Iran is the
hub of the Shiite world and represents the foundation, center, and caretaker
role of Greater Persian culture. Shiite Palestinians, Lebanese and many Azeris
look to Iran as a cultural and religious leader. On the eastern side, Hazara,
Tajiks and to some extent the Ismaili community are also naturally inclined to
Iran. The Iranians are very bitter that what should be their great regional
role has been taken from them, or at the very least reduced by numerous powers
throughout history and up to today. The French have at times shared a similar
bitterness with regard to their role in Europe, a shadow of what it once was,
and their former Empire.
One way for
Iran to assert this role and gain credibility and standing is to oppose Israel.
They can't do this overtly (in terms of a military attack) so they've played
power politics and used guerrilla proxies, often defined as terrorists in our
media narrative. Syria up until recently was a key player in the Iran scheme
often playing a middle-man role in both the Iranian conflict with Israel and
with regard to their own interests in the Kurdish fight against Turkey. Both
the Kurds and now the Iranians have a lost a key player with the
marginalization of Syria and the Turkish shift in attitude.
Iran will
strike back when attacked. If they can't hit Israel or America directly they'll
do so abroad. Some might recall the attacks in Argentina a few years ago...a
retaliatory gesture. Our media often presents Iranian actions as aggressive and
terroristic but often and certainly as of late, their moves are responses to
rather aggressive attacks they’ve been subjected to. Their responses send a
loud message….back off. If you hit us, we will hit back.
The idea
that they’re in the position of aggression, ready to strike out offensively
against the United States is to ignore both the past and present reality. The
United States has been in a low-grade war against them for more than a
generation. Iran knows an attack means annihilation. Their moves represent an aggressive
and ever more desperate defensive strategy.
I am still
waiting for more time to elapse and more facts to emerge before I am convinced
of the Iranian plot in Washington DC. At present I'm quite sceptical of it. If
it’s true then it shows a real desperation on the Iranian side. However, it
would not be the first time the Mossad, the CIA or the two working together
have engaged in such false flag operations.
This covert
and proxy war will continue. As the Americans and Israelis continue to attack
and kill Iranian scientists and diplomats, as they send computer viruses and
engage in sabotage...Iran will respond. They have to. They have ideological
reasons and their survival depends on it.
Do they want
a large conflict? Probably not. As I said it would end their regime. It's a bit
of a game of chicken. The United States can defeat Iran, there's no question.
But what will the fallout be? That's anyone's guess. It depends on the level of
restraint to be found in the various players. Will we have leaders like
Khrushchev and Kennedy who remained level headed and refused to listen to their
generals and in human terms, effectively saved the world? Or will we have Rick
Santorum at the helm? Thankfully not. At least, I hope not.
But again
don't underestimate his voice. He's stirring the pot and tying the hands of the
Obama administration. They don't want to give fodder to the Republican
candidates. I hope Obama is willing to go down as a one administration
president instead of taking the nation to war...but if he loses that means
Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum will be in power and that's not very heartening
when it comes to the issue of Iran.
I hope
things de-escalate and calm down. Leave Iran alone. Eventually they will have
their own revolution and the new regime will be more likely to engage the
United States... as long as they don't feel under threat!
Shiite Islam
and Iranian inclinations are generally more tolerant of sects. The regime which
came to power in 1979 represented a radical shift. I believe the present
persecution of Christians in Iran is a direct result of Western threat and
meddling...which sorry to say to a Sacralist mind...the West, the
Anglo-Americans are perceived as 'Christian'...and thus converts are a threat
to the state, a potential fifth column.
Summing
up....What's the Christian perspective?
One we need
to understand that other countries and peoples have interests too. The United
States does not possess a divine mandate. The rulers of Iran are a wicked and
lost group of men. They persecute Christians though again I argue much of the
persecution in the Middle East is due to what I call the Shapur Effect.
This does
not mean the Church needs another Beast to come fight its battles for it. We
also need to understand that intervention from an Empire which is perceived
(right or wrong) as Christian does not help either the cause of the Church
(which should be first in priority to us) or the security of the United States
(the Babylon in which we live).
I'm sorry to
say, but American Imperialism will just make it more dangerous for Americans to
travel and for expatriates to live in other countries. American military
operations and the Imperial worldwide footprint are not making us safe or
free...it's actually making us less free and less safe, but abroad and
especially at home.
We need to
understand Empires manipulate and use the tools available to them. They want a
cloak of legitimacy. They prefer to maneuver weaker countries into conflict
with international institutions and diplomatic arrangements. This can make the
aggressor which in this case is the United States (since 1979) appear to be
pacifistic and to hold moral superiority. For those who don't think the United
States is aggressive, just consider that America has conquered the nations on
both sides of Iran and diplomatically declared war on them long ago. This does
not mean Iran is innocent or good. That's not really the point.
Iran
ultimately will fall apart on its own. But it must be understood the initial
replacement will probably not wish to embrace the United States or Israel with
open arms. However, that said, if the situation is dealt with wisely and
restraint is used Iran perhaps more than any other country in the Middle East
is likely to forge cultural ties and harmony with the United States and Israel.
Persians are a vibrant intellectual and wildly artistic people. They love
beauty and innovation and they are not naturally inclined to the religious
conservatism that has been forced on them for the past thirty years.
As
Christians we can look at this whole situation, in fact we need to look at it
from a non-American bias and perspective. It's the only way to wade through it.
I don't see good vs. evil here....I see two evil scheming regimes, both playing
larger games, and one in a situation where its survival is at stake. Both
regimes care very little for the loss of life or suffering.
That said,
the response and agenda coming out of the American Christian community perhaps
most aptly represented by someone like Rick Santorum is completely contrary to
the Kingdom and Pilgrim ethics taught in Scripture. It is rooted in heresy and
represents the goals and aspirations, the power lust exhibited by the false
church wedding itself to state power.
I have been
frankly horrified and filled with revulsion listening to Gingrich and Santorum
especially in the recent debates. The satanic arrogance these men exhibit
talking about regime change and militarism more than once left me almost
gasping.
This has to
matter to us because I keep running into Christians who like Santorum and what
he's saying, who are afraid of Iran...and yet don't seem to understand what's
happening or why?
Many have
embraced a theology which won't allow them to understand it. This is true both
in conservative Reformed circles and definitely true in larger Evangelical
circles where Kuyperianism has made inroads and when wedded to a Dispensational
understanding of the Middle East...there's no talking to them. The brick wall
is almost impenetrable.
What should
we want? Actually something along the lines of a Realpolitik when it comes to
resolving these issues. I’m not talking about Kissinger’s Imperial Realpolitik,
but the notion of non-ideological, pragmatic, take the world as it is
diplomacy.
That's what
allowed Begin and Sadat to sit down at the table. It wasn't about ideology,
good vs. evil, it was simply issues of security and interests. They weren't
trying to convert each other to the rightness of their cause. They sat down in
a state of mutual respect and worked it out.
Contemporary
Christian thought is adamantly opposed to this approach. They want to
understand modern geo-politics as an ideological battle and when cast that way
you can't sit down and solve things. Your opponent is evil, no compromise is
possible. The theological error is assuming that one side (always ours) is
somehow good and pure.
These are
the same folks who were upset with Nixon for going to China. Mao was dripping
with the blood of the Cultural Revolution. Nixon was responding to the
Sino-Soviet split and striking a diplomatic blow at the Soviet Union. He knew
that millions had died because of Mao's policies. He looked at it practically.
The United States wasn't going to invade China in the 1960's to stop it. That’s
the reality. Perhaps his actions in the 1970's, going to China… could improve
the world situation? That's what he hoped for.
I'm not
praising Nixon and to be fair I don't think his going to China meant he was
indifferent to the suffering of those people. That's the wrong way of looking
at the issue. I don't think he personally cared in the least, but continued
antagonism to China wasn't going to bring them back, nor stop future domestic
Chinese conflicts.
Mao's death
in 1976 led to the power struggle and the eventual rise of Deng Xiaoping in
1978. He's the real father of modern China, a rejection of Maoist ideology. The
pictures of Mao are about the narrative, the modern Chinese myth, not reality.
But would Deng have been so open to the Capitalist shift in the 1980's and trade
with the United States if Nixon hadn't gone to China in 1972? Who can say?
Viewing the
West or Christendom as 'good' and the rest of the world as evil is a mistake
and not Biblical. The world is broken and this will not change anytime soon. In
the meantime leaders who are more pragmatic in their approach to geo-politics
and diplomacy, less given over to ideological extremes are probably better for
the peace of the world. They're not going to be fiery Christians. For me this
is not a problem in the least. They're just leaders of Babylon trying to get
along with Assyria, Persia, or some other empire.
We should
pray for the situation in Iran. I sure don't want to see thousands killed and
another war in the Middle East. But I think we need to pray with greater
earnest for the Church in the United States and the ideology and doctrine it
spreads to Christian communities around the world.
Iran may be
gone tomorrow. The United States may someday drop from the pages of history.
But the Church will still be here. I hope the faithful Remnant isn't reduced to
a miniscule number resisting the bloodlust and power of a false Church which
would be a return to the Middle Ages... or that backlash against the false
church leads to several generations of suffering on the part of Christians.
In the end
God knows best.