifestation of fundamental Islam. I don’t believe for a minute that should he come to power there will be any change in the antisemitic nature of the Islamic Republic, its support for Hamas or a slowdown of its nuclear development. The only hope is that he will be used as a catalyst a la Kerensky and/or Bakhtiar, later discarded, so that we may go back 30 years to a strategy of gradually weaning the population away from the darkness of Islam and towards the luminosity of civilization. Faster please:-)
Thank you for a very informative post – I hope people read it!
Ehunter last remark, “Islam never changes”, resonates with my long held hope that Islam’s power structure may eventually prove brittle under stress. Various sources have noted recently that Islam is no longer growing faster than Christianity. For instance, the Bible is currently a best seller in China! Thanks God, we are still keeping the islamists under pressure in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. Let’s not reject the possibility that today’s islamists might in fact already be engaged in a rear guard battle. Remember how surprised we were when the “Mighty Soviet Empire” suddenly crumbled shortly after the “Amiable dunce” properly labeled it?
There is a considerable part of Islam that has consisted from the beginning of a revolt against the Jews and the Christians, (and the Persians, for good measure), which were all supposed eventually to succumb under the expansionists ambitions of Islam, because of its superior determination. They have gotten of lot of mileage, historically, out of this perennial disposition, but they have been pushed back out of Iberia, and a lot of Eastern Europe, and other places. Significantly, the Ottoman Empire did not survive World War One. It’s interesting to see that the muslims in Kosovo are enthusiastically embracing modern values today, and are even pro-Israel! (read Michael Totten’s writings on this). Today’s islamists are essentially revolting against modernity. Would they do this if they knew how to adapt? If we don’t give up, they may eventually run out of options, and suffer defections, and God forbids, modernize in the aftermath! Presently, the Saudis are sufficiently afraid of the Bible to have made it a crime to smuggle a copy of it within the kingdom.
In the meantime, try to learn how to build a helicopter by studying the Koran! The most determining factor in my view is whether we stick to the sacred duty of honoring the values of those who have defended the western culture before us. The same applies to Moussavi, his associates and their followers, although it’s more a matter of aspirations in their case. It’s not over until we say “enough!”, even if only by default. What’s wrong with pride? Have we become fatalistic?
Islams confrontation with the surrounding world has been non stop.
The Reconquista in Spain took 700 years, the battles in Eastern Europe
Vienna, Kosovo, Lepanto were testament to the fanaticism of Islam.
If this struggle is elevated to the nuclear level, coupling
religious fanaticism with the means to destroy millions in a single
blow..it will mean the end of the world. Iran must be stopped. All it
takes is a few fanatics to launch a nuclear weapon..and Islam always
has more than a few willing to die for the cause.
Ehunter, HorseRadish,
Well, I’ll answer on behalf of the cheerleaders. Most of us actually don’t think Iran will automatically give up its nuclear program even if Mousavi is elected. He actually said as much during his campaign.
The question here is: Is the program negotiable at all?
Under Ahmadinejad, not at all. He will only stall and waste time while work on enrichment continues. The reason is that the Islamic regime in Iran simply has no intention of ever having negotiations that might even slightly be advantageous to the West. In other words, it’s their way, or no way at all.
Under Mousavi, that might well be different. He is someone who wants ties with the West normalized. The only way you could get those ties normalized is by actually negotiating with the West in good spirits. In the spirit of, “I’ll give you a little of what you want and you give me a little of what I want.” Not Ahmadinejad’s, “Give me what I want or you can go to hell when the 12th Imam comes back to adopt me.”
Iran has gone through how many leaders? How many assasinations? How many
coups? What makes you think Moussavi will last more than a week..a month a
year? And what comes after Moussavi? And who after that? The one thing that
will remain constant..is Islam with its vision of a “just” Islamic state..and
the use of politics to implement Islami “purity”. Islam has been an endless cycle
of fanatics and its wont end with Moussavi. What will be different is that once
Islam has at its disposal nuclear weapons, it will have the abiltity to bring its religious vision to truly
apocalyptic level. The Iranian doctrine of the Return of the 12th Iman has already
been summoned as a reason to use nuclear weapons. And these ideas arent going away.
well, in 31 years the Islamic Republic has had only two leaders.
Part of the problem is people forget History. Some past empires managed their regions for thousand+ years, developing trade and financial relationships that are still in place. The political structure is gone, but the trade and business relationships exist and are utilized today. It will not take much for a past empire to re establish itself to its former state.
