The origins of the Great War of 2007
 

I like this piece, not necessarily because of Ferguson's conclusions (which you could've guessed prior to reading this), but more so the issue that it tackles. It's written in past tense, which is a little too cute, but I think it asks an important question-- was Iraq the turning point in the Middle East, or was it just the beginning of a long, drawn out culture war?

I disagree with certain "historical" references made here. For example, I some how doubt that the Iranian men who were 14 in 1995 are supposedly ready and willing to fight in a world war over oil and Islam. I think they might be more inclined to eat Big Macs and listen to their iPods, but perhaps I'm off on that.


http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2105197C

The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented

By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 15/01/2006)

Are we living through the origins of the next world war? Certainly, it is easy to imagine how a future historian might deal with the next phase of events in the Middle East:

With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.

The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.

A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.

This tendency was especially pronounced in Iran, where the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.

This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy that contrasted markedly with the slothful senescence of Europe. It also signified a profound shift in the balance of world population. In 1950, there had three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995, the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain and was forecast to be 50 per cent higher by 2050.

Yet people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.

The third and perhaps most important precondition for war was cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.

Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.

The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A seminal moment was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth'. The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot', he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map'.

Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.

Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.

Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.

So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.

Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. Yet he had been struck down by a stroke as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.

As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.

This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.

The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.

The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.

Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.

• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University www.niallferguson.org

© Niall Ferguson, 2006

Nice read, but the author assumes that the general Iranian populace supports the insane rantings of Ahmadinejad. He assumes the Iranian desire for nuclear energy is ultimately all about weapons, and not fuel. Alarmism based on a stack of hypotheticals is a pretty sad excuse for advocating pre-emptive military strikes.

Another thing: I think a "policy of pre-emption" is not at issue here, but rather "what are the grounds for pre-emption?". In my opinion the world's powers (led by the US) need to work ahrder on a poilcy of nuclear disarmament. Who the fuck is any nuclear nation to tell another nation that "it's ok if we got nukes, but it's not ok if you do"?

If you put a gun to a man's head, his natural reaction is to figure out a way to kill you before you decide to pull the trigger. We're not talking about a policy of pre-emption, we're talking about a policy of escalation. If the US is to lash out at every Muslim nation we can target (shall we talk about the air strike in Pakistan this weekend?) then we'd be equally responsible for this author's vision of a third world war.


also - http://makeashorterlink.com (be nice to those who aren't running at least 1280x1024)

Neato.

Anyway, I get your point, although it is scary to stop and think if we are simply playing the role of the appeasers (sp?) here. I do think the Iranian prez is rattling the saber a bit to try to maintain domestic strength. I think he hopes to piss off Israel enough that it keeps his people behind him.

I dunno, perhaps we should get all 80's retro again and try to get rid of nukes, but i don't know that that would work with iran. I think in the case of N. Korea, they truly just want a cookie in exhange for disarming. I'm not so sure about this nut in Iran....

I say: Bring it on. We'll fucking kill them.

I hope we get a chance to destroy Islamic fundamentalism and fascism, and it would be superb to be able to get it all ovr with in a giant purge of their society.

Let the remaining non-Islamists eat McDonalds and listen to shitty pop music.

But, until their ideology and way of life is entirely defeated, they remain a threat; so let's take them out.

2007 could be a great year.

Yeah, dude, we should totally wipe Iran off the map...!

If US and Israel plans to strike Iran, China, South America and Russia will back Iran. If Russia, South America and China wins the battle...they will occupy the United States....

shudders

China + Israel kissing in a tree. There is also a union with India forming. (and to confuse things even more, a partnership between India and Russia. Meaning, they're all double dipping).

The proposed attack would be US, Israel and Turkey and the rumor is it wouldn't be an air strike at all. Turkey has declared Iran's activities illegal, and claimed to have been victims of Iran's nuclear program already.

When Israel took out Iraq's reaktor it caught everyone by surprise. They flew in and out (over Jordan, and back) without being detected by radars. There's little change they're going to act like Babe Ruth and call the hit to Iran.

I'm looking forward to it too. Terrorism on it's own will never destroy the West but it's still very difficult to fight against. And I think the biggest danger facing the West is decades of Jihadist activity together with massive Muslim immigration into Western countries, high Muslim birth rates and declining infidel birth rates. Even the 10% of the French population that's Muslim is causing France big problems.

A regular war will be a lot easier to deal with.

I'm glad we now have two idiots posting, it will certainly spice the board up.

I'm also glad one of them has the right eye of horus in his avatar, but I'm curious as to if he knows what it means? Doubtful.

Actually, I do know what the right eye of Horus means. The right eye is associated with the sun and the left with the moon, and it means I can clearly see right through your irrational, idiotic, leftist lunacy.

Actually I was talking more along the lines of mystery schools and such, but good job. The right eye of horus is actually symbolical, in a way, for jesus christ.
Again, good job for your utter failure.

I support the right. I want to return the world back to the old archaic way of life. Where man roamed free through his providence, supplying peace and dignity to the lands around. An amount of sovereignty that could only be granted by the simplest, most complete way of life.

At least one of those two has to be Mad Max.

