I have hesitated to comment on Christopher Hitchens’ much discussed approach to the Iran problem because, uncharacteristically for me, I was mulling it over. Basically it’s “Nixon in China” revisited and depends on the premise that the mullahs are just corrupt, not crazy (so that the US President can go to Tehran and actually
strike a deal with the Ayatollah). I wonder how Hitchens knows this. They are certainly corrupt, profiteering off everything from pistachios to oil, but I’m more than a little suspicious that a fair proportion of them take this Sharia stuff (and attendant apocalyptic mumbo-jumbo) more seriously than Hitchens wants to believe. It’s hard for us more secular Westerners to wrap our minds around that kind of faith, especially since our friends in Isfahan seem relatively modern beneath their veils and we ourselves know what it’s like to “believe” in Trotsky. But the latter comparison is inaccurate. Although Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse Tung thought had it’s religious component to be sure, its basis was “scientific socialism.” It wasn’t meant to be accepted as blind faith, but to be proven. Islam, as practiced by the mullahs and their adherents, is toute autre chose.
When you examine the mullahs’ erratic behavior around the nuclear issue, you see this irrational “faith” component at work. Today they have rejected the Russian plan; yesterday it was another thing. Of course this could be regarded as simply stalling. And to a great extent it must be. But why would a merely corrupt regime get in such flamboyant controversies with their opponents? Why not just quietly go about building the bomb like so many other countries have done? In fact, for a “rationally corrupt” state, you would think that would be standard operating procedure. Instead, the Iranians have elected/installed mad Ahmadinejad and set him loose to make all sorts of pronouncements, only some of which can be excused as catering to the masses. Hitchens – in a manner that borders on the ultra-naive (or self-immolating) – dismisses Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and bellicosity as mere “bullshit.” But as we have learned from psychological studies, the people who most often talk about extreme gestures (like suicide) are actually the people most likely to act upon them. I’m far from convinced Hitchens has the right approach here. But I wish I knew what was.
ìAppearances sometimes to the contrary, they are not madóor not clinically insane in the way that Saddam Hussein was and Kim Jong-il is.î
–Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens seems to be living in a dream world. The majority of Iranians are likely unable to influence their government in a significant manner. A handful of crazed mullahs appear to have the power and willingness to bring about Armageddon. But is Hitchens entirely wrong? Could President Bush perhaps pull off a ìNixon in China?î Itís worth the risk. What do we have to lose? Our options are severely limited?
Hitch needs to catch up on his reading of Ralph Peters…see also my post Kaiser Wilhelm or Genghis Khan.
I messed up the links on the previous comment somehow.
Ralph Peters excerpt here
Kaiser Wilherm / Genghis Khan post here.
Well, the mullahs and Iranian president are not like Saddam, who Hitchens himself has compared to something of a mafia boss. Saddam was not a “believer” but a psychopath. Kim Jong-il is a special case and not quite like Saddam. For all of Saddam’s psychopathy, he is not as wacko as Kim.
But the mullahs and Ahmadinejad are religious. I think it would be foolish to think they aren’t serious about the messianic visions and return of the 12th imam. The Chinese wanted to be accepted into the rest of the world and wanted to have more commerical exhange wih the West. Nixon had something to offer them. What exactly do we have to offer the Iranian mullahs? Being converted, the destruction of Israel? Religious impulses have a rationality, but not the same sort of rationality that Adam Smith spoke of.
Roger, you mention that scientific socialism has an empirical quality. I’d add that it was an economic model and thus was, in theory, open to economic influences over time. Is what the mullahs preach open to the same kinds of economic influences? Human beings are open to economic influences, but I’m not sure that religious zealotry is, in theory, open to such influences, although religions are practiced by human beings.
There is one possible reason for Bush to go to Iran under present circumstances. According to a talk I heard Hitchens give (on TV), he claims that when he was in Iran (within the last couple of years) that many Iranian cab drivers wondered whether Bush was the return of the 12th imam. But that would be wishing on a prayer.
In the near future the Iranians, barring a fortuitous revolution, will possess both warheads and the means to deliver them. Declamations by the Administration that it is “unacceptable” for Iran to develop such weapons, neurasthenic protestations by the International Community have not, nor will they ever, deter the Iranian Regime from gaining these weapons. It is to be noted that we had no leverage over North Korea, not to mention Pakistan and India, and we have even less over Iran. Nuclear non-proliferation, a major responsibility assigned to the UN has failed. Utterly.
