Israel is simply a convenient mirror for the region's internal failings, a target for redirected rage, and a symbolic arena for ideological and sectarian contests.
A comprehensive analysis reveals a prevalent Western misunderstanding of the Middle East. This perspective challenges the notion of misconception, positing that instead, Western actions are primarily driven by economic interests, particularly greed concerning oil resources. Such a viewpoint suggests that strategic decisions are less about genuine comprehension and more about the pursuit of vital commodities. Consequently, the dynamic between the West and the Middle East can be seen as a complex interplay of resource acquisition and geopolitical maneuvering. Understanding these underlying motivations is crucial for a more accurate interpretation of regional interactions.
A brief history reminder:
"Coup 53: The Story of How Operation Ajax Killed a Nascent Iranian Democracy
By Janet Levy
Playing the game of What if…? with history is usually futile. But sometimes it yields valuable lessons. For instance, What if the CIA and MI6 had not orchestrated the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953? Consider one possibility – that Iran might have become a bastion of democracy and not what it is today, a threat to the interests of the U.S. and its allies and the biggest cause of instability in the Middle East."
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the man who was installed in Iran by Jimmy (peanut) Carter.
Background: Long-standing U.S.–Iran alliance
The U.S. had a close alliance with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for decades. This began in earnest after the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 coup ousted Prime Minister Mossadegh and strengthened the Shah’s rule. That event greatly increased U.S. influence in Iran and helped set the stage for long-term domestic resentment at the monarchy’s ties to the West. ([Encyclopedia Britannica])
U.S. policy in 1978–1979 shifted amid crisis
By the late 1970s, mounting protests against the Shah’s authoritarian rule, economic problems, and repression turned into broad revolutionary unrest.
Human rights pressure:
President Jimmy Carter campaigned on human rights. This made the U.S. government less willing to support the Shah’s harsh repression of dissent compared with earlier administrations, weakening his position. ([Wikipedia])
Advisers and diplomacy:
Newly declassified documents show the Carter administration engaged in extensive contact with Khomeini’s allies and discouraged a last-ditch military coup to save the Shah. U.S. envoys also worked quietly to build accommodation between Khomeini’s circle and elements of Iran’s military. ([Wikipedia])
The Self-Preserving Tyrants
The Ayattollas and Mullahs
are tyrants who prioritize their self-preservation at the expense of their people and are essentially parasites on the body politic.
They view the state and its citizens not as entities to serve, but as resources to be exploited for their own benefit and continued hold on power.
Their rule is characterized by a fundamental inversion of governance: instead of governing for the welfare of the governed, they govern to protect their personal dominion.
The West misreads the Muslim world because of democracy's blinders. Because we live in a society where religion does not rule the roost we think all religions are peaceful when they are not. It is also one of the shibboleths of modernity in its political form that democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people, which engenders the myth that everyone is just like us, thinks like us, wants the same thing as we do. Not true. But democracy produces the idea that all people are created equal and desire the above good. This is a fantasy useful for the functioning of democracy but not accurate as a description of how it works. The most important aspect of democracy, indeed its defining principle, is that power is bifurcated at the top into government and opposition. This simple development cost a lot of blood and is not self-evident, whatever the language of the American Declaration of Independence. Hence the West constantly misreads the Middle East. One need look no further than Gaza, Syria and Iran to see how moronic western insurgents chant slogans that torpedo their own society. And western elites go along with all the gobbledygook they have fostered. Israel could help clarify matters by conquering Gaza, flooding it with Jews and annexing it, thereby showing the West how to tame the Middle East. Maybe then people would wake up and if not, they could stamp their feet in the ground like Rumpelstiltskin and continue to support Islamist regimes.
Wonderful analysis. So I wonder how do we move to a fact based understanding of both the Middle East and the culture of immigrants who live tribalism and honor and political Islam?
Perhaps you could fashion it into a Handbook, available to college campuses throughout the Western world for necessary reading before they erect their tents again. The big problem we have is ignorance of the Middle East region and the projection onto it of Western ideals and personal assumptions.
Western assumptions about the Mid-east Muslim societies must be a sympton of Said's so called orientalism. I wonder about societies like that of Germany and Japan before and during WWII. They didn't seem to be societies where democratic institutions could be successful in the long run. Iran isn't "Arab" and wasn't colonized. If I get you analysis right, the crashing of the economy is tied to the societal/cultural/historic make up of the country....the promotion of the ideology of Islamic conquest over everything else. So the chants reported that are nationalistic and reject Iranain adventurism and insertion in other regional conflicts are a reflection of the deep national sentiment....along with economic failure. Your analysis is don't expect that Iran's next regime will be democratic in the model of western Europe. I hope that there will be a new regime and one that will be more amenable to prioritizing the nation's welfare over Islamic fantasies. Will Iran be the nation of "all its peoples" or still be the Persian national project. Will it be able to be a nation of many religions or one with the Quran as central to everything? I'm sure the new mayor of NYC, no less than the EU, is desirous of this new Iran not prioritizing one people over another as all have stated regarding disdain for such a system as alleged in Israel.
"The Middle East is not failing to become the West. It is functioning according to its own political, cultural, religious, and historical logics — many of which are deeply illiberal and fundamentally incompatible with Western assumptions." For me this was the best line in this article. The US made the same mistake in Vietnam by thinking the Vietnamese were just an Asian version of the West because, after all, didn't the French influence them? This ignored their looong history before any Westerners arrived. Yes, I have no doubt that many if not most of the Middle Eastern people just want peace and a normal existence but on THEIR terms which many in the West don't understand.
