I am now conflicted over part of the Middle East. I am absolutely positive that Iran is in a 2T (the 1979 Revolution and '80s war with Iraq being their last 4T), but given strong arguments from John Xenakis I am no longer sure that the rest of the Middle East is on the U.S. 4T timeline.

Xenakis, MichaelEaston, and Odin (up until now my main partners in this project), all seem to agree that Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, and the UAE are on the WWII timeline, meaning they will enter Crisis in this turning. Where they differ is Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.

Now I don't understand why Iraq would be on a different timeline than Kuwait, Lebanon a different timeline than Israel, or Syria a different timeline than Jordan, but perhaps it is so. The main argument is whether the wars of the '70s and '80s in this region were 4Ts or just exceptionally violent 2Ts.

Odin argues that they were 2Ts and that the entire Middle East (save Iran) is on the 4T timeline like the U.S., Western Europe, China, India, etc. He says that the Iran-Iraq War was a 4T for Iran, but a 2T for Iraq. But Xenakis argues that Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq are on the Iran timeline, separate from the rest of the Arabian peninsula. He portrays the Lebanese Civil War of 1975-1990 (which affected both Lebanon and Syria) and the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 as 4Ts.

First I agreed with Xenakis, then with Odin, now I'm not sure again. My agreement with Odin (and my painting the entire Arabian peninsula red) was due to the awful situations in Iraq and Lebanon right now, and my assumption that they were 4Ts. However, since they are best described as turbulent and chaotic, and seem to be more about religious divisions than about urgent political reorganization, that seems more 2Tish. The more I read about the Lebanese Civil War and the Iran-Iraq War, the less I am convinced they were 2Ts and not 4Ts.

So I need your help. What do you think? (poll)

Damn. How do I delete the thread below (the one without the poll)?

I'm still curious about people's thoughts here and would like to get a discussion going on this.

Aside from these three countries, does anybody think Egypt is the next Iran? Egypt was one of our original non-NATO allies in 1989 and remains a key friend in the Arab world, but that is all due to Hosni Mubarak. The fact is, he is 78 years old. Lucky for him, his son is only 43 and will probably succeed him in a few years.

But the plot thickens: Egypt's last Crisis was in the '50s, and their next will probably be in the 2030s. So what happens when the next Egyptian 4T comes around, Mubarak the Younger has been ruling for 25 years, and the people are sick of being ruled by a dynasty? This is exactly what happened in Iran in 1979. Overnight, our biggest ally in the Arab world became an arch-enemy. I bet $20 right now that Egypt has a bottom-up populist revolution that throws out the younger Mubarak and installs something new and unfriendly to U.S. interests. And thus Egypt, like Iran, becomes our enemy overnight.

Thoughts? Not just on Iraq/Lebanon/Syria, but Egypt too? (I have decided what turning to assign Egypt, but am curious what you think about a post-Mubarak future)

Dear Nathaniel,

Originally Posted by 1990

> Aside from these three countries, does anybody think Egypt is the
> next Iran? Egypt was one of our original non-NATO allies in 1989
> and remains a key friend in the Arab world, but that is all due to
> Hosni Mubarak. The fact is, he is 78 years old. Lucky for him, his
> son is only 43 and will probably succeed him in a few years.

> But the plot thickens: Egypt's last Crisis was in the '50s, and
> their next will probably be in the 2030s. So what happens when the
> next Egyptian 4T comes around, Mubarak the Younger has been ruling
> for 25 years, and the people are sick of being ruled by a dynasty?
> This is exactly what happened in Iran in 1979. Overnight, our
> biggest ally in the Arab world became an arch-enemy. I bet $20
> right now that Egypt has a bottom-up populist revolution that
> throws out the younger Mubarak and installs something new and
> unfriendly to U.S. interests. And thus Egypt, like Iran, becomes
> our enemy overnight.

Egypt's last crisis war was the Egyptian Revolution, ending in 1954,
52 years ago.

Most crisis wars actually begin towards the end of the third turning,
and so a new crisis war is actually possible right now, if conditions
are right.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a major international violent jihadist group
founded in Egypt and still headquartered in Egypt. However, as
befitting a country still in an Unraveling era, the Muslim Brotherhood
is restricting itself to political aims, suppressing violence within
Egypt for now. (However, Muslim Brotherhood is violent in other
countries.)

