Tolstoy, Bonaparte, and Islamic Iran

Leo Tolstoy's classic novel "War and Peace" begins at a social gathering in Russia in 1805 where the topic of discussion is the nature of Napoleon Bonaparte. "Chere Annette" speaks of Napoleon as the "Anti-Christ" scouraging Europe. The Russian Emperor Alexander, she argues, must save Russia from the "hydra of revolution," Bonaparte.

Also at the party are Prince Andrey and the illegitimate son of Count Buzohov, Pierre. Both Pierre and Andrey disagree with Annette's characterization of Bonaparte and regard him as a hero. As the story moves forward, however, and the war moves on, both Andrey and Buzohov come to regard Napoleon as the Anti-Christ. At one point, during Napoleon's invasion of Russia, Pierre contemplates assassinating Napoleon, only to end up a prisoner of the French.

Throughout the novel, Tolstoy returns again and again to the central theme of Napoleon as Anti-Christ. Tolstoy' use of this theme reflects the propaganda of the time which sought to rally opposition against Bonaparte and the French by portraying him as an Anti-Christ. Why is this important? Because, the same type of propaganda was used during World War II against Hitler and the Germans and thus constitutes a parallel. This can be seen in the use of the Prophecies of Nostradamus, which supposedly predicted the rise of a German Anti-Christ. Nevertheless, there were many (both elites and peasants) who bought into this view of Bonaparte, something Tolstoy reveals in his novel. Some of these people were members of the elite who feared the so-called 'hydra of revolution' which threatened the exiting world order, and thus their positions of privelege.

Today, in America and elsewhere we see a similar phenomena. Today, the 'hydra' is Islamic fundamentalism as exemplified by the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran and its leader Ahmadinejad. Islamic fundamentalism is the force which threatenes to topple the old order governments of the Middle East. Among Christian apocolyptics, theories about the Anti-Christ abound and Ahmadinejad, after his Holocaust comments, is sure to become a target of these theories. Likewise, the administation has not hesitated to jump on the apocolyptic band wagon by labeling their enemies as "evil-doers." Whether this is serious or just propaganda remains to be seen, but in the end it constitutes a parallel.

What appears to be in the works is a hegemonic conflict between the two religious revolutions of our times, Apocolyptic Christianity versus Fundamentalist Islam.

Hegemony and Anti-Hegemony

One cannot discuss current events in the Middle East without the topic of "hegemony" entering the picture. While there is some diagreement among scholars as to which wars are actual hegemonic wars, parallelism postulates that there are at least four wars which fit the label "hegemonic war." These are World War II, the Napoleonic Wars, the Mongolian Wars, and Alexander the Great's War against Persia.

In each of these wars, a hegemon and an anti-hegemonic challenger can be determined. In Alexander's War, Persia was the hegemon and Macedonia was the challenger. In Genghis Khan's War, Khwarizm Persia was the hegemon and Mongolia was the challenger. In the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain was the hegemon and France was the challenger. In World War II, Britain was the hegemon and Germany was the challenger. Why is this important? It is simple, because change in the world order is determined by who wins the hegemonic war. Parallelism postulates that hegemonic war has increasingly become a struggle between paternalism and fraternalism.

To understand this phenomena, lets take a closer look. In the cases of Alexander and Genghis, both hegemon and challenger were paternalistic so no matter who won the war, paternalism reigned supreme. But in the two later cases, the hegemon was partially or wholly fraternal and the challengers were paternalistic. Thus the winning side determined which force was stronger in the international system. When Britain triumphed in the Napoleonic Wars and in World War II, it meant a boost for fraternalism, and thus frateralism became the dominant force in the international system.

Today the battle for hegemony persists. Those advocating paternalism dream of a return to the good old days of a paternalistic world order, whereas those of a fraternal orientation continue to resist the revival of the old paternal/dictatorial ideal. Today, fraternalism is dominant, but it is assailed from without and within. We have seen this in nations like Iran which seemed to be on the verge of fraternal democracy only to turn in an instance towards right-wing paternalism. Today, fraternalism rules but for how long?

