Conversion to the New Middle East

July 27, 2006

On Tuesday our Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was in Israel meeting with Ehud Olmert, and made the following statement:

"It is time for a new Middle East," she said. "It is time to say to those that don't want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail. They will not."

It is a short statement, but provides ample opportunity for commentary.

What would a "new Middle East" look like? Listening to these people in control of our foreign policy, you might think that there is some kind of necessary destruction or creative chaos that will allow for something new to take birth. We can think of this as the "Phoenix from the flames" theory of Middle East policy. The hope appears to be that after a series of destructive encounters with superior force, Muslims will realize they have been stupid and start living according to western principles.

But why go to a classical reference like the Phoenix? This policy is also underlain by a widely held religious view of the crisis of conversion. The change that happens inside a sinner at conversion is sudden; a new man steps into the place of the old man:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! [2 Corinthians 5.17]

The new life is found by shedding the old life. Cognitively that seems to be parallel with the solution to the Middle East: the status quo ante cannot be accepted, we have to work for a new world.

If you doubt my application of this religious concept to American foreign policy, just look at the way these ideas are developed in an on-line sermon by John Schmidt:

...God works to contain the effects of our rebellion. Things could be worse and yet God is at work in the world to make sure that as bad as things get they won't get so bad that everything is destroyed. And we see that happening again and again in the Scriptures, as well as in the history that we have seen since. And then finally, God is actually at work in this story to provide the ultimate solution. This is what we call redemption: God's rescue of humanity... The part where God restores creation to all that it was originally created to be, the promise that was given to Adam and Eve comes back to humanity, all the potential for creation comes out again in a new heaven and a new earth. Everything is torn down and remade. It's Extreme Makeover...

That could easily be turned into an official political statement from our current administration, just change God into America, sinful humanity to the Muslim world, redemption to peace with Israel, and the new heavens and new earth to the new Middle East. It all starts to look familiar, doesn't it?

I am not saying that leaders are crafting policy around the Bible. No, I am saying that these religious principles and concepts are ingrained in our minds. Certain solutions to real world problems appear sensible.. almost obvious.. since they are accepted as true elsewhere. You can look at this as a master metaphor: NEW CREATION FROM DESTRUCTION OF OLD. The application of that principle can turn up in the oddest of places.

Foreign policy is an odd place. No matter what your view of individual change, human society is manifestly not something that arises as a "new creation." Societies change incrementally. The new Middle East will not come about by a sudden conversion, but through small changes.. through nurturing the liberal and moderate aspects that are to be found in this part of the world.

That is what is so wrong with our policy with respect to Israel's war in Lebanon: if there existed a root for liberalism and democracy in the Middle East.. it was in Beirut and Lebanon. The obvious policy for a country that professes to want a democratic and liberal Middle East is to encourage and defend with all our resources such places and possibilities. It seems a point of view that has its own biblical precedents. The following is a description of the Servant of the Lord and his establishment of righteousness:

A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice... [Isa. 42.3]

But this is not all that needs to be said about Rice's statement. It is easy to read that statement and believe that she knows what she is talking about:

"It is time to say to those that don't want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail. They will not."

Is she serious? Hezbollah and al-Qaeda have not exactly traded on the status quo ante. Those are two organizations with vastly different goals, but they are certainly doing their best to bring about a different kind of Middle East. And just who is at least nominally supporting us in the Middle East? It is Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. We certainly owe something to these countries for their support, but I am not sure how they fit into the forces working to make a "new Middle East." To the people of the Middle East, we are very much a staunch ally of the "old Middle East."

But this is all to complicate what was in essence a religious statement by Condoleeza Rice—meant to be accepted and not questioned. Silly me.