VOLATILE MIX OF OIL,
ISLAMISM and WMD
Forbes magazine
Current Events
Top World Agenda
Islam has not been a problem. however, contemporary
radical Islam, or Islamism, is a problem. Oil without Islamism can be a problem,
but Islamism plus oil becomes a volatile mix. Islamism plus oil
plus weapons of mass destruction (WMD) equals a threat. Iran has insisted on
its right to enrich uranium and has threatened to cut its oil exports, currently
2.5 million barrels per day, if sanctions are imposed. The prospect of a cut in
supply caused oil prices to tick upward. A nuclear-capable Iran will
significantly alter the geopolitical balance. Other countries in the Middle East
will also want nuclear weapons, increasing the chances that fissile material for
WMD will fall into terrorists’ hands.
How did the powerful combination of Islamism, oil and
WMD come about? After WWII the European empires dissolved. More than 40 Arab and
Muslim countries became independent, with Arab nationalism their first-phase
response. Arab nationalism reached a high point in 1956, when President Gamal
Abdel Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, causing the French, British
and Israelis to invade and occupy Suez. President Dwight Eisenhower, however,
opposed the invasion and forced them to withdraw. The Arab world was jubilant,
confident that Arabs would now regain their place in the sun. In 1958 Egypt and
Syria merged to form the United Arab Republic, while Egypt and Yemen formed a
confederation called the United Arab States. Both were dissolved in 1961. In
1967 Israel defeated Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six Day War. Nasser was
diminished, and pan-Arab nationalization lost its appeal. Pan-Islamism soon
emerged as the unifying force.
During the 1973 Yom Kippur Arab--Israeli war, the
conservative Arab oil states demonstrated their power by imposing an oil embargo
on the U.S. and Europe. Oil prices quadrupled. The Arab oil states and Iran
became fabulously wealthy. This wealth enabled the Arabs and Iranians to preach
to and persuade Muslims in other parts of the world to adopt their strict and
severe versions of Islam. They funded the building of mosques and madrasahs in
poorer countries, sent preachers and paid for Muslim leaders to attend religious
conferences. They are responsible for raising the religiousness of Muslims
abroad and have “Arabized” once moderate Malay and Indonesian Muslims.
Jihadist suicide bombings first made news when Shiites
in Lebanon (Hezbollah)--instigated, instructed and financed by Iranians--bombed
the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport in 1983, killing 241 American
servicemen. Sunnis in Palestine (Hamas) have imitated Hezbollah with suicide
bombings against Israelis. Radical Muslims, instructed by al Qaeda, have
imitated these bombings in Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand.
Islamists believe the time is ripe to reassert Islam’s
supremacy. The jihadists among them have chosen Iraq as their second
battleground. Their goal is to drive the Americans out of Iraq, just as they
drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
Islamic solidarity is at a high point. When a Danish
newspaper published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, one with a bomb-shaped
turban, radical imams in Denmark sought support from Gulf Arabs and other Arab
states. Danish products were boycotted. Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
expressed regret that Muslims had found the cartoons offensive. Papers in France
and many other EU countries reprinted the cartoons in support of freedom of the
press. Gunmen in Gaza surrounded the EU missions. Muslims marched in protest,
burning flags, brandishing clenched fists and uttering death threats. Muslim
presidents in Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan spoke out in condemnation of the
cartoons. The Indonesian president and Malaysian prime minister protested but
asked their countries’ Muslims to remain calm. Danish, Norwegian and Austrian
embassies were attacked. In Beirut these attacks may have been without
government sanction, but in Damascus and Tehran they appeared organized. Each
televised outburst triggered a larger one, in a crescendo of Muslim rage.
Democracy in Muslim States
Radical Islamic groups in several countries want to
engineer a clash of civilizations, and oil power has given them the means. In
this climate the U.S. must be circumspect when urging Arab regimes to open up.
Islamist parties could easily win through the one-man-one-vote system. But once
they’re in power, free elections will cease to exist. In January Hamas won 74
seats as opposed to Fatah’s 45 seats in elections to the Palestinian
legislature. In the first Iraqi parliamentary elections, in December 2005,
religious Shiite parties won the most seats. In Egypt’s parliamentary elections
that same month the Muslim Brotherhood substantially increased its seats.
But there is hope. Following 9/11, Pakistan’s President
Pervez Musharraf took a stand against al Qaeda. Four assassination attempts
since then have not intimidated him. Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Egypt’s
President Hosni Mubarak and Algeria’s President Abdelaziz Bouteflika are also
fighting Muslim extremists. Moderate Muslim leaders in Asia have stood up to the
Islamists as well. Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi opposes PAS, the
Islamist opposition party, on all fronts--economic, social and religious. In
January Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called for more regional
cooperation against terror. He warned that Southeast Asian militants are
“regrouping, adapting and recruiting.”
More Muslim leaders like these will have to fight the
terrorists if Muslims don’t want their lives controlled by Islamist radicals.
Lee Kuan Yew, minister mentor of Singapore;
Paul Johnson, eminent British historian and author;
Ernesto Zedillo, director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, and
former president of Mexico;
in addition to Forbes Chairman Caspar W. Weinberger, rotate in writing
this column.