Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Hot Spots

https://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

AddThis Feed Button
   

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


AddThis Feed Button

 

-02/08/2007-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Hot Spots

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