To put into biblical terms; the book of revelations and Daniel contain passages regarding empires that have come and gone, and will return. These empires have not disappeared, they are just dormant.
The Byzantium Empire, ( Eastern Roman ), went for another thousand years after the fall of Roman Empire ( Western ). Trade routes in this region today are based on this time period.
The Chinese Dynasties were the worlds superpower for thousands of years, fielding a million men and a thousand ships on battlefields at a time Europe was organizing into cities. The trade and political ties established by these Dynasties continued, through world wars and political unrest.
If / When adjustments occur again, it will probably go back to what already was; the Roman and Chinese dynastic empire(s).
Hopefully the USA will not be remembered as a glorious experiment in socio-politics, that Americans will take back control of their economy and Government. Because today the US taxpayer is nothing more than collateral for massive international Loans.
It’s an excellent piece overall, but Barack Obama is hardly exciting. His ideas are not original and does not reach most of his audience any longer. He rules and enacts despite the wishes of the people; nor is he making any sincere effort to reach them. The rest is very interesting.
“Barack Obama is hardly exciting.”
Exactly. He was never exciting, even when running for office. It was all marketing. The man is dull as dust.
Perhaps Obama will rethink his philosophy and his mission. He might stop telling lies and make TV appearances daily expressing his respect and admiration for the U.S. free enterprise system and the great U.S. Constitution, both of which have been an inspiration, beacon, and hope for ambitious and energetic people all round the world. Then we could work together to rebuild the country, restoring our traditional prosperity, mutual respect, and brotherhood…nah.
#6 “Because today the US taxpayer is nothing more than collateral for massive international Loans.” Great sentence, Alex.
To your aside :
NOT surprising that those TRUE revolutionaries Thatcher and Reagan were called “conservatives” by bien-pensant media, entertainment and elite university courtiers.
The major observable characteristic is that conservatives are generally adults ,who have made their ways in the world without much government, i.e. OTHER PEOPLES’money or parents’ trust- funds. Generally individual and “independent”. With the obvious exception members of the “Republican” Party who disdain (if they know what it means ) the cognomen “conservative” and prefer the “running dogs of statist totalitarianism ” of Socialism/ Communism/. “Liberal” in the 20th century meaning.
“Liberals”, in contrast,are group people, who remain in their political and social assessments the adolescents they were when “revolutionary” became their membership card in status – eminence. And for whom “conservative” meant bad, selfish, ugly. old. It was after all their motto: never trust anyone over 30″
The callilng card of conservatives,TRUE conservaatives, is, however, true to the purity of the American Republic, INDEPENDENCE, which bears costs for the independent citizen.
(whatever happened to “never trust anyone over 30?)
mature revolutionaries do exist. but “conservatives,” by definition, don’t trust or want radical change…but in our day, revolutionaries are called “conservative” and the true reactionaries, who fight against things like regime change in tyrannies, call themselves “progressives.”
The fustiness of “progressive ” ideas is what surprises me. How these notions that lead to tyranny remain fashionable and daring, in the face of their quite apparent 19th century, book lined study, eminently patriarchal origins floors me. It was clear to me in my teens; I’m not sure why it doesn’t strike all the young fashionistas as well.
One problem is in the various understandings of words. Radical has come to mean ,in vernacular, persons who would “overthrow” OR “undermine” established institutional social frameworks.
BUT RADICAL derives from radix / radicis which in the English language derived in this instance from Latin, means ROOT, i.e the conduit of nourishment for the bloom the(machinery?)which grows from it.
The ROOTS of the American Republic are the Constitution of the USA, with its explanation in the Declaration of Independence. Of course things change. BUT it is the special privilege of Americans that Change comes ONLY with their permission, their encouragement. AND NOT from the de haut en bas of aristocracy, nobility, kings… And last I read the “representatives of the People”, in Legislature, Judiciary and Executive, with their courtiers in propaganda and educational institutions are not. and were not, deemed royal,aristos, nobles. But As all other Americans, common men. Pedcantic perhaps. BUT…
Iran can only improve under Mousavi because there is no place to go but up. Still, that doesn’t mean they will abandon the nukes or the terror. What may determine that is the fact that they are out of money, the drop in oil prices had as much to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union as Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope Paul II. Iran will collapse, when is the only issue. China is in ascendancy again but in doing so it is entwining its prosperity with the rest of the world. If you owe the bank $100,000 the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $100,000,000 you own the bank. China’s prosperity hinges on American prosperity, at least for now. Egypt and Turkey are other animals entirely and that is where the next great conflagrations may occur.