A comprehensive analysis reveals a prevalent Western misunderstanding of the Middle East. This perspective challenges the notion of misconception, positing that instead, Western actions are primarily driven by economic interests, particularly greed concerning oil resources. Such a viewpoint suggests that strategic decisions are less about genuine comprehension and more about the pursuit of vital commodities. Consequently, the dynamic between the West and the Middle East can be seen as a complex interplay of resource acquisition and geopolitical maneuvering. Understanding these underlying motivations is crucial for a more accurate interpretation of regional interactions.
A brief history reminder:
"Coup 53: The Story of How Operation Ajax Killed a Nascent Iranian Democracy
By Janet Levy
Playing the game of What if…? with history is usually futile. But sometimes it yields valuable lessons. For instance, What if the CIA and MI6 had not orchestrated the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953? Consider one possibility – that Iran might have become a bastion of democracy and not what it is today, a threat to the interests of the U.S. and its allies and the biggest cause of instability in the Middle East."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/coup_53_the_story_of_how_operation_ajax_killed_a_nascent_iranian_democracy.html
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/01/world/us-iran-conflict-timeline-trnd/
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the man who was installed in Iran by Jimmy (peanut) Carter.
Background: Long-standing U.S.–Iran alliance
The U.S. had a close alliance with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for decades. This began in earnest after the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 coup ousted Prime Minister Mossadegh and strengthened the Shah’s rule. That event greatly increased U.S. influence in Iran and helped set the stage for long-term domestic resentment at the monarchy’s ties to the West. ([Encyclopedia Britannica])
U.S. policy in 1978–1979 shifted amid crisis
By the late 1970s, mounting protests against the Shah’s authoritarian rule, economic problems, and repression turned into broad revolutionary unrest.
Human rights pressure:
President Jimmy Carter campaigned on human rights. This made the U.S. government less willing to support the Shah’s harsh repression of dissent compared with earlier administrations, weakening his position. ([Wikipedia])
Advisers and diplomacy:
Newly declassified documents show the Carter administration engaged in extensive contact with Khomeini’s allies and discouraged a last-ditch military coup to save the Shah. U.S. envoys also worked quietly to build accommodation between Khomeini’s circle and elements of Iran’s military. ([Wikipedia])
The Self-Preserving Tyrants
The Ayattollas and Mullahs
are tyrants who prioritize their self-preservation at the expense of their people and are essentially parasites on the body politic.
They view the state and its citizens not as entities to serve, but as resources to be exploited for their own benefit and continued hold on power.
Their rule is characterized by a fundamental inversion of governance: instead of governing for the welfare of the governed, they govern to protect their personal dominion.
Great analysis!
Extremely insightful. Thank you.
The West misreads the Muslim world because of democracy's blinders. Because we live in a society where religion does not rule the roost we think all religions are peaceful when they are not. It is also one of the shibboleths of modernity in its political form that democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people, which engenders the myth that everyone is just like us, thinks like us, wants the same thing as we do. Not true. But democracy produces the idea that all people are created equal and desire the above good. This is a fantasy useful for the functioning of democracy but not accurate as a description of how it works. The most important aspect of democracy, indeed its defining principle, is that power is bifurcated at the top into government and opposition. This simple development cost a lot of blood and is not self-evident, whatever the language of the American Declaration of Independence. Hence the West constantly misreads the Middle East. One need look no further than Gaza, Syria and Iran to see how moronic western insurgents chant slogans that torpedo their own society. And western elites go along with all the gobbledygook they have fostered. Israel could help clarify matters by conquering Gaza, flooding it with Jews and annexing it, thereby showing the West how to tame the Middle East. Maybe then people would wake up and if not, they could stamp their feet in the ground like Rumpelstiltskin and continue to support Islamist regimes.
Great guide to the Middle East for all those who aren't Jew haters at their core. Well written and easy to comprehend. Really impressive.
Excellent analysis of the mess. Next is the steps needed to fix it. Looking forward to your recommendations.
Wonderful analysis. So I wonder how do we move to a fact based understanding of both the Middle East and the culture of immigrants who live tribalism and honor and political Islam?
Great discussion, Joshua. Thank you.
Perhaps you could fashion it into a Handbook, available to college campuses throughout the Western world for necessary reading before they erect their tents again. The big problem we have is ignorance of the Middle East region and the projection onto it of Western ideals and personal assumptions.
Western assumptions about the Mid-east Muslim societies must be a sympton of Said's so called orientalism. I wonder about societies like that of Germany and Japan before and during WWII. They didn't seem to be societies where democratic institutions could be successful in the long run. Iran isn't "Arab" and wasn't colonized. If I get you analysis right, the crashing of the economy is tied to the societal/cultural/historic make up of the country....the promotion of the ideology of Islamic conquest over everything else. So the chants reported that are nationalistic and reject Iranain adventurism and insertion in other regional conflicts are a reflection of the deep national sentiment....along with economic failure. Your analysis is don't expect that Iran's next regime will be democratic in the model of western Europe. I hope that there will be a new regime and one that will be more amenable to prioritizing the nation's welfare over Islamic fantasies. Will Iran be the nation of "all its peoples" or still be the Persian national project. Will it be able to be a nation of many religions or one with the Quran as central to everything? I'm sure the new mayor of NYC, no less than the EU, is desirous of this new Iran not prioritizing one people over another as all have stated regarding disdain for such a system as alleged in Israel.
In a nut shell!
"The Middle East is not failing to become the West. It is functioning according to its own political, cultural, religious, and historical logics — many of which are deeply illiberal and fundamentally incompatible with Western assumptions." For me this was the best line in this article. The US made the same mistake in Vietnam by thinking the Vietnamese were just an Asian version of the West because, after all, didn't the French influence them? This ignored their looong history before any Westerners arrived. Yes, I have no doubt that many if not most of the Middle Eastern people just want peace and a normal existence but on THEIR terms which many in the West don't understand.