"What is Iran? Iran is nothing but some mountains and some plains, some earth and some water. A true Muslim cannot love a country--any country. For his love is reserved only for his Creator. We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
This, apparently, is a quote that Norman Podhoretz attributes to the Ayatollah Khomeini, for which his source is a 1989 work by Amir Taheri entitled Nest of Spies. The interest of Podhoretz pere in this quotation is, alas, obvious: he intends it as a piece of evidence for his contention that the Islamic Republic founded by Khomeini exists in a geopolitical realm beyond realpolitik and national interests, that it embodies implacable and relentless evil, such that war with it, for which he prays - on his own admission - is more or less mandatory upon
The trouble, however, is that the quote appears to be utterly bogus. Taheri claims that the quote is found in a book published under the name of Khomeini (the title of which I've not be able to track down), except that library queries here and abroad return no books by that title. Neither do book dealers in Iran know anything of it. Searches of Khomeini's speeches, utterances, and fatwas likewise reveal nothing akin to the quotation.
Podhoretz does have another quotation in this vein, attributed to former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the wealthiest, most worldly men of the regime, which suggests that such inflammatory rhetoric is for public consumption, and not a statement of geopolitical first principles. Like Andrew Sullivan, from whose blog I learned of this little datum, however, I am not convinced that accurate attributions and rigorous prudential reasoning are of paramount importance to those calling for a new theatre in their Fourth World War.
Comments (12)
"I am not convinced that accurate attributions and rigorous prudential reasoning are of paramount importance to those calling for a new theatre in their Fourth World War."
Amen. Global social engineering is hostile to reality and the "scandal of the particular".
A Permanent Revolution must be waged with foot soldiers supplied by families outside their intellectual and social circles.
How is such an odious program allowed to call itself conservative, "neo" or otherwise?
Posted by Kevin | November 16, 2007 12:01 PM
Is it not ironic that the view of Iran as mere mud, falsely ascribed to Khomeini, and which supposedly removes the Iranian ruling class from the realm of normal strategic calculation, is so similar to what neoconservatives actually say about America?
Posted by Cyrus | November 16, 2007 1:16 PM
Cyrus,
The Islamic worldview, like that of the neo-cons is not very nuanced, nor respectful of the traditional boundaries that exist between peoples and nations.
Islamic thought never developed an appreciation for the Western concept of the nation-state. The neo-con only pays grudging theoretical respect to it. One side sees our shared earthly destiny as residing within the House of Islam. The other, that all nations live under the canopy of democracy and capitalism.
The morally sane and intellectualy sober must prevent each side from reaching their end-game.
Posted by Kevin | November 16, 2007 5:50 PM
...the quote appears to be utterly bogus.
...
Podhoretz does have another quotation in this vein, attributed to former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the wealthiest, most worldly men of the regime, which suggests that such inflammatory rhetoric is for public consumption, and not a statement of geopolitical first principles.
...
I am not convinced that accurate attributions and rigorous prudential reasoning are of paramount importance to those calling for a new theatre in their Fourth World War.
Neo-conmen may not be accurate or rigorous -- and they are not --- but Iran may still develop a nuke and pass it to Jihadis or explode it somewhere. Those two factors are totally independent from each other.
Of course your reading of top Mullah mind can be taken to the bank.
That one of the wealthiest and most worldly men of the regime says that what Hitler did was to remove cancer of Jews and Zionism from Europe (www.memritv.org/clip/en/1575.htm) and that Jews were pain in the neck for the goverments there.
But I will take your word that that wordly man did not mean it at all. In fact, like Andropov before him, he likes French cognac and American jazz. I trust you, he does.
Posted by mik_infidelos | November 16, 2007 7:58 PM
I believe that the neoconservatives are engaging in subconscious projection. Projection, though, is a sign that one ought to seek professional, therapeutic assistance, as it consists of a conflation of one's own mental constructs, illusions, and fantasies with existent objects, persons, and entities. There is a positive aspect to the condition, though, and that is that the neoconservatives may have a subconscious awareness that ideological reductions of nations to patches of mere mud are, well, pathological, and that people suffering from the pathology may engage in unspeakable behaviours.
Posted by Maximos | November 16, 2007 9:36 PM
Or was that transference? Whatever.
Posted by Maximos | November 16, 2007 9:37 PM
This time I have to feel that Mik is saying something that makes a certain amount of sense. I really believe it's important to be careful not to react to "neocon saber-rattling" in such a way as to insist that Iran is no threat. To me the jury is still out on that one, and leaning towards "Yes, a threat."
Posted by Lydia | November 16, 2007 10:51 PM
Well, I've said my piece on Iranian ambitions and the viability of deterrence. For the present, suffice it to state that the real threat, concerning which we have little power, is Pakistan, and the possibility that those factions within the ISI and military loyal to the Taliban might gain control of nuclear technologies.
Posted by Maximos | November 16, 2007 11:14 PM
I have to feel that Mik is saying something that makes a certain amount of sense.
You don't have to feel anything, but it is making most perfect and excellent sense.
Posted by mik_infidelos | November 17, 2007 2:21 PM
I've said my piece on Iranian ambitions and the viability of deterrence.
I still wonder what is the point of this posting. So many words and so unclear.
To say that brave keyboard warriors-neoconmen would lie and make things up on occasion?
It is a well established fact, why beat a dead horse?
Posted by mik_infidelos | November 18, 2007 3:15 PM
You should follow-up this post acknowledging Norman's response:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/podhoretz/1340#more-1340
Posted by Jeff Singer | November 23, 2007 9:18 AM
Posted by Mark | February 20, 2011 2:44 AM