By Roman Wright ’19, Staff Writer

Dr. Eric Mandel, a leading expert on Middle Eastern affairs, specifically the Iranian nuclear treaty, recently provided the Newark Academy community a rare opportunity to hear about the Iran deal from an intellectual perspective. His presentation revealed a brief history of the Middle East, the relationship between the United States and Israel, and the state of the Iranian government since the Islamic Revolution. He also highlighted the divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as well as the leaders of the respective factions in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Intertwined with that topic, he showed that Iran and Israel, the greatest American ally in the region, had once been great friends, until the Islamic Revolution. The Shah, who ruled prior to the Ayatollah, was westernizing the country, and was a friend of Egyptian dictator Sadat. He was responsible for the lack of major violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, until he was removed from power through protests and lukewarm support from Jimmy Carter. The result was an oppositional power structure, with the Sunnis on one side and the Shiites on the other. As seen with Bismarck and his departure from the German government, it takes great skill to manage the risks and rewards of any given situation and to avoid confrontation. And the Iran Nuclear Treaty, as seen in the eyes of Mr. Mandel, is not worthy of being called Bismarckian statesmanship.

The current international order stems from the Westphalian Treaty to close the Thirty Years War in 1648, which established the sovereignty of Nations and removed religion from the political realm. The Islamic world order is a dream of one great Islamic superstate, which is in a never-ending war with the outside, infidel world. That is the goal of the reactionary regimes in power in Iran, as well as in the Islamic State: to establish one nation of Islam, also known as a caliphate. All of this information was generally relayed by Dr. Mandel, but he diverged from the previous narrative by expressing his belief that there are four nations in the Middle East that wish to establish a caliphate, and a fifth if including the Islamic State: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. While Iran is undoubtedly at odds with the Western way of approaching international relations, Turkey and Egypt are both ruled by secular Presidents who act according to their raison d’etat. The same is largely true for Saudi Arabia; they will act according to what they think ensures themselves the greatest comfort on the international stage, not by what they think will allow them to create a nation of Islam. As such, while Dr. Mandel in effect stated that Israel was the only true American ally in the Middle East, the truth is that this is not the case, as there are many states who share the same concept of international relations that we do and are perhaps more determined to defeat Iran.

Dr. Mandel also stated that a nuclear Iran is a detriment to American standing in the Middle East, and this is undoubtedly true. The main point he highlighted was the threat to Israel, and, while this is immense, it is not the largest threat facing American national interest in the Middle East. Rather, the largest threat is the changes in the balance of power, which have held steady since the 1973 war between Israel and the Arab States, which comprise the most significant repercussion of the Nuclear Treaty. The treaty means that Iran and the Shia Muslims it represents, who are 15% of the Muslim population, would posses the world’s most powerful weapon, which could allow them suddenly to emerge superior to the Sunni states, who have held the firm backing of the United States, and a quantitative edge over Iran. But, with the United States signaling its laissez-faire attitude towards the Middle East, and in the process inviting great powers of the world to become power brokers in the region, the Sunni majority will suddenly find itself behind qualitatively. This will result in intense nuclear proliferation in the world’s most volatile region, and will greatly raise the prospects for a nuclear war.

Dr. Mandel, while ultimately arriving at the right conclusions, did so through the wrong means, by elevating Israel to the status of the only friend of the United States in the Middle East. He also revealed a world view that does not take into account the presence of secular administrations in the Middle East, assuming that all of the Muslim countries are governed theocratically. He, while perhaps not being a true neoconservative, elevated Israel to a role that most neoconservatives assign to it, which is asking too much of such a small country. He only wishes for the US to be friendly with other Muslim countries temporarily and doesn’t acknowledge the balance of power that has prevailed because of American support for Sunni against Shia.

This article reflects the viewpoint of one staff writer, not The Minuteman as a whole. To share your opinion, comment below!