Tag: Iran

C.S. Lewis & Iran’s Nuclear Program

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, History, Just War, Military History, Modern Life, Narnia, Theological Matters18 Comments

Connecting C.S. Lewis to the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran’s mullahs admittedly sounds like a protracted stretch. Yet the current conflict between Iran and Israel does have one astonishing element that does link the great Oxbridge professor with the conflict.

If you’re familiar with Lewis’ writings, you might logically assume the connection relates to his writing on nuclear weapons. After all, in 1948 he wrote an essay entitled “On Living in an Atomic Age.” The matter is even more acute since we moved from the era of relatively minuscule A-bombs into a time when humanity’s H-bombs, employing fusion rather than mere fission, are thousands of times more deadly.

Lewis discusses some interesting philosophical (and theological) questions in his article. He begins by placing the question within the context of our inherent physical mortality. He writes, “do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation.”

Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. . . .

It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.

Don’t let the stoic beginning of his thoughts deter you from reading the essay itself, because C.S. Lewis does not leave us despairing. On the contrary, he offers hope and practical advice for maximizing the meaning of our lives. 

Although C.S. Lewis lived into the beginning of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) era, he chose not to inject himself into political subjects, lest it detract from his advocacy for the simple Gospel.

Nevertheless, the brief note “C.S. Lewis and Nuclear Weapons,”penned forty years ago by a “peace activist” pastor, conjectures on what the author’s opinion may have been. It is thought-provoking, especially in mentioning a possible link between nuclear destruction and the “deplorable word” referred to in The Chronicles of Narnia. 

In The Magician’s Nephew, Lewis’ child protagonists encounter a witch queen on the devasted world of Charn. Queen Jadis, when denied the power to rule over the planet, chose to invoke a curse that destroyed every living thing other than herself. “Then I spoke the Deplorable Word. A moment later I was the only living thing beneath the sun.”

While Lewis does not elaborate on the nature of the destructive nature of this most deplorable of powers, Aslan does offer the following caution near the end of the novel.

It is not certain that some wicked one of your race will not find out a secret as evil as the Deplorable Word and use it to destroy all living things. And soon, very soon, before you are an old man and an old woman, great nations in your world will be ruled by tyrants who care no more for joy and justice and mercy than the Empress Jadis. Let your world beware.

So, what does this have to do with Iran & Israel?

Frankly, I find the connection to be especially odd. As you may know, military entities have a propensity to apply nicknames or euphemisms to various things, such as their weapon systems.

This is true for military campaigns or discrete operations. For example, the United States has employed labels like Operation Linebacker (in Vietnam) and Operation Crossroads (for 1946 nuclear weapons tests).

Sadly, Operation Enduring Freedom (in which I personally took part) did not live up to its name. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan has degenerated once again into a primitive morass which abuses its women and children.

A number of distinct operations have taken place during the current war between Iran (and its proxies) and Israel. Operation Rising Lion is Israel’s nomenclature for the various elements of their direct attack on Iran. One independent Jewish news site points out how Benjamin Netanyahu foreshadowed the campaign in May when he said, “the verse in the Tanach that most fits with an existential war? That’s our war – a war of existence . . . A people that rises like a lion, leaps up like the king of beasts.”

Every Israeli military operation has a name, and the Iran attack is now called Am K’lavi, or “a people like a lion” – the exact wording Netanyahu used six weeks ago. English-language publications now refer to the operation as “Rising Lion.”

While this is quite interesting, it is the name assigned to one of the subsidiary operations encompassed by Rising Lion which possesses a genuinely shocking designation.

One initial focus of Israel’s campaign was to eliminate the leading scientists leading Iran’s efforts to pursue a nuclear arsenal. They named this particular facet Operation Narnia.

When I first saw that, I immediately thought I must have misread the title. But no, they actually chose Narnia as the name for the assassinations. At that point I thought they might be referring to some other Narnia. Alas, it doesn’t appear they were alluding to the medieval Italian city whose name inspired C.S. Lewis.