Jon Stewart, Ahmadinejad, Hitler, and Genghis

Recenty on the Daily Show, comedian Jon Stewart noted the proliferation of Hitler analogies. The point of the bit seemed to me (a fan) was that everyone (from left, center, and believe it or not the right) were comparing their enemies to Hitler. I understood his point, that is the absurdity of labeling all of the people one doesn't like as the arch-boogey man, Hitler. In the past, it seems that the world was simpler, Hitler was the boogey-man of the left, Stalin was the boogey-man of the right, and to centrists they were twin evils. But when it comes to the War on Terrorism, these lines have been blurred. We have rightists attacking right-wing fundamentalists as Islamic Fascists and democratic leftists defending Hitler worshipers.

The reality is that we need to get real when it comes to these poor excuses for debate. "Fascists" are authoritarian/paternalistic rightists and "Communists" are authoritarian/paternalistic leftists. Centrists, on the other hand, are usually democrats. Well, what does this have to do with Ahmadinejad, Hitler , or Genghis Khan. It is simple, all three are radical rightists who despise compromise, and debate, and thus democracy. On the other hand, Stalin was an authoritarian leftist who hated democracy. So lets at least get our analogies right.

Recently Iranian President Ahmadinejad has shown his true colors by making comments sympathetic to Hitler and other well known right-wing authoritarian types, so to label him an Islamic fascist is not so far fetched. And the democratic left needs to accept this fact. But what is really going on here?

What alot people do not understand about figures like Ahmadinejad, Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great is that they are/were not hegemonic world leaders, but rather anti-hegemonic leaders opposed to the existing world order. The hegemonic leaders they opposed are/were in order: Bush, Churchill, Pitt, Shah Muhammad, and Darius. Bush, Churchill, and maybe Pitt led democracies, but Shah Muhammad and Darius were dictators.

Where am I going with all this you might wonder? Well, its simple; some people always identify with the underdog, and some always identify with the overlord. French pychoanalyst Jacques Lacan has referred to this phenomona as that of "Master/Slave." Unfortunately, reality is much more complicated than this simple dichotomy. The reality is that world politics is the world of the lesser of two evils, and politicians will be politicians, and it is not always clear who is in the right.

Parallelism postulates that the current conflict in the Mid-East and in the world is a conflict between paternalism and fraternalism, and that the battle for world hegemony will determine which force (paternalism or fraternalism) is more powerful. For more information consult "Parallelism a handbook of social analysis" (2002).

Ahmadinejad, Israel and Prussia

Recently, Iranian President Ahmadinejad lauched a series of verbal attacks on the state of Israel, even going so far as to declare the Holocaust to be a "Myth." He suggested that a Jewish state should be established in Europe, the US, or Canada. While these kinds of statements are reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis, and thus may be classifed as a parallel, there is another dynamic at work here as well.

Much of Ahmadinejad's anger towards Israel has to do with the fact that Israel has become the Middle East's most powerful military state. As a result, Israel is one of Iran's main obstacles to the establishment of regional hegemony. The situation was similar in Europe around 1799. French leaders sought to make France the predominate military and political power on the continent. In this regard, Prussia was France's main military rival in northern and central Europe. Prussia had emerged as a major military power after the Seven Years War; a war in which it had defeated the combined powers of France, Austria, and Russia by aligning itself with Europe's hegemon, Britain. During the early French revolutionary wars, Prussia, with the support of Britain, had even invaded France. The French revolutionaries responded by fomenting rebellion among the Poles in Prussia.

Today Israel, having won its versions of the Seven Years War, the Wars of '56, '67, and '73 (with the help of the would-be hegemon, the US), is in a similar position. Its main military rival in the region is Iran. Iran has taken a hard stance against Israel, and has sought to foment rebellion in the West Bank and Gaza, much like France fomented rebellion amongst the Poles.

In the cases of France and Prussia, the battle for dominance ultimately led to war in 1806...a war incidentally that Prussia lost to Napoleonic France.

Pan Arabism, Khomeinism, and Mecca

A number of scholars have argued that one of the causes for the 1980 Iran-Iraq War was the rivalry between the pan-Arabism and Khomeinist Fundamentalism. While this was certainly a factor, other causes are present as well.