I don't really see that it can symbolize Jesus since he hadn't even been born yet. Although you could say that the right eye was symbolic of light and good and the left of dark and evil.
Horus's father Osiris could be said to be an older version of Jesus. He represented the idea of a man who was both God and man, God made flesh, and the saviour who suffered a cruel death but rose again.
I've got a good book about the subject called The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy. I recommend it if you're interested in that subject.

I'd rather read the classical books on the subject rather than some idiot's rendition of it. Try Manly P. Hall. I bet you get your kicks from the davinci code.

Jesus is considered a "Sun God". Horus became the new "Sun God" in egypt.

Originally Horus was Osiris. Osiris came around later, but I don't expect you to have any actual knowledge of egyptology because you assimilate your information through books of stupidity.

You sound like a petulant nine-year-old, you're pathetic mate, grow up.

I just noticed Kuturjerk said he wanted to war against Islamic fundmentalism, NOT Islamic extremism.

Did you really mean that?

I think the problem with global society is extremism of any creed. The point at which we are willing to say, "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" is the point at which we are no better than rabid animals.

"You sound like a petulant nine-year-old, you're pathetic mate, grow up."

I'm just fucking with you. Get over it, you whiner.

Yeah, sure you were, you were stamping your foot and sticking your bottom lip out like a big baby.

Okay Ziggy, now put some weight on that and tell me... did you just describe an Islamic fundamentalist belief, or an extremist belief? There's no difference between the two when it comes to righteousness, and wishing death to non-believers. In fact, that is a very Quranic thought in itself.

Did I do that in between pimp slapping you with the truth and exposing your stupidity? Because if so, that could merely have been primitive body language that indicates I've bloodied your lip.

Really, a little knowledge of anthropology would do you some good.

A little knowledge of anthropology? I know you talk out of your arse, that's for sure. :lol

Anthropology is the study of culture, which is why I referenced it in connection to primitive body language. Dumbass.

sure thing ABC,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p25s1-wosc.html

Feel free to explain to me how Prof. Kimball and his lackeys at the Christian Science Monitor are just a bunch of politically correct leftist Islamo-fascist sympathizers. Wiki has a page on it too, which led me to this funny little quote of Voltaire: "This religion," he wrote, "is called islamisme." Not only did his usage depart from Sale's, but so did his conclusion: "It was not by force of arms that islamisme established itself over more than half of our hemisphere. It was by enthusiasm and persuasion." The great nineteenth-century French dictionary by Littré quoted just this passage from Voltaire's Essai sur les mœurs when it defined islamisme as "the religion of Mahomet."
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Terms.htm

I wonder why he thought Islam spread through enthusiam, and not through violent conversion? Typical French revisionism perhaps?

In my opinion, those who attempt to create an equality between Islamic fundmentalism and Islamic extremism are taking a very specific and narrow view of Islamic scripture and ultimately serving the cause of the extremists, that is, violent conflict between Muslims and the Western world. We can both google the Qu'ran all day and throw non-contextual scriptures back and forth at each other justifying and condeming extremist practices. You could arguably do that with any body of religious text of sufficient size.

But I'm certainly not advocating kid glove treatment of violent extremists. If someone thinks it's OK to kill countless innocents to achieve their goals, they deserve whatever they get in this life and, if there is divine justice, the next.

Anyway, I'm just glad a decade ago when I was sitting at a table at Denny's, arguing like a typical rebellious high school geek with some Islamic friend of a freind of a friend (really, I have no idea how that even got started), that he wasn't the sort of fundamentalist you'd describe, as we were able to civilly agree to disagree at the end of our argument and no one left with a steak knife in their back.

Look, your description of extremism sound identical to words from the Koran about how an honorable Muslim should live. No reason to quote it, just as there's no reason for you to argue that a Fundamentalist (and you picked that term, not me) doesn't believe in these sections of the Koran. "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" sounds like basic Muslim teachings.

For one thing, when a Muslim is sitting with you at Denny's, he's not acting as a good Muslim in the eyes of Mohhamed, now is he? He wouldn't make it very far in the eyes of most Fundamentalist Islamic Mullahs.

Prof. Kimball and the Christian Science Monitor aren't suggesting there's much of a divide if they're claiming both want a Shari'a State. Now, Shari'a itself isn't a dangerous concept. They are just religious laws....but the stonings, and woman & non-Muslims as second class citizens ARE key Shari'as which stem from Koranic verses, and again, they follow the ideals that you describe as being on par with animals.

Now I don't know what we call people like Shake Pallazzi http://www.amislam.com/ or other traditionalists who come to the table with moderate views, for modernized interpretations of the Koran, and condemn Wahhabism. "Fundamentalist" seems wrong, and their movement, while growing isn't reaching many Muslims. Even your typical Denny's eating, nice guy living in America Muslim.

"They are just religious laws....but the stonings, and woman & non-Muslims as second class citizens ARE key Shari'as which stem from Koranic verses, and again, they follow the ideals that you describe as being on par with animals. "

The christian bible has the same laws. Good day sir.

100% true. I have written some blog entries pertinent to this topic and it should be discussed at length how the Muslim impact on Europe is notoriously bad.

Of course, the first thing you will be called is a racist and a bigot, but that is nothing new for me so let's continue to let the Left call people racists and bigots in the place of argumentation. The facts always speak for temselves, and the influence on the society is always clearcut and undeniable.

It is just a matter of time before we remove the stigmas that tey have emplaced.