The reason for choosing Narnia as the operation’s title was apparently an intentional reference to the amazing world where so many of us met the awesome and compassionate Aslan. In “‘Operation Narnia:’ How Israeli Intelligence Targeted Key Iranian Nuclear Scientists,” we read:

Israel kicked off Operation “Rising Lion” last Friday, launching a sweeping military assault that dealt a major blow to Iran’s leadership and nuclear infrastructure. . . .

In a surprising detail, the Jerusalem Post reports, the component of the mission aimed at Iran’s nuclear scientists was codenamed “Narnia” by Israeli forces – a reference to the fantasy realm, underscoring how bold and unlikely such a strike might have seemed before it was executed.

Another intriguing rationale for entitling the Operation after C.S. Lewis’ creation is even more provocative. The Substack blog Wardrobe Door proposes a supernatural consideration for the choice of “Narnia.”

The [Jerusalem] Post says the name “reflects the operation’s improbable nature, like something out of a fantasy tale rather than a real-world event.” One could also imagine it involved deep espionage tactics that may have had soldiers sneaking in areas as if through a magical wardrobe.

Whatever tactics may have been used in Operation Narnia, it is intriguing to consider how the power of C.S. Lewis’ vision has spread across national boundaries. May all people heed Lewis’ witness to humanity’s Savior, for surely,

God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing (Mere Christianity).

A More Peaceful Time

On By robstroudIn C.S. Lewis, Christian Life, Family, History, Interfaith Issues, Islam, Just War, Modern Life, Roman History, The Future, Theological Matters12 Comments

It seems like a dream, when I recall a college course I took where Jews and Muslims peacefully discussed the turbulent history of the Middle East. And how we discussed that sad story in a cordial, and even sympathetic, manner.

The contrast between that day and 2023 – when people cannot even agree that tiny infants should not suffer for the sins of their parents – is mind-bending.

We assume that all people desire peace. Would that it were so. In his essay “First and Second Things,” C.S. Lewis offers a timely insight.

As far as peace (which is one ingredient in our idea of civilization) is concerned, I think many would now agree that a foreign policy dominated by desire for peace is one of the many roads that lead to war.

I was an undergrad at the University of Washington in the mid-1970s, when I saw a graduate level course with a fascinating title: “Wars that have Shaped the History of the Middle East.” My high school friend and I “begged” the professor to allow us into the class. He cautioned us that he would have the same requirements for us as he did for everyone else; there would be no mercy extended if we failed to meet the syllabus’ demands.

“No problem,” we said . . . although, being young procrastinators, at the end of the quarter we foolishly required a couple of all-nighters to complete our comprehensive term papers.

We, both Christians, were the only undergraduates in the small class. Our professor was Jewish, as were two of the students. One of these, was Israeli. He was, in fact, a veteran of the recent Yom Kippur War, during which he had served as the commander of a tank. I don’t recall which front on which he fought, but when you look at a map of Israel, it’s clear that every part of that small nation is a potential combat zone.

The remaining members of the class consisted of three Muslim students. One was American and a second was Iranian (back when the Shah was still in power). The third Islamic member of the class taught at a Seattle community college. He was Palestinian. And not merely Palestinian – his family was displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which is referred to by the Israelis as the War of Independence.

You can imagine that with a group like that, opinions were deeply entrenched. Yet, although the preexisting opinions were indeed fixed, the individuals were not obstinate. Conversations were civil. Disagreements were conducted with reason rather than emotion. And, most surprisingly of all, we were able to socialize together at the end of the course.

It was a different world, apparently. It’s challenging to conceive of partisans today being capable of treating others with such respect. The last half century has marked a steep decline in the humanity of humanity.

Anti-Semitism is a Curse

It is strange to ponder how we’ve come to define antisemitism, confining it to anti-Jewish sentiment. After all, the word Semite refers to all people who speak a Semitic language, including Arabs.

Etymologically, Semite “comes via Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem,’ son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these people were traditionally supposed to be descended.”

If you are interested in an excellent article titled “C.S. Lewis’s Anti-Anti-Semitism in The Great Divorce,” simply follow the link embedded here.