My expectation is that an Egyptian civil war between government
forces and the Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely for quite a while. Even
a Mubarak death or assassination is not likely to cause major
changes.

However, Egypt's future is much more dependent on what's going on
next door. Fatah and Hamas are very close to full-scale civil war,
and I wouldn't be surprised to see it begin at any time. When that
happens, Egypt will likely be the first external country (even before
Israel) to be drawn into it, for two reasons: Egypt is leading the
mediation efforts between Fatah and Hamas, and its soldiers are the
official guardians guarding the passages between Gaza and Sinai; and
the Muslim Brotherhood is active in supporting Hamas.

So if you want to see what's going to happen to Egypt, a good place
to watch is the Palestinian territories.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Having directly experienced Lebanon in the 1980s, I couldn't emotionally even toy with the idea that was anything other than a full-scale 4T Crisis for them.

Intellectually, I've bought into most of John's labeling regarding nations' positions on the Turnings spectrum (note - he differentiates for you where he's definitive and where he has educated hunches).

I also like his explanations of how other countries' non-crisis wars can be a part of other nations' crisis wars. The 'best' scenario is an Israeli - Palestine crisis war inflaming the entire Middle East and then spreading out of that region to entwine on a global basis -- regardless of individual nations' positions on the Turnings gradient.

Just to add -

This recent equivocating by Iran would seem to add to 'Iran-be-2T', but certainly vulnerable to being caught up in USA's unfolding 4T -

http://tinyurl.com/26czyy

In a meeting with Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, on Saturday, Rafsanjani also emphasized that the officials should make efforts to make realistic decisions and avoid extremism.

“We should return the arrogant powers’ psychological warfare to themselves by exercising wisdom and adopting an active diplomacy of moderation.

“We should avoid creating enemies for ourselves,” he advised.

This is a question I have been pondering for some time. I have been reading John X's blog for a while, and I am pretty convinced that these three countries are in a 2T right now, but some serious questions still remain. Especially with regards to Iraq.

Most of my skepticism is on Iraq, which I think is pretty understandable given the utter chaos in that country at the moment. I have read John X's arguments about why Iraq is in a 2T right now, and can't possibly have a civil war, but I haven't heard much of the other side, who claim Iraq to be in a 4T. So if anyone can direct me to any posts where this is argued, I'd be appreciative.

My reasoning for Iraq being in a 2T right now is as follows: One, as Sec. Def. Robert Gates put it, there are 4 simultaneous wars being fought in the country, which is why the situation is so difficult. You've got Shiite death squads led by the Mahdi Army targeting Sunni's (the old order), and American soldiers (the new order). I think this can be somewhat analogous to the Black Panther Party during 1960's America. You had an ethnic militia using terror tactics to fight against the perceived order. It isnt a mass uprising per se, its a fringe group (albeit a powerful one, as is the case with the Mahdi Army) using controlled violence to "stick it to the Man." The difference is that since the American invasion, the Iraqi government is in shambles and cant control (even if they'd wanted to) the Shiite death squads, whereas in the 1960's , the government could somewhat control the BPP, and violence didnt get completely out of hand.

Sunni insurgents I see sort of as a parallel to southern Whites during the 1960's in America. As African-Americans gained more and more civil freedoms during our awakening, southern whites got increasingly angry and counter-protested against the progress (think school-integration). Some of them even joined extremist groups like the KKK and perpetrated violence. So the Sunni insurgency i see as a campaign of terrorism (like the KKK's) to thwart the progress of Shiites, and punish the Americans for bringing the situation about. Of course the situation in Iraq is infinitely more violent and chaotic than than the last American awakening, but like I said, I believe that is due to the complete collapse of order in the government (not so in America) and their inability to control anything (also external powers such as an opportunistic Iran and the nut-jobs in al-Qaeda).

The Shiite on Shiite violence I think is relatively easy to understand from the context of a 2T. They are fighting each other to establish who will control the post-awakening order. I think it is analogous to the BPP fighting Kerenga's US organization in the streets of LA.