It will be proposed that we deter the Iranians in the same way we have deterred the Russians, or the way the Indians and Pakistanis deter one another today. It might be said that the mere possession of nuclear weapons isn’t necessarily destabilizing. It wasn’t necessary to attack the USSR to keep it at bay until it finally collapsed and so on. Hitchens offers another Cold War variant, the “Nixon goes to China” gambit. He conveniently forgets the complex three-way power struggle that made such a ploy possible. This is yet another example of a wide spread misunderstanding about this present crisis. Merely because we are dealing with nuclear weapons does not mean the Cold War paradigm is applicable.
The question we must ask ourselves now is this: How do the Iranians view this capability, what do they wish to gain, and how will they use it? Essentially, do the Iranians regard their nuclear weapons as defensive, or offensive?
This may not be as simple as we might think. In Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma, Robert Jervis (writing about Cold War Strategy) states the dilemma as:
“an increase in one state’s security decreases the security of others.” This depends upon two variables:” whether defensive weapons can be distinguished from offensive ones, and whether the defense or the offense has the advantage… the definitions are not always clear, and many cases are difficult to judge. Is such a distinction possible? Salvador de Madariaga, the Spanish statesman active in the disarmament negotiations of the interwar years thought not: ‘A weapon is either offensive or defensive according to which end of it you are looking at.’ The French Foreign Minister agreed: ‘Every arm can be employed offensively or defensively in turn,the only way to discover whether arms are intended for purely defensive purposes or are held in a spirit of aggression is in all cases to enquire into the intentions of the country concerned.”
The disarmament negotiations of the interwar period were, of course, a debacle. The notion that there were “good” i.e. defensive weapons, and “bad” i.e., aggressive, offensive weapons turned to the advantage of aggressor states like Germany, which developed blitzkrieg weapons in secret, and to the disadvantage of so-called neutral states like the United States who foreswore the very “offensive” weapons (like long range bombers) needed to defend themselves after hostilities began.
In the nuclear age the situation becomes even murkier, as the notion of nuclear deterrence (defense) is based upon an overwhelming capacity to do violence to any potential aggressor–defense by threat of massive offensive reprisal. Even the “loser” could inflict unacceptable damage to their opponent. Strictly defensive weapons, ones designed to lessen the actual damage, were seen by many strategists (Robert McNamara for one) as destabilizing; thus the ABM treaty. MAD indeed.
As the French Foreign Minister said, the whole thing ultimately comes down to what we perceive are the intentions of the country acquiring the weapons. This, of course brings us to Iran, run by a regime we would be excessively foolish to trust with WMD of any sort. However, this may not be the way the Iranians themselves view the situation.
Iran has seen an enemy they fought for a decade, defeated in a matter of weeks by the US. Indeed, in Desert Storm, the Iraqi army was more prepared and determined than in the recent invasion, and they lasted mere hours against US and Western forces. This could hardly have gone unheeded in Teheran. Add to that the fact that US forces are firmly ensconced in the region, and we are threatening to create a democratic counter force from the Iranians erstwhile enemy. Despite their bravado the Iranians understand that the United States could, if it were determined, destroy the Iranian regime from the air. Period.
Under these circumstances it isn’t irrational, under the old Cold War way of thinking, to believe that nuclear weapons, the only weapons able to wreck havoc against a successful opponent, would provide the Iranian regime with a deterrent (defensive) capacity equal to US and Western resolve. In other words, under the old Cold War paradigms, the Iranians by availing themselves of a nuclear deterrent wouldn’t necessarily be destabilizing the security situation. India and Pakistan, for instance, have in fact not gone to war, but seem to be settled into a cold war–for now. The key, from this point of view, is whether the Iranians feel more rather than less secure. If they feel secure enough, we may even be able to dissuade them from making the deterrent in the first place.
So, what is wrong with this picture? First, we are acting under an outmoded and inadequate model. Very little has been done since the Cold War, particularly in Europe, to reassess the nuclear threat environment and develop agencies adequate to the current threats. Old Cold War instrumentalities like NATO, the UN and the EU are being asked to respond to threats thoroughly unlike those that gave rise to them (on the part of the US, Bill Clinton’s two Secretaries of State were literally fossilized in the past.) The upshot being, we are putting some very new wine into some very old bottles. Condoleeza Rice, along with all her European colleagues, are academically trained devotees of the old paradigm. To them, the issue (believe it or not) is to provide the Iranian Regime with a sense of security. Quote Mohamed El Baradei:
“Dr. ElBaradei called on Iran to resolve outstanding issues of concern and restore the world’s confidence “to get out of the hole that we’re in today.”
