“A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory.” – Arthur Miller, from Death of a Salesman
Writing of America’s relationship with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s Iran, Efraim Karsh recounts that, “So entrenched had the idea of this Iranian-American symbiosis become that successive US administrations came to view Iranian interests as indistinguishable from their own.” It would seem that Thomas Friedman is still infected with this illusion. In his recent New York Times article, Look Before Leaping, a title falsely implying he is not suggesting a “leap of faith,” Mr. Friedman propounds that, “America’s interest lie not with either the Saudis or the Iranian ideologues winning, but rather with balancing the two against each other until they get exhausted enough to stop prosecuting their ancient Shiite-Sunni, Persian-Arab feud.” I perceive the prediction “until they get exhausted” used in the same sentence as “their ancient Shiite-Sunni, Persian-Arab feud” to be utterly oxymoronic. For the same reason the State of Israel can promise political compromises to the so-called Palestinians “when they decide to recognize Israel as a Jewish state” simply because they can count on the fact that traditional Islamic hatred of all things Jewish will never allow the Arab Muslim to live in peace within or alongside a country of Jews. “Wisdom is also a defense.”
If this feud (more accurately defined as Shiites versus Sunnis) between the Saudis and the Iranians is by now ancient, I cannot foresee either side becoming exhausted in the near future. I see a pattern of Islamic intransigence here. GlobalSecurity.org reports that during the Iran-Iraq war, “…more than one and a half million war and war-related casualties — perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. Iran acknowledged that nearly 300,000 people died in the war…Iran’s losses may have included more than 1 million people killed or maimed.” Iran’s dictatorship is remembered by many, regarding that war, for its 1983 “human wave offensives” along the 40 kilometer stretch near Al Amarah where, in one day alone, 6000 Iranian soldiers were killed in action. I wonder how long Mr. Friedman believes it would take this regime, now so close to becoming nuclear-armed, and given its history of vending the lives of its soldiers and its citizens as mere holy fodder in time of war, to become “exhausted” with “prosecuting” that “ancient Shiite-Sunni, Persian-Arab feud”?
Friedman promises that, “Patching up the United States-Iran relationship could enable America to better manage and balance the Sunni Arab Taliban in Afghanistan and counterbalance the Sunni jihadists, like those in the Islamic State, or ISIS…” What “United States-Iran relationship” is Mr. Friedman referring to? Last time I looked, there was no “United States-Iran” relationship.” Scott Peterson of Christian Science Monitor remarked in 2010, regarding celebrations in Iran of the anniversary of the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran that, “Anti-US students chanted ‘death to America’ and predicted the fall of the ‘great Satan,’ the nation still officially most vilified by the Islamic Republic, during the annually staged event. Anti-Americanism has remained a pillar of the Islamic revolution…” John Limbert, a former American hostage during the takeover and described in Peterson’s article as the “State Department’s top official at that time on Iran, confessed that, ““Past efforts to move the relationship to something more productive…have foundered on misunderstandings, mistrust, and the assumption that anything the other side agrees to must be bad for us.”
In the last paragraph of his dreamy ideation, Mr. Friedman challenges his readers: “So before you make up your mind on the Iran deal, ask how it affects Israel, the country most threatened by Iran. But also ask how it fits into a wider United States strategy aimed at quelling tensions in the Middle East with the least involvement necessary…” Well, first of all, a lot of pundits on Middle Eastern politics, especially pro-Arab pundits, would posit that American involvement anywhere in the world where Muslims and Islamic statehood are concerned is cause for more harm than good. A lot of pundits of the pro-American side (of which I am one) would posit that American (or Canadian or British) involvement—in any measure—with peoples so inculcated with Islamic taught anti-American and anti-Western hatred inevitably becomes a waste of our time and the lives of our sons and daughters. What is the Christian proverb? “Don’t throw you pearls before the swine.” Or as Jesse Klein succinctly put it in the National Post recently, “At some point, we have to come to the realization that it’s not worth spilling our blood and wasting our treasure to intervene in a civil war in which both sides want to kill us.”
As for the State of Israel and the threat of Iran’s nuclear posturing, “how it affects Israel,” easy for Mr. Friedman, living, virtually, light years away from such a severe existence as that endured every day by Israeli Jews, to bet the lives of 6 million of them in selling the puerile fantasy to his readers that this Iranian regime will suddenly renounce a millennia-old hatred of the Jews and its imperial ambitions for a new-found love affair with America, the Great Satan. I’ll sooner have angels flying out of my ass.
Following Mr. Friedman’s career as a journalist in the last few years, after reading critiques of his work with much broader range than my own, I am constantly reminded of Nicholas Murray Butler’s famous quote, which reads, “An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less.” It seems Mr. Friedman is become more a salesman and less and less an expert on the Muslim Middle East. But then again, untruths and fantasy are today common fare for the Western journalist. They dream at the expense of the democratic freedoms of others, for the sake of our enemies, regardless of the consequences for our friends, in this case the State of Israel and the Jewish people. It’s Western journalism, and of late such insouciant and imprudent dreams go with the territory.
Marty says
The New York Times only recruits “journalists” who are dangerously delusional. The refusal to refer to islam as a death cult that emphasizes the destruction of Jews and anyone else who is non-muslim is foolish and dangerous. The koran and sharia law are clear on what sort of permanent misery awaits the world once a global caliphate is established.
mariam rove says
This guy is in lala land. m
Wellington says
Agreed, mr. But what I find extra troubling is that while one can expect that those who write for The New York Times will assert foolish things, those who really should know better have also asserted nonsense where Islam is concerned. As examples, the previous President who called Islam a religon of peace and tolerance and his two Secretaries of State, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Powell opined that a Muslim becoming POTUS should not concern any American and Rice replied, when asked about the Shiite/Sunni animosity in Iraq, “They’ll just have to get over that.” Ah, ignorance is not only always regrettable but often times expensive and dangerous as well, no?
On a personal matter, I hope your son is coping better with day-to-day life. He served America in Afghanistan and I wish him the best as I do you, mr. May you and your family be well.
mariam rove says
On a personal matter, I hope your son is coping better with day-to-day life. He served America in Afghanistan and I wish him the best as I do you, mr. May you and your family be well…
Thank you. He has good days and bad days. M
Spot On says
He is locked in to lala land. No way out for him. this is what the Times wants.
Fritz Kohlhaas says
Thomas Friedman, wake up and come back to the real world!
mortimer says
Friedman is not well-informed. Why are so many journalists writing about Islam without learning the first thing about political Islam?
Why do editors allow it?
Wellington says
Your question, mortimer, is a very timely and legitimate one. I would answer it by asserting that the chief reason (and there are indeed ancillary reasons aplenty) is due to the assumption, but a quite erroneous one, that all major religions are inherently good (and most especially those which have mostly third world peoples as adherents—–hence the charge of racism, among other charges, levelled against those who dare criticize Islam’s very clear totalitarian designs).
Oh yeah, the nonsense marches on. Instructive though, I would contend, how Islam profits from nonsense and is regressed by the absence of it. This in and of itself should serve to informed and thinking folk just how awful Islam truly is. Problem is that “informed and thinking folk” are becoming a rarer commodity these days, though I would maintain there is still enough of them to “turn the corner.” Call me a cautious optimist but I still believe that Islam is in its final “gasp,” though it will not go quietly into the night. No, not at all.
Will Doohan says
Mort, most of Tom Friedman’s ‘analyses’ are shallow and worthless. Why anyone considers this man’s opinions to be worthwhile baffles me.
RonaldB says
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
RonaldB, Thanks for this. But some people (like me) will not want to risk wasting time looking at a YouTube video unless they have an inkling of what it is going to be. You will probably get more viewers with a description like “Tom Friedman parody on Israeli TV”. (The photo shown on his Hebrew book cover is the same pouty-pensive one as at the top of this article!)
Kepha says
I’ll frankly admit that I’m one who believes that a repaired US-Iranian relationship would be a very positive step forward, and extremely helpful to quieting the Middle East. But I’m also of the mind that in this game, the USA needs to be realistic about Iranian attitudes. Further, the ball has been in the Iranian court for a long time now. While I think that the O’s maladministration is a disaster, I won’t fault him for extending his hand to Iran. Reagan (a real POTUS) tried the same, and also got bitten. One of the safest things we can possibly say is that the posture of continued enmity in the Iran-US relationship is all on the Iranian side at this point.
Also, Friedman, of all people, should recognize that Sunni=Arab and Shi’ite=Persian doesn’t hold water. Hassan and Hussein were as much part of an Arab Muslim ruling caste in the Iraq of the early Islamic centuries as anyone else; and Iran didn’t abandon Sunnism until the Safavids imposed ‘Ithna’ashariyya Shi’ism in the 16th century.
But maybe Friedman’s urging that the US side with neither the Sunnite nor the Shi’ite side, but try to balance and counterbalance the two against each other is an actual glimmer of sanity from the NYTimes. At this point, the US probably cannot play “honest broker” in solving the intramural Islamic crisis. I’ll read the book myself, if i can get it in the public library, and come to a more settled and less tentative assessment of Friedman’s point of view.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Michael Devolin,
Thank you for this essay, which unfortunately is marred by a few blemishes.
(1) You give no link to the Thomas Friedman article which you criticize, as if you want the reader to see only your cherry-picked excerpts. Please be confident enough to let your reader conveniently check the ur-text. The link is
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/thomas-friedman-look-before-leaping.html?_r=0
(2) You write, “[it is] easy for Mr. Friedman, living, virtually, light years away from such a severe existence as that endured every day by Israeli Jews, to bet the lives of 6 million of them in selling the puerile fantasy to his readers that this Iranian regime will suddenly renounce a millennia-old hatred of the Jews and its imperial ambitions for a new-found love affair with America, the Great Satan. I’ll sooner have angels flying out of my ass.”
Does the hatred of Jews really antedate Muhammad by more than 600 year (2 millennia – 1400 years)? Interesting. Who were these pre-Islamic Jew-haters?
Your argument is weakened by the straw-man exaggeration “suddenly” that you attribute to Friedman.
The anal angels image is memorable, but it’s been done before with monkeys.
(3) Your humorous use of “irregardless” in your penultimate sentence is a bit too subtle. Some readers might think you are using this word sincerely.
(4) The facial photo of Thomas Friedman with which you (or someone) illustrate your essay is even subtler. Is its source the NY Times? Some police departments do not know how to take the mugshot of a black man’s face, leaving it in identification-hampering shadows. Here, the photographer cannot even properly illuminate the face of a white man. Friedman’s eyes are in shadow (what color are they?), and his pouty lips make him look more sulky than pensive. It’s a nice comic touch.
Arthur Brede says
“Who were these pre-Islamic Jew-haters?” you ask. Try the ancient Romans, for a start, then read up a bit on pre-Islamic Persia, have a quick shufti at some of the slaves and downtrodden folks in the imperial frescoes. Idolater hatred of religion(s) with no visible, representable god(ess) was endemic to the region before the Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea took hold.
The weakness of the rest of your quibbles merely strengthens Devolin’s piece. If that’s all you could find, I suggest you save yourself wear and tear on the fingertips posting squeaky-ambagious rot.
Alan Fontana says
In the Roman eyes, early Christians were yet Jews. the Jews were resented by the Emperor for coming up with this weird sect which believed that its leader came back from the dead. The deity of this Yeshua fellow conflicted with the Roman Emperor’s deity, and many members of this sect were put to death for refusing to renounce this faith, including some highly valued Centurions .
The Roman Jew hatred does span more than 2000 years, predating Yeshua. Strictly written, the Islamic Jew hatred would span ‘1.4 millenia.” This spanning of two millenia, implies the movement of a hatred, passed down to younger generations, until it has become the present day phobia and mass psychosis, bereft of all rationality.