The one true 4T war raging in Iraq is that of al-Qaeda against anything that resembles progress. Made up of foreign Arabs from countries that are in 4Ts right now, al-Qaeda has been able to play the role of the spoiler, initiating massive spectacular terror attacks as a way to keep chaos in Iraq and wage their jihad against "the far enemy."

All of this being said I am still stuck on a few things that, if explored further, might change my mind. First off is the issue of the Iran-Iraq war being a crisis war for Iraq. There was never any question in my mind that it was a crisis war for Iran, the Basij and whatnot, but for Iraq I am skeptical. Weren't there Iraqi Shiite groups that actually fought with Iran? I just dont see the same type of "genocidal fury" from the Iraqis in this war, as with the Iranians. I know John X will say "but Saddam used chemical weapons." This was one man who gave the orders to use chemical weapons. Were there Iraqis shouting in the streets to use chemical weapons on Tehran?

Also, is it just me, or does the bombing of the al-Askariya shrine in Samarra seem like a regeneracy for the Shiites? I know this contradicts what I said above, and I am sticking to what I said above; I am just throwing this out there as a devils advocate.

On the same token, there really is a lot of ethnic violence in Iraq, and while I think it is the fringe groups (the Mahdi Army, Army of Mohammed) perpetrating the violence, they are perpetrating it against ordinary innocent Iraqis. It is very easy to see how someone could see this violence as ethnic cleansing.

That's the end of my train of thought on this issue. Im sure Ill be posting more later. By the way this was my first post. My name is Matt, I am from Alexandria, Virginia, and I am a Millennial. Thanks for having me.

Originally Posted by Chim Richalds

This is a question I have been pondering for some time. I have been reading John X's blog for a while, and I am pretty convinced that these three countries are in a 2T right now, but some serious questions still remain. Especially with regards to Iraq.

snip

Welcome!

Thank you for a well-reasoned and fascinating response. Since starting this thread, I have become pretty convinced that Lebanon's situation is pure 2T. While Iraq's is exceedingly violent, your (and Xenakis') pro-2T argument is strong.

While it is now popular to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, I still don't see why the media insists on that label. Most of the violence is still centered around US occupation and control of the government, not an all-out genocide between two warring factions. While there are ethnic and sectarian fault lines, polls still show that Iraqis resent the Americans more than each other. That's not a civil war.

I saw "Dreamgirls" the other day for the second time (I'm hooked on this movie!), and upon second viewing I had an epiphany. In the scene where Effie walks out of the studio and witnesses the violence on the streets of Detroit, there are burning cars, gunshots everywhere, and euphoric fringe groups chanting their memes. Isn't that exactly what Baghdad is like now? Not the locale of a concerted and all-out genocidal effort, but instead a vision of utter civic chaos.

Originally Posted by 1990

Welcome!

Thank you for a well-reasoned and fascinating response. Since starting this thread, I have become pretty convinced that Lebanon's situation is pure 2T. While Iraq's is exceedingly violent, your (and Xenakis') pro-2T argument is strong.

While it is now popular to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, I still don't see why the media insists on that label. Most of the violence is still centered around US occupation and control of the government, not an all-out genocide between two warring factions. While there are ethnic and sectarian fault lines, polls still show that Iraqis resent the Americans more than each other. That's not a civil war.

I saw "Dreamgirls" the other day for the second time (I'm hooked on this movie!), and upon second viewing I had an epiphany. In the scene where Effie walks out of the studio and witnesses the violence on the streets of Detroit, there are burning cars, gunshots everywhere, and euphoric fringe groups chanting their memes. Isn't that exactly what Baghdad is like now? Not the locale of a concerted and all-out genocidal effort, but instead a vision of utter civic chaos.

I lived through the 60s, and while there were riots and chaos, it was not Iraq by a long shot. First, most people were not directly affected by the riots -- they were in a few cities, not nationwide. Second, basic services such as electricity weren't compromised. Third, other than the assassinations of JFK and RFK, our political systems kept chugging along.

The 60s in the US versus Baghdad today are like day and night.

Dear Jenny,

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

> I lived through the 60s, and while there were riots and chaos, it
> was not Iraq by a long shot. First, most people were not directly
> affected by the riots -- they were in a few cities, not
> nationwide. Second, basic services such as electricity weren't
> compromised. Third, other than the assassinations of JFK and RFK,
> our political systems kept chugging along.

> The 60s in the US versus Baghdad today are like day and night.

I actually disagree with this. You mention the two assassinations,
but you don't mention the riots across the country by the Black
Panthers and others, or the bombings by the Weather Underground and
others. Nor do you mention the repeated calls for anarchy and civil
war, and that Presidents Johnson and Nixon were forced out of office.

Here's the question that has to be answered: Suppose that the Black
Panthers and the Weather Underground had received tens of millions of
dollars in funding, bombs, missiles and other weapons from outside
agitators (say, the Chinese or the Russians), and suppose further that
outside agitators had been able to infiltrate the country and become
suicide bombers. Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that that
had been technically possible.

Under that assumption, then how do you think the American 60s would
have compared to Iraq today?

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Jenny,



I actually disagree with this. You mention the two assassinations,
but you don't mention the riots across the country by the Black
Panthers and others, or the bombings by the Weather Underground and
others. Nor do you mention the repeated calls for anarchy and civil
war, and that Presidents Johnson and Nixon were forced out of office.

snip

Exactly. From what I can tell -- though admittedly I cannot make presumptions since I have never been to Iraq -- there is not the level of all-out determined fury present in a true 4T civil war. Instead, there is civic chaos, frequent and unpredictable outbursts of violence, and major backing of fringe groups by outside forces (in this case, al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and Sunni allies of the U.S. versus Iran and Shiite groups).

While I am a Democrat who does not defend Bush's policy in Iraq in the slightest, I can't jump on this civil war bandwagon yet. I'm comparing the seemingly random and frenzied atmosphere in Iraq to the highly focused xenophobia and genocidal energy of a true "crisis war", and I don't see the similarity. Clearly though, Iraq's situation is one of the ugliest 2Ts in recent memory. Maybe the U.S. would have been like this if WWII had ended in a stalemate (see Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988) and Japan or Germany had invaded us circa 1968.

One complecating factor in compairing current day Iraq to boom awakening era America is the fact that the 1t would have been different. A stalemated ending to WWII would have led to a 1t that was more austere and less high.
The outer world hubris apparent in 1968 America would have been at least muted, if not non-existant.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

One complecating factor in compairing current day Iraq to boom awakening era America is the fact that the 1t would have been different. A stalemated ending to WWII would have led to a 1t that was more austere and less high.
The outer world hubris apparent in 1968 America would have been at least muted, if not non-existant.

My point exactly.

Regional War if we leave Iraq:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....ID=1&subID=971

Originally Posted by 1990

Exactly. From what I can tell -- though admittedly I cannot make presumptions since I have never been to Iraq -- there is not the level of all-out determined fury present in a true 4T civil war. Instead, there is civic chaos, frequent and unpredictable outbursts of violence, and major backing of fringe groups by outside forces (in this case, al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and Sunni allies of the U.S. versus Iran and Shiite groups).

While I am a Democrat who does not defend Bush's policy in Iraq in the slightest, I can't jump on this civil war bandwagon yet. I'm comparing the seemingly random and frenzied atmosphere in Iraq to the highly focused xenophobia and genocidal energy of a true "crisis war", and I don't see the similarity. Clearly though, Iraq's situation is one of the ugliest 2Ts in recent memory. Maybe the U.S. would have been like this if WWII had ended in a stalemate (see Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988) and Japan or Germany had invaded us circa 1968.

I'm now convinced that Iraq is having an "English Civil War" type of 2T, with a particularly nasty, sectarian conflict that will solve little.

Many serious scholars of the Middle East (Arthur Kane Scott, Muqtedar Khan, Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi', Yohanan Ramati, Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Yasir Suleiman, and many others) have described a phenomenon, usually referred to as the "Islamic Resurgence", that began in the late 1970's and continued for decades thereafter. The Islamic Resurgence has all of the hallmarks of a S&H second turning, and indeed greatly resembles the West's own Protestant Reformation.

This phenomenon could be seen across most of the Islamic world, from Morocco to Malaysia. Tremendous religious fervor, the rise of Puritanism (including a call for a "return" to scriptural purity), attacks upon those associated with the corrupt secular order, and many of the other characteristics of both the Protestant Reformation 2T and the Puritan Awakening 2T could be seen in late 20th century Islam. A great restructuring of the inner-world, the world of ideas and values, was taking place.

What Middle Eastern scholars will also tell you is that there was a massive movement in the Middle East and in other portions of the Islamic world toward secular nationalism in the decades prior to the Islamic Resurgence. World War II and the subsequent postwar decolonialization bears all of the hallmarks in this region of a society restructuring institutionally and emphasizing secular, outer-world issues. This fits S&H's basic descriptions of fourth and first turnings perfectly, with the 4T c.1940-c.1960, and the 1T, c.1960-c.1980 for most of the region, give or take from country to country. Of the whole region, Turkey seemed to be somewhat ahead of this cycle and perhaps Saudi Arabia less so.

Therefore, it seems pretty clear to me that most of the Islamic world is now in an early third turning, except for Turkey, which is likely much further along, pushing toward a secular crisis itself along with the West.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'm now convinced that Iraq is having an "English Civil War" type of 2T, with a particularly nasty, sectarian conflict that will solve little.

I think it's worse than that. If my hunch is right (see above), Iraq is 3T and this after a very bad 2T. By a bad 2T I mean one that took place within the context of Hussein's repression, kinda like if Johnson and Nixon had turned the US into a police terror state. The inner-world upheaval concomitant with a spiritual awakening would have had to have taken place in a very private manner, with the process greatly stifled where it occurred at all.

My impression is that this would have created one screwed up Prophet archetype -- hugely repressed coming of age and now ready to rock-n-roll into midlife positions. Imagine World War One potential for useless carnage coupled with midlife Prophets who have had their implusiveness controlled for them up to this point - and therefore have no experience controlling it themselves.

And Iraq is fertile ground right now for a coming of age Nomad generation filled with alienation and prone to frenetic behavior.

In short, we have stepped on an angry beehive in the sand.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Many serious scholars of the Middle East (Arthur Kane Scott, Muqtedar Khan, Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi', Yohanan Ramati, Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Yasir Suleiman, and many others) have described a phenomenon, usually referred to as the "Islamic Resurgence", that began in the late 1970's and continued for decades thereafter. The Islamic Resurgence has all of the hallmarks of a S&H second turning, and indeed greatly resembles the West's own Protestant Reformation.

This phenomenon could be seen across most of the Islamic world, from Morocco to Malaysia. Tremendous religious fervor, the rise of Puritanism (including a call for a "return" to scriptural purity), attacks upon those associated with the corrupt secular order, and many of the other characteristics of both the Protestant Reformation 2T and the Puritan Awakening 2T could be seen in late 20th century Islam. A great restructuring of the inner-world, the world of ideas and values, was taking place.

What Middle Eastern scholars will also tell you is that there was a massive movement in the Middle East and in other portions of the Islamic world toward secular nationalism in the decades prior to the Islamic Resurgence. World War II and the subsequent postwar decolonialization bears all of the hallmarks in this region of a society restructuring institutionally and emphasizing secular, outer-world issues. This fits S&H's basic descriptions of fourth and first turnings perfectly, with the 4T c.1940-c.1960, and the 1T, c.1960-c.1980 for most of the region, give or take from country to country. Of the whole region, Turkey seemed to be somewhat ahead of this cycle and perhaps Saudi Arabia less so.

Therefore, it seems pretty clear to me that most of the Islamic world is now in an early third turning, except for Turkey, which is likely much further along, pushing toward a secular crisis itself along with the West.

It would seem to me that this Islamic Resurgence could only happen during a 2T or a 4T. Naturally, those that would experience this movement in a 2T would be affected differently than those who experienced it during the 4T. According to the country analysis I've done, during the late 1970's and through the 1980's every middle Eastern country was in either a 2T (Israel, Palestine etc.) or 4T (Iraq, Iran etc.).

My Map

(subtract two turnings)

Here's how leaders bent on a 4T can entrap those in a 2T

http://tinyurl.com/2lj5af

The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.

In meetings with Israeli officials recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington's view on the matter

My God, can we survive the next 22.5 months (but who's counting?) with these psychopaths?