Israel’s Wars

There has been no shortage of blood shed on the land the Romans called Judea and Arabia Petraea. And the history of the past seventy-five years have been violent indeed. For a description of all of the wars and military operations involving Israel, see this website.

We students each had to select one of the Middle Eastern regional wars to research in depth. We also had to make a detailed presentation and lead the discussion based on general readings completed by everyone.

As soon as I saw that requirement in the syllabus, my mind was mired in confusion over which of Israel’s wars would be the least controversial. Fortunately, as I read further I discovered that the purview of the course did not begin with the end of the Palestine Mandate, which was administered by Britain. Due to the influence of the Ottoman Empire, which had overshadowed the region until the end of the First World War, the professor elected to begin the course with the relatively nonconfrontational consideration of the Crimean War. I was the first student to raise my hand and voice my preference.

During the Palestine Mandate, C.S. Lewis had a number of former students serving in the Levant. In a 1940 letter to his brother Warnie, he describes a pleasant visit from one of these who went on to serve in a political capacity throughout the region for several more decades. This statesman refers to a fellow student who would go on to teach at East Anglia University.

I had a visit one night last week from Pirie-Gordon back from leave from Palestine, where (and in Egypt and Turkey) he says everything is “as good as gold.” The last riot was quelled by the cavalry regiment in which Rivière serves . . . In fact as P.G. said “I raised the riot and Rivière quelled it.”

I wonder how the members of the class would relate to one another if we were reunited for a discussion of what has transpired since 1975. With members of the American government at each other’s throats on our nation’s response to Hamas’ war, I doubt our discussions would be as respectful as they were back in the twentieth century. Still, conversations – even painful ones – need to happen if people are ever to get along with one another. That’s true not only for nations, but also for neighbors, and families.

I recommend two things to move us in the right direction. Honest communication, where we do a lot of listening. And prayer. The fact we do so poorly with the first, makes the second all that more essential.

Powerful Names

On By robstroudIn Advice to Writers, C.S. Lewis, Islam, Likely Useless Trivia, Military History, Military Musings, Words17 Comments

missilesIt’s all in the name. The person who succeeds in naming (or labeling) something wields great power.

Whether it be a concrete object, or an idea, the power to name carries the power to shape perceptions.

Philosophically, we might agree that:

“That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Juliet, Romeo and Juliet).

But, if we are perfectly honest, calling it “skunk cabbage” might affect our perception of its aroma.

A classic example of the power of naming comes from the era of Norse exploration. In the ninth century, Vikings began settling in the inhospitably named “Iceland.” The island was majestic, and its spectacular glaciers and volcanoes still allowed room for extremely fertile farmsteads.

Less than a century and a half later, Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland. He sailed west and established the first colony on a much larger island that he enticingly named Greenland. Erik’s brilliant advertising ploy was quite effective, and hundreds of settlers joined him in the much harsher climes to Iceland’s west.

The specific appellations which led me to ponder the power that resides in naming once again,* actually came from a much more modern source—weaponry.

Military leaders have a knack for generating striking names. Often they are brilliant; occasionally they completely miss the mark. In either case, it’s curious to note the message their choice of nomenclature seeks to emphasize. Consider for a moment two different American missiles.

The AGM-114 Hellfire and the LGM-118A Peacekeeper

The reader naturally assumes the purpose of the former is to rain sulfur and brimstone down on the enemy, while the mission of the latter is to benignly maintain peace. One suspects, however, that being at the epicenter of either explosive device would be equally disastrous.

Another example we might consider is a bit more controversial, but fascinating nonetheless. Consider these labels for movements involved in the abortion debate.

Self-Preferred  ||  Used by Opponents  ||  Used by the Media

Pro-Choice  ||  Pro-Abortion  ||  Pro-Choice

Pro-Life  ||  Anti-Choice  ||  Anti-Abortion

It doesn’t require a brilliant intellect to comprehend the tone each of these labels evokes. Nor should it come as a surprise how the mainstream media tends to line up in the debate.

It’s all in the name. The person who succeeds in naming something wields great power.

