1 Boring Old Man

Iran and the Problem of Evil
Michael Ledeen

Ever since World War II, we have been driven by a passionate desire to understand how mass genocide, terror states and global war came about – and how we can prevent them in the future…

Most eventually accepted a twofold "explanation": the uniqueness of the evil, and the lack of historical precedent for it. Italy and Germany were two of the most civilized and cultured nations in the world. It was difficult to appreciate that a great evil had become paramount in the countries that had produced Kant, Beethoven, Dante and Rossini.

How could Western leaders, let alone the victims, be blamed for failing to see something that was almost totally new – systematic mass murder on a vast scale, and a threat to civilization itself? Never before had there been such an organized campaign to destroy an entire "race," and it was therefore almost impossible to see it coming, or even to recognize it as it got under way…

… they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes – from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives…

No doubt there are many reasons. One is the deep-seated belief that all people are basically the same, and all are basically good. Most human history, above all the history of the last century, points in the opposite direction. But it is unpleasant to accept the fact that many people are evil, and entire cultures, even the finest, can fall prey to evil leaders and march in lockstep to their commands. Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we prefer to pursue the path of reasonableness, even with enemies whose thoroughly unreasonable fanaticism is manifest….

Finally, there is the nature of our political system. None of the democracies adequately prepared for war before it was unleashed on them in the 1940s. None was prepared for the terror assault of the 21st century. The nature of Western politics makes it very difficult for national leaders – even those rare men and women who see what is happening and want to act – to take timely, prudent measures before war is upon them. Leaders like Winston Churchill are relegated to the opposition until the battle is unavoidable. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to fight desperately to win Congressional approval for a national military draft a few months before Pearl Harbor.

Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. Even today, when we are engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little apparent recognition that we are under attack by a familiar sort of enemy, and great reluctance to act accordingly. This time, ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. If we are defeated, it will be because of failure of will, not lack of understanding. As, indeed, was almost the case with our near-defeat in the 1940s.

The paranoid dynamic is not limited to the desparately mentally ill – rather it is spread throughout to spectrum of personality types and psychiatric diagnoses. William Meissner, a Jesuit Priest Psychoanalyst offers the clearest description in several [very thick] volumes of the paranoid mental processes. Laying aside the reasons for the moment, the paranoid person is someone who cannot tolerate emotional ambiguity. In the confusing situations that arise regularly in interpersonal life, the paranoid mental process pulls towards simplification. And simplification invariably leads to dichomomous thinking – what Chud.com is calling binary thinking. The world is simplified into good versus bad, or right versus wrong, or black versus white. What one gains by doing that is supremacy of the mind – the world makes sense. What one loses, of course, is that the logical extrapolation of such conclusions is monotonous. The only solution is some version of Hitler’s final solution – removal. It might be as simple as running, or moving to a different neighborhood, or a gated community, or a new town. It may mean deportation. It might mean murder. Meissner describes paranoia as regressing to a kind of thought that has two dichotomous poles: Superior and Inferior, Victim and Persecutor. "I am superior and being victimized. They are inferior and persecuting me." For Ledeen, the Iranians are EVIL – therefore inferior and persecuting us. He sounds strangely like the mullahs. They are SATAN and persectuting us. The difference is the mullahs are more vocal with the solution according to Ledeen, "Kill the Infidels!" However, any reading of Ledeen on this topic implies, "Kill the Iranians" whether he says it or not. Both think they are reacting to the EVIL other. Both become EVIL in the process.

One might think that a paranoid person could solve things by escaping to some safe haven – getting away. But that’s not the case. In fact, paranoid people are drawn toward situations where the paranoia is activated. They don’t turn off their television sets. They are glued to the news. Why do we watch westerns, action movies, science fiction, thrillers, horror movies, "bad-person" t.v., read murder mysteries, etc. All of these genre contain characters that aren’t exactly like real people – they’re either good guys or bad guys. In some, the point is GOOD triumphing over EVIL. In others, there’s the added complication of the EVIL being concealed, and figuring out where it is hidden. But we’re drawn to them. "Let’s relax by watching a serial killer movie."

Paranoid thinking takes us away from the confusing, emotionally ambiguous currents of real life. In a paranoid scenario, one knows what to do, how to act. Arguing with paranoia is something of a waste of one’s energy. Winning will be short lived in the few cases where one makes a dent. An example. A patient had become intensely paranoid one night while hospitalized, thinking the staff was plotting her demise. With a lot of effort, I was able to convince her that these thoughts were paranoid and that she was safe, after all. When we spoke the next morning, rather than feeling relieved, she seemed agitated, saying, "My mind is all I have. If it’s wrong, I’m lost." It didn’t take her long to retreat to her familiar paranoid world.

One more point about paranoia. Paranoid people, while mistrustful of most, tend to get involved with the most descpicable of characters. There’s a reason for that. They have little interpersonal intuition. So instead, they look to the other for constant reassurance. Who will respond to such a request? Normal people recoil from being mistrusted. Crooks [sociopaths] are used to being mistrusted, and are more than glad to tell you anything you want to hear. So who do we hear about people like Cheney and Ledeen getting involved with? Amhad Chalabi, Rocco Martino, Nicola Pollari, Manucher Ghorbanifer, Curveball, etc. – a crew of crooks and liars.