Make A Deal

“Make a Deal”: an assessment of Ian Bremmer’s analysis of the Iran nuclear deal published in TIME magazine, Vol. 185, June 15, 2015.

Ian Bremmer argues that the fear that Iran will use approved nuclear programs for extremist military jihad is unfounded. The points of his argument are:

1. Most of the extremists are Sunni Muslims so they are not likely to seek weapons from Shi’ite Iran
2. Added revenue from Iranian nuclear programs will help Iran combat ISIS
3. The really dangerous weapons are cyber viruses, not physical WMD’s, since they affect the whole interconnected world, not merely one part of the world’s geography
4. Even if Iran builds a nuclear weapon, it is not likely to use it
5. Nuclear programs in Iran can’t be prevented forever so we might as well allow them to develop

You might find some of these reasons little more than Wizard of Oz wish fulfillment, but Bremmer and the liberal contingent he represents are quite serious. What is not clear from these political reasons are the two underlying, but faulty, presuppositions. These must be examined in order to understand why Bremmer would propose such a potentially disastrous decision.

First, Bremmer assumes that the political and military leaders of Iran (and the Muslim Middle-East) are rational in the same sense that the West understands rational. The West assumes that rational men will act according to their best interests. That is, a rational man will calculate the cost/benefit ratio of his decisions and not do what will actually bring him harm or destroy what he holds valuable. When it comes to nuclear power, the West assumes that no rational man will deliberately cause nuclear war because the outcome is disastrous to both the perpetrator and the victim. A nuclear military strike is the last resort option since it casts aside all expectations of resource acquisition or human subjugation. If I kill everyone and render the geography uninhabitable, I lose in spite of my victory because I gain nothing. The cost/benefit ratio rules out such behavior. Only a madman would destroy everything he hopes to gain in order to claim victory.

The problem, of course, is that the Muslim world does not share this concept of rationality. The Muslim world does not operate on the basis of cost/benefit ratios. It operates on the basis of the will of Allah. Rationality has nothing to do with the completion of His will. In fact, it is morally permissible to use feints of rationality in order to disarm my enemy so that I might overcome him. The radical difference between the Muslim world and the West is simply this: The Muslim world obeys the words of Allah. The West follows the words of Plato. If Allah calls for total victory, even at the cost of self-annihilation, then so be it. Reward will come in the next life, so what happens in this life has no eternal significance. Martyrdom is preferred to compromise.

When it comes to negotiating with Iran, the man sitting across the table is not like you. His moral compass is not a function of economics. It is a function of the words of God. Period. Rational behavior in his paradigm is simply doing whatever Allah requires no matter what the consequences.

Second, Bremmer’s analysis is entirely paradigm-dependent. Bremmer believes all men are basically willing to compromise for the general good, as long as their self-interests are served in the process. All of the evidence that suggests Iran would use nuclear capability militarily is summarily dismissed because Bremmer believes such an act is self-defeating and men do not do self-defeating things. Believing men are really motivated by personal enhancement rather than religious zeal, Bremmer ignores the history of Muslim use of chemical and biological weapons against other people and the constant diatribes against Israel with continuous threats of Israel’s extinction. Israel actually believes what Muslim jihadists say. Bremmer does not. He simply cannot comprehend a world where men act against their own self-interest in order to complete a “mission from God.” Bremmer’s god is self-interest. Men who don’t act on that basis are “madmen” and Bremmer assumes world can control them.

Bremmer states, “Even if Iran one day builds a nuclear weapon, it’s unlikely to use it, for the same reason that Washington and Moscow avoided the use of nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. Despite sometimes over-the-top rhetoric from Iran’s leaders, there’s no reason to believe they’re suicidal.” But this statement requires us to not believe what these leaders actually say. In other words, Muslim leadership has already demonstrated its commitment to weapons of mass destruction and it repeated says it will use whatever force necessary to eliminate Israel. Why should we assume that these men are lying? The point is that Iran is not like Washington and Moscow. Those two superpowers are not driven by religious zeal. They are driven by economic gain. But Iran is a religious state. And, yes, in a religious state, suicide is heroic, righteous and rewarded.

Bremmer’s logic is seriously flawed because he fails to recognize that men driven by religious zeal are willing to play the final end game. He doesn’t recognize Islam’s commitment to the end of this world. He fails to account for the Muslim intention of bringing chaos and destruction to this world so that the next world will be ushered in. He simply does not understand Islam. He thinks that religiously motivated Muslims are like the Muslim sitting in the next cubicle in his office, Westernized, economically pacified, rational. He is dead wrong. And all the rest of us will also be dead if we don’t pay attention to what it means to be a zealot.

Finally, Bremmer needs to read Lee Harris’ Civilization and its Enemies. Written after 9-11, Harris correctly notes that before the Muslim jihadists flew commercial airplanes into the buildings, killing thousands of non-military civilians, no one would have thought that such an act of wanton disregard for the Western separation of combat and non-combat persons could be possible. Since the atom bomb exploded over Nagasaki, the Western mind has been tortured with the ethical implications of massive civilian deaths. But Harris also notes that in war, especially in war motivated by religious zeal, ruthlessness wins. His assessment of the Twin Towers destruction is not that the attack was a part of a strategic plan of terrorism but rather that it was a statement for the Muslim world that the great superpower could be humiliated, could be harmed, could be made equal by those far less powerful. 9-11 was a declaration to Islam that the world would be dominated no matter what it takes. This is zeal unaffected by Western reason, and precisely for that reason, it must be feared and eliminated.