He underscored that in the long term, the United States held the key to building Iran’s trust with the world. Stressing that it was a personal view, he said that once security issues began to be discussed with Iran, “the U.S. should be engaged into a dialogue.” New York Times
Second, we are attributing Western values to a culture we do not understand. The recent Cartoon Wars provided evidence of the chasm between Western and Fundamentalist Islamic values. The Europeans were particularly shocked by the alien nature of the response. This is because they have further to go in the way of understanding that we are dealing with a culture (at least a significant part of a culture) whose self-interest cannot be expressed in Western equivalents. It seems to me to be a very risky proposition to try and divine the intentions of the Mullocracy; even fellows Muslims like El Baradei are prone to be seriously mistaken about them. Under no circumstances can we trust our perceptions of Iran’s intentions. I believe Mr. Hitchens is trying to promote what he believes to be a creative solution. He is assuming that Iran is what is known in game theory as a “rational actor” when (whatever the actual case may be) we simply do not have sufficient confidence in our ability to judge our opponent correctly, weighed against the magnitude of the consequences if we are incorrect, to take a chance on his suggestion.
Toynbee would call it, “mimesis” or a simple borrowing from the past, rather than an actual creative attempt to solve the crisis. This isn’t the Cold War. Bush isn’t Nixon. Iran isn’t China. What worked in the past, isn’t likely to work this time around.
George III ( I thought we got rid of you about 240 years ago ).
Very excellent comment.
I think that people that see the Nixon to China metaphor, especially Hitchens, should start thinking more about the Chamberlin to Munich metaphor.
Hitler was very open and honest about his plans and ambitions in his speeches and writings. Why don’t we believe that the Iranians are just as open and honest in their speeches and writing?
As you point out, there is nothing that Bush could offer that would be acceptable. Leave Afghanistan? Leave Iraq? Abandon Israel? All of the above?
If there is one thing that we do know about the Muslim/Arabic culture it is that they will back whom they perceive to be the strong horse. If we try and “compromise” with the MMs we will, yet again, show ourselves to be the weak horse.
They have told us point blank that our failures in Lebanon, the USS Cole, Somalia, etc. got us 9/11. Does Hitchens really believe that, somehow, that’s all changed?
I think Hitch is dead on here. To some extent, it may be similar to Nixon and China, but there is something else going on here. The idea here is not so much to engage the Iranian government, but to engage the Iranian people around the government. What a lot of people miss (i.e. Michael Ledeen) is that the vast majoirty of Iranians do not consider their government evil, and while they may disagree with it, these are their own internal issues. As soon as outside forces start getting belligerent, they will rally behind their leaders. Indeed, it has long been in the best interests of Iranian hardliners, faced with falling support, to start with the “Great Satan” talk because their hold on power is strengthened when the Iranian public is isolated, threatened, and angry. If we fail to play the part of Great Satan, and instead speak to the Iranian public in friendship and respect, we refuse to help the Mullahs isolate their own people. In the long run, peace, prosperity, blue jeans and Coca-Cola will win over weapons and theocracy, but only if we let them.
“Lebanon, the USS Cole, Somalia, etc. got us 9/11.”
Alan:
Good point: one might think from your phrase
that the MM either misread American intentions and strengths, focusing on our failures too much, or, maybe they know us too well.
I am not as great a fan of Christopher Hitchens as some people here seem to be.
To me his position on Ahmadinejad shows the bankuprcy of his latest version of the Trotzkyite dream of a world revolution, namely spreading democracy to the ends of the earth.
The idea was and is as loopy as trying to create a Marxian Communist state in pre industtrialized Russia.
We saw the results of that enterprise, gulags, mass murder and fifty plus years of hot and cold wars.
Instead of seeing in Ahmadinejad the limits of such an enterprise Hitchens wants us to negotiate with this madman.
Negotiate about what? How best to hasten the arrival of the phantom Imam?
Gimme a break, Chris.
“But I wish I knew what was.”
How about regime change? If the mullahs can see it coming, I don’t see why we should ignore the probable outcome. Or should they be allowed to bluff out a few more years of supporting terrorism and pursuing a nice Islamic bomb all their own? Doing so while lying through their teeth to the world on one hand and promising the apocalypse on the other?