A revolutionary, to succeed, must act for an idea that has power in reality, and which resonates. This is different than an ideal that may resonate, but does not have power. Obama is, or was, the figurehead for an ideal, all the social justice ideals that culminate in socialism or communism. This ideal was once an idea with power, but the experiments continue to fail, and it is now more a religion than a realistic governing principle.
Mousavi, whatever his actual beliefs, has put himself in front of a idea that has demonstrable power in reality. Doesn’t mean success, circumstances are not favorable, but movement in that direction will happen. Perhaps gradually, perhaps in a bloody spasm.
Sharia is law…
Who governs does not matter… All of your key strokes are WASTED!
well, one of the features of the Muslim world is that there is no single authority, and individual Imams, Ayatollahs, Mullahs etc issue their own interpretations of “shariah,” which then become canonical for their followers. there’s a big range of opinion (interpretation). so saying “it’s law” is only the beginning of good analysis, not the final word. “Law” in Saudi Arabia is quite different from “Law” in, say, largely Sufi Indonesia…
Michael,
What do you know about the Leveretts and their website “Race For Iran”? Are they sincere but misguided or are they the regime lackies they appear to be?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/the_weak_case_for_war_with_iran?page=0,2
Kenneth: I debated Mr L at the Atlantic Council a few months ago; I think you can still find it on their website. I can’t read their minds, and the question of “sincerity” seems to me unknowable and irrelevant. They defend the mullahs at every turn.
“Our guy is showing off his basketball skills for wounded vets and mocking his opposition. Something about fiddling as the flames get hotter comes to mind…”
The basketball game with the NBA stars brings to mind Commodus, in additon to Nero.
The question of whether or not Mousavi would stop the Iranian nuclear bomb project or not is–frankly–academic. Iran and the Iranian people have not been and are not innately hostile to Israel in the manner that the Arabs are and have been. In fact, there were substantial Jewish populations in Persia up until the Iranian revolution. Even now the Iranian regime is happy to have Israeli tourists visit relatives there, in part to play up the propaganda such visits would generate.
That said, the Islamic bent of the revolution, and the apocalyptic sect that has co-opted it, are inimical to the Jewish state. The issue is a bomb in the hands of suicidal 12-vers, not in the hands of Iran. Remember that there is already one firmly established nuclear Islamic state–Pakistan, yet Israel has not vaporized Islamabad in response. Why? Because even though the Pakistanis have demonstrated ability to use nukes and delivery mechanisms, they are not an imminent threat to Israel. Nor have they declared themselves as such.
If Mousavi succeeds in replacing the Islamic Republic with something that serves its (young and desperately seeking a future) people, then most likely that something will be more democratic, less repressive, and more open to positive trade relationships with the rest of the world. Such entities are much less likely to engage in nuclear saber-rattling with other open societies. The alternative to the above is war, mass-conscription of the youth, and trotting them off to be blown up. At this point, the Iranian people have demonstrated a greater disinclination to led to the slaughter, unlike in the 1980s.
A Mousavi Iran probably would continue to pursue nuclear power–they need the energy so they can continue oil and gas exports. A Mousavi Iran probably would continue to pursue the bomb, as a matter of national pride. And, the world and Israel would care little, so long as a Mousavi Iran is focused on bettering its people rather than engaging in Islamic terrorist adventures and apocalyptic speeches.
–JC
Google: “A Reader’s Resources on Systemic Collapse.”
Read and examine all of the references and resources to that paper, Michael.
It isn’t impossible to figure out what will happen, either in the near-term or in the long-term. It’s just a matter of details and timing.
Michael, I am thinking that the name of Walid Shoebat is a recognizable one for you. When you look at the books he, or his son, authored, or co-authored, a veritable countering of the Sons of Allah is manifest.
So, given there is stuff out there to take on the terrormasters, or the “Sons of Allah”, my question to you is this: what more can be done to turn up the heat on the terrormasters, without involving government?
For the disciples of Gramsci who develop and execute policy are as useless in taking on the terrormasters as
the most useless thing on the face of the earth.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Feeling better David? Ok, time’s up; I need the couch…
The couch is yours, Michael. Sorry to have driven you to it, because we are paying a price for perfidious non-entities who have their grubby paws on the levers of power, and the payment will increase as more time goes by.