No political or diplomatic process is equipped to deal with this.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thank you, Alan Fontana, for your explanation of the Roman resentment of invisible-god sects. And thank you, Arthur Brede, for your vocabulary-expanding comments (ambagious = winding pathways, roundabout, indirect;
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shufti ).
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Hello, Arthur Brede. If you’re a connoisseur of quibbles, here’s another one for you: “A salesman is got to dream, boy.” What an odd wording for an American to use. An American would say “a salesman’s got to dream” or “a salesman has got to dream”, not “_is_ got to dream”. (Does “is got to dream” sound natural to an Englishman?) With unAmerican locutions like that, it’s no wonder that the House Committee on Un-American Activities was interested in the playwright who wrote that, Arthur Miller.
At first I thought “is got to dream” must be a misprint, but it’s not:
http://www.shmoop.com/death-of-a-salesman/dreams-hopes-plans-quotes-5.html
Silvia says
Friedman is an IDIOT, A damaging IDIOT like so many “liberals”. They don’t see, nor do they understand reality. They see their wishes and utopias and make policies accordingly. They also never admit to their mistakes. This retard was in ecstasy about th “Arab spring” – he never admitted his foolishness.
peter dalton says
I agree with all the observations in the article concerning the prevailing climate of ideological incomprehension and political appeasement in regard to Islam. This period of political history through which the west is travelling reminds me of a similar period in the 1930’s up to 1939. Churchill was described as an irresponsible warmonger for trying to warn Britain about Hitler’s real intentions but at least freedom of speech had not been curtailed by the egregious 1980 Public Order Act (how lucky is America to have the 1st Amendment). My father who lived through those times of foreboding evil described in great detail what it was like and the fact that ant-semitic sentiment was considered normal so few people saw anything unusual in Hitler’s attitude to the Jews.Then as now the bien pensants were happy to give Herr Hitler the benefit of the doubt and were happy to go on reducing defense expenditure. In fact the principle aircraft that were crucial to the defense were designed and constructed speculatively by far sighted philanthropic idustrialists without any promises of defense contracts to recover their expenditure. Frank Whittle lost patent protection for his pioneering jet engine for want of ten pounds to secure continuing patent protection thereby enabling German engineers to steal his invention. Defense spending is now falling again to catastrophic levels, anti-semitism has once more become respectable on the Left wing of politics. Islam is even viewed as some form of welfare state ideology by those same people who viewed National Socialism with similar insouciance. Plus ca change ……..
Will Doohan says
Fact check on your comment-
“Whittle’s engines were developed some years earlier than those of Germany’s Dr. Hans von Ohain who was the designer of the first operational jet engine.”
Whittle lost his patent due to being short 5 Pounds not 10.
“Having first met Hans von Ohain in 1966, Whittle again met him at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in 1978 while von Ohain was working there as the Aero Propulsion Laboratory’s Chief Scientist. Initially upset because he believed von Ohain’s engine had been developed after seeing Whittle’s patent, he eventually became convinced that von Ohain’s work was, in fact, independent. “The two became good friends and often toured the U.S. giving talks together.”
[quotes from the wikipedia article – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle#Continued_development ]
—————————————————————-
~~ Also, Defense spending is not at “catastrophic levels”. The U.S.a. spend huge amounts of money on ‘Defense’. Whether that money is being spent on the right things is, of course, a whole other argument.
Perhaps if the Neo-Cons had not exhausted our volunteer military with their hugely wasteful and Major Historical foriegn policy blunder of invading Iraq {Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, et.al. } during which they not only bungled the invasion by not allowing the Generals to use enough troops (Rumsfeld}, not allowing them enough troops for the occupation {Rumsfeld}, and completely mismanaged the reconstruction efforts {Paul Bremer} , our Military and Intelligence agencies could have caught bin-Laden sooner, more completely routed the Taliban from Afghanistan, and had more resources to prosecute the Global War on Terror.