The wind is shifting even among the EUnuchs and the UNSC sanctions proposal next week has a very fair chance of passing. China remains the only real unknown but should they prove recalcitrant a close review of their MFN status might pull them into line.
It’s not as if Iran has much of a cheering section any more, is it? Syria, perhaps, for what Syria is worth, but who else?
Hitch usually makes sense, but Hitch fell in with strategic guru Tom Barnett. Thus in his article he says:
I believe that the war games and simulations he is referring to are ones run by Barnett.
Barnett, who grew up as a sovietoligist, denies that the Iranians are crazy:
Barnett is just wrong about that one. The Iranian nuclear program pre-dates Afghanistan and Iraq by a decade.
He also said:
I will let the anti-semetic dig go. Israel’s government has always been rigorously secular, even anti-religious. But, the idea that possessing nuclear weapons makes a state rational is just plain insupportable.
Do the Iranian leaders say crazy things? Yes, they do. Did Hitler say crazy things? Yes, he did. Was it wise to ignore the crazy things Hitler said?
My own take is that we should push the current process to a rapid conclusion. If that does not cause the Iranians to back down, and it won’t, we should use our air power to destroy as much of their military and nuclear infra-structure as we can.
I think Barnett’s simulations are wrong. I think we can do it.
Iran’s main income comes from selling its oil and gas. I think a case could be made that any president who did not set a highly belligerent tone, to maximize revenue from these resources, would be negligent of his duties.
I think we have to assume that the President of Iran is being truthful when he talks about being touched by god regarding the return of the 12th (or is it 13th Imam) ushering in an apocalypse. He views himself as the catalyst to this event. His tool, one assumes, is the use of nuclear weapons against Israel among other targets.
But what would happen if he nuked Israel? First, much of Israel, including Jerusalem, would be uninhabitable for a long period of time due to radioactive contamination. Second, given its close proximity, palestinians would be radiated as well, killing many and making others quite sick in horribe, disfiguring ways. Third, Iran itself would be subject to being radiated from radioactive dust that would periodically blow through its country.
Do these factors deter the President of Iran and Iran’s Mullahs? Who really knows, but should we assume it does?
Long term, whatever the U.S. intends to do about resurgent, fanatical Islam, it will have to do it before, not after the demographic Jihad makes Eurabia fact, not prophesy. At that point, U.S. isolation will shrink its options drastically.
Short-term, a major strike against Iran (and, barring regime change in Damascus, on Syria) likely will result in Muslim “rioting,” particularly in Western Europe, that will make what we’ve already seen in France and worldwide over The Cartoons seem like “mere” soccer hooliganism. Make no mistake, the immams have that much control right now.
Impossible to predict outcomes when that happens–what will then happen to the flow of oil?
President Bush has begun to use the term “Long War.” Such a war is, in fact, what the other side has been fighting for decades. What’s sobering is that the enemy, it seems, believes they have pushed us into the endgame–and they may have.
Some of the mullahs are insane milenialists — certainly the ones Ahmadinejad is aligned with; others have just used religion as a springboard into Iranian power politics and untold wealth. I read not long ago that Ahamdinejad’s predessesor issued a rebuke to Ahamdinejad’s Holocaust denial, stating that Ahmadinejad was bringing shame onto the nation with his obsessive denial of historic fact.
The question is who will prevail… …the milenialists or the merely corrupt and craven who would prefer to avoid another very costly war?
Conveniently enough, the above posts are all illustrative of my own thesis. They are all intelligent, thoughtful and may possibly be true. We simply cannot be confident that our analysis of Iranís intentions (or their internal politics) is accurate. It has been difficult enough to develop policies toward Iran over the last 30 years, and as the game escalates to nuclear chicken, the cost of being wrong rises to an unacceptable risk.
In other words as the regime approaches that turning point, the time we have to pursue other options contracts. What Christopher Hitchens is proposing is one of the strategies historically available to us only after the weapons are a reality, Deterrence or DÈtente. These are historical solutions that may work after all, but I am wary of them, because I am wary of the Iranian regime. These solutions are unlikely in any event to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place.
I notice that there is a certain amount of healthy pessimism on that point among all but our elected leaders who are still talking about ìa laddered responseî. This is not a policy but a talking point. The regime in Teheran will possess, if they donít already, nuclear warheads. Every option we have is fraught with terrible risk and consequences. Hitchenís position is pessimistic on the idea that we can prevent the acquisition of WMD, but optimistic that we can engage the Iranian people in some constructive way.
I tend to be a pessimist entirely. I have to agree with Roger here,I am sorry there is no simple solution. I certainly don’t have one.
1) It is often useful to have your opponent view you as at least somewhat irratinal
2) Attracting an air strike is a good way to defuse internal dissent – by focusing anger outwards
3) Iran already has the capability to make the Straits of Hormuz either unpassable or perceived to be that way.
4) The president may really be nutso, but he doesn’t call the shots.
5) Making lots of noise (say, by a looney puppet president) raises the price of oil.
On the other hand, all of the above may be wishful thinking.
——————-
A technical point: nuking Israel would not necessarily cause any of it to be uninhabitable for any period of time. An air-burst nuclear weapon creates no localized fallout – this was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki which is why one could walk across ground zero days after the bombings with no ill effects. The air burst event causes the fallout to rise into the stratosphere and be spread across the entire hemisphere.
gordo,
” Second, given its close proximity, palestinians would be radiated as well, killing many and making others quite sick in horribe, disfiguring ways. ”
Some time back the possibility was put to the Mullahs who declared that the Palestinians who die will be martyrs.
No arguing with that.
Has nobody been paying attention to the martyrs being made in Iraq and Pakistan in the war of the sects?
Now when Jews celebrate Purim (about their “near death” experience in Persia) the Hamans of today sit shoulder to shoulder with Naturei Karta in a diatribe against Israel’s existence. Rubbing shoulders with the descendents of pigs and apes in contradiction to the “holy” Koran shows just how far they will go to make their case.
Maybe it’s better not to doubt their word than to try a Chamberlin stunt.
The thing about Hitchens is that not only does he have a blanket disdain for all religion, he seems constitutionally incabable of fathoming religious ardor. That makes him highly unreliable as a judge of what genocidal jihadis with a Mahdi complex might or might not do once they get their mitts on a nuke.
Aside from that, if history has taught us anything it is this: when a genocidal Jew-hater tells you he wants to wipe all the Jews off the map (of Europe OR the Middle East) it behooves you to take him at his word.
What does Iran want?
They’ve said it, to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews as an absolute religious duty. They’ve said it many times, their President hosted a World Conference on the subject, this is near and dear to their hearts.
They’ve said they can “win” because they can lose half their population and still have 35 million people.
The other thing Iran wants is control of the Gulf and states around it. They’ve wanted this (and had it) for about 2700 years, going back to Cyrus. What stands in their way is the US Navy which kicked their butts in the 1980′s when they tried to take it by force.
Iran wants Israel destroyed, and the US nuked so the Navy leaves the Gulf. They’ve said it. Believe them.
Hitchens belongs to the horse and buggy whip, corset era of the Cold War. Quaint. Outdated, bygone era. What we have now is the Clash of Civilizations ala Huntington. With of course nuclear weapons.
Roger,
I too “I’m far from convinced Hitchens has the right approach here. But I wish I knew what was.”
The only active non-violent response to this situation that I can come up with is basically this:
Build a number of large transmitters in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as satellites and use them to beam information like the Wafa Sultan (sp?) interview into the country in Arabic and Farsi and whatever other language is appropriate. Beam in any kind of anti-Mullah message we can…..AND…..beam in warnings about what will happen to Iran if the Iranians don’t take care of this themselves.
I’d also suggest B2 bomber loads of leaflets if practicable to A) increase the message penetration and B) to demonstrate our capabilities (the pamphlets could point out that they could have just as easily been MOABs or Smart Bombs.
Sorry to be the odd man out but I don’t think much of Hitchens. Maybe its all that artfully boyish and mussed and probably dyed hair. Maybe its the different flags of political convenience he runs up and down the pole depending on the fashion of the day. Maybe its his unwillingness to cool his publicists when they insult American letters by ballyhooing their client as AMERICA’S LEADING INTELLECTUAL. Maybe its his insistance that he is no mere writer but that for him, writing is a holy vocation, as if his publicists aren’t working overtime and his agent doesn’t haggle like a fishwife for every dollar. Maybe its his obsessive and unhealthy quarter-century-old hatred of Henry Kissinger. Maybe its his consistent, reflexive and ever fahionable disparagement of the Jewish State. Maybe its his “discovery” (gadzooks!) at the age of twenty–a la madeline Albright– that mommy is jewish. Maybe its the name Chris, that tired triumphalist handle for half-Jews–Chris Sulzberger, Chris Weinberger, Chris Cohen, etc.–that turns my stomach. In any event, I’ve never found Hitchens insightful or original. He writes well enough but its mainly holier-than-thou posturing. Of Iran, he understands nothing.
