The Discerning Texan

Bernard Lewis is among the preeminent scholars of Islamic history in the Western World—if not the preeminent authority. His seminal work "Islam and the West" has become perhaps the most widely-read study of Islamic thought and history in the English language. So—despite the fact that I and others have started to pay attention to the threat of an Apocalyptic August—it gives me no great pleasure to point today to Mr. Lewis’ essay in this morning’s Wall Street Journal, titled simply—and ominously—“August 22”.

Over the past several days a number of sources have indicated that the Iranians might attempt one or more attacks on Isreal and/or the West on a “grand scale’ as an almost nihilistic attempt to usher in the “Return of the 12th Imam” (this would be analogous to the Christian concept of the “Rapture”).

The problem is—as has been pointed out in the last several days and weeks by myself, Frau Budgie, Debbie Hamilton, Robert Spencer, Barbara Lerner, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, plus David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine, and one of Horowitz’s fellow ‘60’s ex-radicals who presides over the blog called Amber—among many others. Amber, for example, quotes the publication Geostrategy-Direct as saying (emphases Amber’s):

The U.S. intelligence community has not been surprised by Iran’s refusal to respond to a Western incentive package to suspend its uranium enrichment.

Intelligence sources said Iran, following North Korea’s model, intends to delay any response or negotiations for as long as possible.

The European Union and the United States demanded that Iran reply to the Western incentive package of nuclear technology, fuel and aircraft by June 29. But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Teheran would submit an answer by Aug. 22.

The U.S. intelligence community has been trying to figure out why Ahmadinejad chose that date. Sources said the community was stumped until some Islam experts translated the Gregorian date to that of the Muslim calendar. […] Ahmadinejad could be hinting to the West that he is preparing a major attack on Israel. Or, the Iranian president could be warning that unless the West caves in, he would escalate tension in the region. The lightening in Mohammed’s story could represent Iranian missiles.

What is clear is that Ahmadinejad does not see himself as an Iranian leader, but as a Muslim prophet, using imagery to portray himself as a messiah for both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.

Neither the Bush administration nor its many critics appear to appreciate the significance, ideological and practical, of the letter. Nor do they appear to appreciate the remarkable boldness of Ahmadinejad personally. For the formal characteristics of the letter as well as its substance have ancient and modern analogs–letters of Muhammad to the Byzantine, Persian, and Ethiopian emperors of his day warning them to accept Islam and his rule or suffer the consequences, and a letter from Khomeini to Mikhail Gorbachev along similar lines. Thus, Ahmadinejad presents himself as the true heir of Muhammad and Khomeini and may even be suggesting that he is a founder himself. At the least, he presents himself as the spokesman and leader of Islam and the Muslim world in its entirety, transcending the Shiite/Sunni divide. Both this boldness and this claim are consistent with the whole series of pronouncements and actions Ahmadinejad has taken in the brief period since he was elected last summer. But the letter, in its form and substance, raises this to a new and much higher level of clarity and power as well as menace.

I also quoted Fradkin’s article as a premonition to the mindset of Ahmadinejad’s “Dr. Strangelove” mentality.

But when an esteemed scholar like Lewis takes notice of both the date August 22, as he did today, and marries it with his scholarly knowledge of Islamic history, the result is quite disturbing. Here are just a few troubling snippets of Lewis’ essay (go and read it all here).

Lewis begins by discussing the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, which prevented enemies like the Soviet Union and the United States from taking the ultimate step (an example of this “restraint” when facing Armeggedon was the Missile Crisis in October, 1962). But then Lewis goes on to explain why a nuclear Iran could be a very different animal indeed when it comes to MAD:

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Lewis then enlightens us as to the radical fundamentalist Islamic vision—which appears to be epidemic in the Iranian mullahcracy: