"The Cartoon Controversy"

The following is my letter to the editor of The Nation. The articles at issue can be found at www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/younge and www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/editors.

At the outset, let me say that I am an avid reader of The Nation's print and web publication and share most of the opinions offered in both media. That said, I must take issue with both Gary Younge's article and your recent editorial commentary concerning the Jyllands-Postem cartoons. Both pieces appear to not only validate to some degree the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons, but offer apology and excuse for the emotions which have prompted and promoted that response. While it is certainly true that the emotions which are giving voice to tens of thousands of Muslims throughout the world have a historical and, in some instances, legitimate basis, it is also true that this most recent demonstration of Islamic "muscle" is being driven by forces that have far more to do with politics than genuine religious belief. While it is true that the demonstrations in response to the cartoons were limited and peaceful, it is equally true that in those demonstrations, the more radical leaders of the Muslim world, most notably Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw in those demonstrations a platform for vitriol that has emerged from Teheran since he came to power several months ago. As has so often been the case over the past several decades, Arab leaders have seen those with legitimate concerns (i.e. the Palestinian people) as pawns to be employed and deployed throughout Europe and the Middle East (and the American media) in their never-ending war with the West to gain respect and leverage. That war, in truth, has far more to do with political and economic power than with any religious ideal that might be driving the "man in the streets" of the West Bank, Cairo, Teheran and Damascus and to ignore that reality is simply naive. It is no coincidence that this conflagration was truly ignited when Mr. Ahmadinejad and his cohorts walked out of the Organisation of the Islamic conference (OIC) held in Mecca last December. From that point on, what had been a peaceful albeit legitimately determined protest, became a tour de force, engineered by Mr. Ahmadinejad, in particular, who saw the controversy as a way of responding to and diverting attention away from the European (including Russian) and American concerns over Iran's likely intention to develop a nuclear weapon. That both Mr. Younge's article and your editorial focus upon "the causes" of the controversy without making any mention whatsoever of the complicity of Iran and other more radical elements of the Islamic political landscape is to ignore the political realities of the growing tension between the Muslim world and the West.