Pro-reform President Khatami was a figurehead. What is the evidence is there that theocratic President Ahmadinejad is more powerful or influential than Khatami was?
I don’t know what will work for Iran, but a few things I read recently are cause for reflection:
1. Iran’s domestic supply of uranium is rather small — perhaps 7 years’ worth if the purpose is really for the production of peaceful energy. Contrast this with petroleum reserves that would last 250 years for domestic purposes. Clearly, the nuke project is about manufacturing arms.
2. Iran is a major earthquake zone. What chances that their facilities are going to be able to withstand a major quake?
3. Ha’aretz recently ran a story indicating that Iran has actually been processing uranium for a much longer period of time than commonly believed. The implication of this is that they are not moving along as swiftly as is commonly believed.
Speaking of Iran, here’s a provocative article:
“U.S. Push for Democracy Could Backfire Inside Iran”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301761.html
David72, Christopher Hitchens rejects the nickname “Chris” and insists on being called “Christopher”. So maybe he shares your feelings about Chrises.
Aside from that, if history has taught us anything it is this: when a genocidal Jew-hater tells you he wants to wipe all the Jews off the map (of Europe OR the Middle East) it behooves you to take him at his word.
Er, concern for the well-being of the Israelis is well and good and all that, but please keep in mind that when the Iranians refer to “The Great Satan”, they’re not talking about the Israel.
IMO, this is much simpler than a lot of people think. When a government that refers to my country as “The Great Satan” and has citizens who go to rallies and chant “Death to America” is developing nuclear weapons, we are entirely justified in doing whatever we see fit to do in order to assure our own security. Doing nothing and hoping for ‘peace in our time’ because the other party is sane is not a plan, it is folly.
Either we take care of business before the Iranians have nukes, or we take care of business after the Iranians have nukes. The only difference between those two options is how many people are going to die in the process.
Which will it be?
Iran’s is among the cultures which have long been Islamized. It is distinguished by a streak of flaky extremism as seen, in the worst case, in the Mujahedin-e Khalq (aka MEK, MKO, & many other names & initials) which is an islamomarxist war cult. I’ve known a few Iranians, and it reminds me that, as in revolutionary France & Russia, a little intellectual knowledge can be a dangerous thing in the heads of people given to ideological enthusiasms. But aside from those gleanings, I’ve heard or read very little about Iran’s culture and how similar or dissimilar the Iranians are to the long-Islamized desert peoples to their south and west. I do wonder about it.
About those other Muslim cultures, it should be noted how alien the psychology is for us.
In the West in modern times, it hasn’t been so unsual for some women to have visions. Among the Moghrebs (Berbers) and Arabs, it has not been so unusual for the men to have visions as well. The women have a reputation for using poison, as if in a classic illustration of Nietzsche’s discussions of the arts of the slave. The sense of time is very different from that of the West. Things that happened years ago might as well have happened yesterday. Paul Bowles opens a window on these things. One might read The Collected Stories (in a sideshow, you’ll come to see how Gore Vidal in his introduction flatly fails to understand some of Bowles’ stories), and also some of the novels & stories by Bowles’ friends such as Mohammed Mrabet & Driss ben Hamed Charhadi, which Bowles translated into English http://www.paulbowles.org/books.html
As an intellectual, Bowles was a pretty typical anti-Western Westerner. Meanwhile, his stories & novels tend to be about people traveling or touring (or the occasional local who’s tripping), and who get into trouble sometimes fatally in foreign or strange situations whose dangers they don’t understand. I wonder in how alien a world we all are now.
Islam was born, conceived, and raised in the desert. Islam is the desert. Islam is war and peace and submission and oppression if and when the desert is those things. The kif or the hashish is lit, and an Arabic script of golden scimitars dances against a hard blue sky. Islam is fatalistic. Cultures long Islamized invent little. For Islam, nothing is at liberty, nothing is really novel, and time merely reveals what was fated eons ago as if yesterday, like movements of orbs in ordered and undecaying dynamics. Allah is not sociably triune, much less swarmingly thousand-faced, but as stark over Islam, as desert sun or moon over a desert while the wind has died. Sometimes the wind blows, and the dunes are ever shifting and ever the same.