[lit-ideas] Re: Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 07:56:05 -0700
When Khomeini took over Iran, he didn't intend that his Revolution should be
just for Iran. He wanted it to be for the entire world. He very actively
attempted to export his Militant Islamic ideology to other countries.
Unfortunately for him one of the most natural countries to receive his
ideology was Iraq because of the huge numbers of Iraqi Shiites on his
border. Saddam Hussein did indeed initiate the war against Iran but he did
so in order to stop Khomeini from converting his Shiites. Other attempts to
the north, to the former SSRs have been ongoing. Iran got to Azerbiajan
early and whether or not they have precisely accepted the Revolution they
have sworn common cause with Iran.
The Hezbollah was developed to facilitate the exportation of the Revolution
through Terrorism. There was some initial success in Lebanon - with the
Shia there, and Musa al Sadr, a very holy man, became an emissary of the
Revolution. He visited Libya and (Fouad Ajami thinks) Qhadaffi had him
killed, but a legend has arising around him that he might be "The Vanished
Imam," that is the Twelvth Imam. He wasn't killed, the legend goes, but
simply vanished for a time and will return.
Part of the concern about Ahmadinejad is that he is a hard-liner in the
Khomeini Party. Some in Iran want to back away from the exportation of the
Revolution, but that is difficult to do in that Khomeini had his ideas
written into the Iranian constitution. Ahmadinejad has been considered a
willing advocate of Khomeini's ideas. For the mullahs to allow Ahmadinejad
to become president has been an indication that the reforms, such as they
were, of Khatami are at an end. He tried and failed. Now it is time to get
back to the holy ideas of Khomeini.
I have heard but haven't had a chance to check that Ahmadinejad in his
particular Twelver eschatology believes that the Mahdi will return to a
particular place in Iran. Since there were no roads between that place and
Tehran, Ahmadinejad was instrumental in having one built. Fred Barnes said
that but I haven't gotten positive verification yet. Twelver eschatology
has something in common with Dispensational Christianity. Just as
Dispensationalists await the immanent return of Jesus Christ; so do the
Twelvers await the immanent return of the Mahdi, the Twelfth Imam. One of
the many criticisms of Dispensationalists has been that they aren't
interested in long ranged plans. Since Jesus Christ is to return in just a
few years, they feel their job is to get as many people saved as possible
before that happens. It was feared by Barnes that Ahmadinejad had an
equivalent short-ranged conception based upon his religious views. However
Ahmadinejad's references in his letter to what future historians will think
of he & Bush don't support the idea that he is expecting the Mahdi any time
soon.
Ahmadinejad's religious views can be seen in his letter to Bush. He is
behaving righteously, exhorting Bush to do the same. He is preaching to
Bush. Now it can be hoped that this is a diplomatic ploy and that we can
safely discount the religious jargon and see it as the first step in
capitulation, i.e., being willing to give up the intention to build nuclear
weapons. That is possible, but one would have to discount Barnes view and
see Ahmadinejad as being more cynical. After all he never said he was
developing nuclear weapons. Perhaps many Iranians believe what he says,
i.e., that he is not building them. He could shut down the nuclear
activities and after a long series of diplomatic conferences facilitated by
Indonesia allow thorough inspections to show that he is indeed not building
nuclear weapons.
Why did Ahmadinejad include all the Leftist criticisms of America and Bush
if he wanted to open up diplomatic discussions? Even though he did that,
he was very gentle with these criticisms. Leftists are typically much more
venomous. The way he has written is sure to sound as though it's the soul
of gentleness to a Leftist and even someone who is not is likely to think
that even though he is deceived he is being sincere in voicing these views.
Both things could be true. Traditional Shiism doesn't provide room for
doing anything to facilitate the return of the Mahdi. The Mahdi will
accomplish the restoration of all things by himself. Shiia believers will
not be permitted to help. So Ahmadinejad could give up his nuclear weapon
plans in good conscience. The Mahdi doesn't need nuclear weapons.
Furthermore his righteous intentions as seen in his letter to Bush are sure
to be approved of by the Mahdi since he wants his followers to behave
righteously. This would be backing away from Khomeini's brand of Shiism and
moving more toward traditional Shism but Khomeini believed very much in the
doctrine of Hegira which means that when the enemy is in a much better
position, it is permitted to withdraw from the battle and wait for times to
become more propitious.
If Ahmadinejad is backing away permanently from nuclear weapons, that would
be good. But if he is practicing Hegira that would also be good because it
would allow more time for those who oppose the Khomeini Revolution to work
toward the fall of the Mullah regime.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 6:34 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ahmadi-Nejad's Letter to Bush
PE:
>I have no doubt the Iranians
> are working very hard on developing nuclear weapons and that they
> understand these weapons, not as defensive, but as tools for
> establishing God's justice on the world.
You know this culture far more intimately than I, but I've never been
convinced that they seek our destruction or conversion, only our desistance
in converting them to our model of modernity. I am not well versed in
Iranian history, but I haven't seen any indications that would suggest they
have imperial ambitions, either politically or religiously -- not since the
days of Persia, at least. I see only self-defense against a West determined
to control them and their oil resources. It is worrisome to me that
Ahmadinejad couches his rhetoric in theocratic terms just as it is worrisome
that George Bush does so as well. I agree with those commentators who say
that the real audience for the letter was not the Bush Admininstration but
the U. N. Security Council members -- a very political move, not a religious
one.
Mike Geary
going on faith
in Memphis
Other related posts:
