02/08/2007
Bernard Lewis on Iran
Professor Bernard Lewis is considered by some to be the preeminent scholar on the Muslim world and at age 90 he recently sat down with the Jerusalem Post for an extensive interview, most of which focused on Iran.
As you read some of the following excerpts, understand Mr. Lewis remains one of the experts heavily relied upon by the Bush White House in shaping Middle East policy.
Q: How will the Iranians be stopped? Do you think they are going to be stopped?
Lewis: My own preference would be to deal with the Iranian regime by means of the Iranian people. All the evidence is that the regime is extremely unpopular with their own people. I am told that the Israeli daily [radio] program in Persian is widely listened to all over Iran with rapt attention and it is the only one that they believe.
Iranians were furious over the Lebanese war, feeling that they had been dragged into it and their resources were being squandered on promoting this dubious cause when things are deteriorating from bad to worse at home. I think there is a level of discontent which could be exploited. I do not think it would be too difficult to bring it to the point when the regime could be overthrown.
Q: What should Israel be doing, therefore?
Lewis: Israel should be doing everything that it can to change the regime in Iran. That is the only answer.
Q: Overtly?
Lewis: Yes, I think so. What the [discontented Iranians] are asking for is not a military invasion. My Iranian friends and various groups are unanimous on that point. They feel a military invasion would be counterproductive.
Q: What do the Iranians think of their nuclear program?
Lewis: That is a delicate issue because the nuclear program has become a matter of national pride. Look at it from the Iranian point of view: The Russians in the north have it, the Chinese in the east have it, the Pakistanis in the south have it, and the Israelis in the west have it. ‘Who is to tell us that we must not have it?’
I think one should try to make it clear at all stages that the objection is not to Iran having [a nuclear capacity] but to the regime that governs Iran having it. I am told now that in Iran most recently, support has virtually disappeared for the nuclear program. Previously it had some support, but it is now increasingly being realized that this is a method of strengthening the regime, which means that it is bad.
Q: What would the Iranian regime do with a nuclear bomb if it got one?
Lewis: That depends entirely on the balance of forces within the regime. There are people in Iran who know that using nuclear weapons, even threatening to use nuclear weapons, could bring terrible retribution upon them. On the other hand there are people with an apocalyptic mindset.
Q: Do you have a sense of how far Arab states are willing to go to change things in Iran? Will they cooperate with the Israelis and the Americans?
Lewis: The Arab states are very concerned about the Shia revolution. They see a militant, expansionist Shia movement which already seems to be spreading from Iran to Iraq, through Syria to Lebanon, all the way across to the Mediterranean and eastward to Afghanistan and Pakistan and so on.
One has to bear in mind that there are significant Shia minorities in Saudi Arabia and all around the Gulf, all the Gulf States . From the Saudi point of view, the Shia revolution really constitutes a major menace. That is why they were so quietly supportive of Israel in the Lebanon war, and I think they would take that line again if there is a further clash. Or, should I say, ‘when’ there is a further clash.
Q: Is there a perception in the Arab world that Hizbullah won the war in the summer?
Lewis: The feelings about Hizbullah are very mixed, but always very strong, either for them or against them. Some see them as Arab heroes, the people who won a great victory for the Arab cause, and others see them as a major danger. In a sense both are right.
I had a telephone conversation with a Christian friend in Beirut not long after the Lebanon war. I asked his views on this. He said, “Israel has lost the war, but Hizbullah has not won.” I asked him what he meant by that. He said that there was a swelling tide of anger against Hizbullah in Lebanon for having brought all this misfortune on the country, which is even gaining ground among the Shia population. That was a couple of days after the end of the war. Whether that is still true, I do not know. I am inclined to think that Hizbullah has gained some ground since then.
Q: In your writings you have spoken of the feelings of humiliation and rage in the Muslim world. When will their rage subside, if at all?
Lewis: One way [for them] to alleviate their rage is to win some large victories. Which could happen. They seem to be about to take over Europe.
Q: “About to take over Europe?” Do you have a time frame for that? It sounds pretty dramatic.
Lewis: No, I can’t give you the time frame, but I can give you the stages of the process: Immigration and democracy on their side, and a mood of what I can only call self-abasement on the European side – in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism, to surrender on any and every issue.
Q: How do you explain the strength of the Islamic cultural psyche? There are third-generation Muslims in England who play cricket but whose loyalties to Muslim values are far stronger than anything they have picked up in England.
Lewis: That is true. The loyalty is very strong, in Europe particularly. One sees a difference here between Europe and the U.S. One difference is that Europe has very little to offer. Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self- confidence. They have no respect for their own culture. It has become a culture of self-abasement. The diplomacy of what David Kelly called the “preemptive cringe.” Naturally that is only going to encourage them in the worst aspects of their own.
Q: Do you think that Arab nationalism will make a comeback? Is there any chance of achieving democratization when you talk about religion dictating trends?
Lewis: I do not think that Arab nationalism is faring very well now. It has failed monumentally in every country. It has brought them greater tyranny, worse government and in many places lowered standards of living.
What I hope might be a more positive development is not nationalism but patriotism. It is a very different thing, which is much more compatible with the development of democratic institutions and liberal values.
---
My next column won’t be until Feb. 22 or thereabouts. I’m preparing for an overseas trip but some details have yet to be worked out. Then again, if the plan falls apart I’ll have something on Feb. 15, the editor mused mischievously.
Brian Trumbore
|