C.S. Lewis was a master of language. He knew names exercise significant influence on how things are perceived. In the following passage from “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” he describes how a powerful word—in this case “mercy”—can be dangerously misleading when applied to something inimical to itself.

Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. That is the important paradox. As there are plants which will flourish only in mountain soil, so it appears that Mercy will flower only when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice: transplanted to the marshlands of mere Humanitarianism, it becomes a man-eating weed, all the more dangerous because it is still called by the same name as the mountain variety.

In another essay, “‘Bulverism:’ or, the Foundation of 20th Century Thought,” Lewis actually coins a word which has found favor with a literate subculture. The peculiar word he created conveys a sense of obtuse, opinionated self-smugness. (Yes, I may be reading just a little bit into “Bulverism,” but I really don’t think so. The aristocratic or remote sounding surname “Bulver,” the “ism” suffix and, of course, the “Bul” prefix all combine to engender an odd and unappealing impression.)

The subject Lewis addresses in this work is the unwillingness of disagreeing parties to honestly debate the merits of an issue. Instead, they rush to employ the invalid (and terribly effective) ad hominem approaches that characterize so much of modern politics.

C.S. Lewis is so talented (and ingenious) that he provides us with a biographical note on the fictional creator of the deficient form of “debate” prevalent in the modern era. “The modern method [of argument],” Lewis begins, “is to assume without discussion [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.”

In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism.” Some day I am going the write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third—“Oh, you say that because you are a man.”

“At that moment,” E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

. . . Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it gives no unfair privilege to the small and offensive minority who reason.

Sadly, Bulver’s disciples continue to increase, rather than diminish.

Since it was military missiles that initially got me thinking about the subject of the power of naming, it might be fitting to end with a few more evocative labels. They certainly elicit a wide range of impressions.

Condor: Argentina’s avian contribution

Piranha: Tiny but vicious and straight from Brazil’s Amazon

Velvet Glove: Canada’s mixed message

Sky Sword: China’s blending of the ancient and modern

Apache: French, which confuses this American veteran**

Meteor: A European offering sure to land hard if it doesn’t disappear in the atmosphere

Martel: Anglo-French venture they surely don’t want Islamists to think is a tribute to Charles Martel, Hero of the Battle of Tours***

V-1 Flying Bomb: Got to Hand it to the Germans for straight-forward labeling.

Rhinemaidens (Rheintöchter): There’s apparently Teutonic Poetry as well

Fateh: Iran’s “Conqueror”

Zelzal: Iran’s “Earthquake”

Sejjil: Iran’s “Baked Clay” (well we can’t expect all the Persian names to be winners)

Jericho: From Israel where we know whose walls tumbled down

Spike: Israeli and probably not a reference to Jael and the Book of Judges****

Hatf: Pakistani “Vengeance” (derived from the gentle sword of Muhammad)

Hyunmoo: Korea’s mythical “Guardian of the Northern Sky” (mayhap a reference to their aggressive northern neighbor)

Penguin: Those Norwegians really know how to frighten their enemies

Malakhit (Малахит): Just one of Russia’s curiously named explosives in their “mineral missile series”

Umkhonto: South African “Spear” from the Zulu tongue

The Brits are uniquely creative when it comes to naming missiles. They include: Blowpipe, Brimstone, Green Cheese, Rapier, Sea Skua and, of course, Fairey Fireflash and it’s less intimidating companion Fairey Stooge.

For some reason, I find a missile named “Green Cheese” particularly disconcerting. Whoever named that specific weapon was devilishly clever. If I were a world leader, I’d surrender immediately, rather than face a foe confident enough in their military prowess to use that sort of twisted culinary nomenclature for their armaments.

______

* I have written on the subject of personal names in the past.

** It just may translate as “Ruffian,” but I don’t think I want to go there, since it hints at political incorrectness.

*** It’s actually a combination of the missile’s guidance options: Missile, Anti-Radiation, Television. I’m sure the parallel with the Frankish defender of the Christian Church is a mere coincidence.

**** The fourth chapter of the Book of Judges.