Parallelism suggests that one of the main reasons for the Iraqi invasion of Iran was because the popular revolution there threatened the neighboring Arab dictatorships and Gulf monarchies. Saddam, not unlike the Austrian Emperor and Prussian King in 1790, was led to believe that a military attack on the revolutionary state would lead to its political collapse, and potentially to a restoration of the old order.

The Gulf states like those in Italy in 1789-1790 feared the new religious order rising in the revolutionary state (France). In 1789, the new religion was Deism (the worship of the Supreme Being) and the status quo was Catholicism as represented by the Pope in Rome. In 1979, the new religious revolution was Khomeinist Fundamentalism, and the status quo was Sunnism/Wahabism in Mecca.

In the end, the outcome was the same. The revolutionary states (France and Iran) were not defeated, and lived on to fight another day.

Oswald Mosley, the British Fascisti, and the USA

Oswald Mosley is best known as the founder of the British Union of Fascists. He was a sympathizer to the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. Indeed it was after meeting Mussolini in Italy in 1932 that he founded the BUF. Today, Mosley is portrayed as a right-wing fringe element, but what is often forgotten is that he was once a highly influential politician with ties to both the Conservative and Labour parties. In 1918, he was a member of parliament and a conservative. By 1929, he was part of the leftist Labour Party with close ties to Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald.

These ties, however, never stopped him from forming the New Party in 1931 or of creating the BUF in 1932.

Clearly, Mosley had an authoritarian streak, and seeing the political success of militarists in Germany and Italy, he sought to promote a similar regime in Britain. In order to accomplish this task he formed coalitions with other organizations like the British Fascisti, the National Fascists, and the Imperial Fascists. These groups together sought to bring an end to democracy in Britain and to expand the Empire.

The question is, what does this have to do with the United States today? Following the parallelistic model, 1932=about 2004-05, Germany's parallel is Iran, Italy's parallel is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and Britain's parallel is the US. The question is: does the US have an Oswald Mosley; some radical conservative, who plays both sides of the fence, who admires the monarchies of Arabia, desires an end to the mullah regime in Tehran, and favors the creation of right-wing dictatorships in Iran and America? You tell me.....

In the end, we know what became of Mosely. In 1936, just before the outbreak of war between Britain and Germany there was a crackdown on the BUF. In 1940, shortly after the outbreak of war, Mosely was arrested and his movement shut down. While he was released from prison in 1943 by fellow conservative Winston Churchill, he never again played a prominent role in British politics. In the end, democracy was preserved and Mosely's dreams of greater Empire were lost.

Lawyers, Technocrats, and Military Men

The Iranian Revolution is a misunderstood thing. The media and critics of Islamic Iran like to focus on the religious elements of the revolution and refer to Iran as a theocracy. What is lost in this discussion is the fact that this revolution, just like European revolutions, was led by lawyers, jurists, and technocrats. In France, the majority of the revolutionary leaders were disgruntled lawyers and patrons technicians (technocrats). The same is true of the German revolution of 1918. In this regard Iran is no different. What is often left out of media analysis of Iran is that mullahs in Iran are trained as Islamic lawyers and jurists. These jurists were allied to a number of technocratic factions (eg. Islamic Society of Engineers).


What then is the difference between revolutions in Europe and the one in Iran? Well, some might argue that the lawyers in France were secular, but this isn't entirely accurate. In fact, many Jacobins were theophilantropists (followers of the cult of the Supreme Being), and lest we forget, many of the German revolutionaries were Christian in orientation (eg., the Catholic Center Party). So the main difference is that the lawyers in Iran are Muslim, or better said officially part of the clergy. Still, if one is looking for parallels, it can be said that these three revolutions were led by the same types of figures, lawyers and technocrats.

In the cases of France and Germany, the reign of the lawyers and the technocrats was short-lived. The revolutionary lawyer regimes soon were replaced by regimes led by military and ex-military men (Napoleon, Hitler). It appears the same thing is now occurring in Iran. Former Revolutionary Guardsman President Ahmadinejad is currently purging the regime of lawyers (mullahs) and technocrats. Is a military takeover in the works?