Centerfield

Thanks for the fascinating report.

Interesting that the Kurds were thinking Independence backed by the Soviets against the British and Ottomans. The Ottomans viewed Iranians with contempt while our intelligence understood the militaristic and organized nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. And that wonderful Stalin was hosting the Mufti's crowning in Moscow where all great religions were invited. LOL No wonder the Mullahs supported the Shah's coup against the misguided nationalists. The Brotherhood's child Saddam faced them decades later. We entered the fray in 1946 with largely a clean slate and the bomb.

Detail seems spread out with little dynamic discussed between the parts. It predicts a storm in the Muslim world or a Clash of Civilizations should the unstable dynamic continue, but it doesn't mark any intentional manipulation of the initial conditions to achieve stability. One butterfly in the Muslim pot was the Nazi Legacy. The idea of endemic ideological insurgency by radical Islam, dictatorship or Communism is strangely absent, despite the 1946 date. A view from 1946 on the Middle East offers a starker version of ideologies in motion leading to the Muslim dynamic today. It is somewhere in here

I should have said "a view on 1946 (which discusses the significance of letting the Mufti escape from French prison) regarding the Middle East offers a starker version......"

And that Butterfly was the Grand Mufti.

An important event missing from the Intelligence Review of 1946. Do you have 1947 - 1948?

61 years later.

Thanks for the pointer for the bit about the start of Muslim radical antisemitism. An interesting pair of documents....

Absolutely. Very interesting bit of information. Please post anymore Intelligence Reports. Do you know what Churchill thought about the migration of the Nazis? Many Nazis fled to the Middle East. There is a thread that goes to South America and South Africa.

I am struck by the omission in the IR about the Grand Mufti (does mention going to Moscow) while Stalin clearly was trying to manipulate the "religious" world in a pathetic bid to look tolerant. The logic behind our moves are never discussed. We all know Stalin's real position in the light of history. Were we trying to counter his move with an appeasing gesture of our own?

Isn't it amazing the role of the Muslim Brotherhood today in Gaza? Lebanon and Egypt? Jordan is scared about sending security to the West Bank. They have 3 million with possible ties to the Brotherhood. And note the support by Iran and the Brotherhood to Hamas. What brilliant journalist at Time or WAPO wants to explain this mess? And a mess it is. Assad is actually an idiot because the Brotherhood wants his head (explains some reasons for Assad's working with Iran). AQ certainly has Assad in its sights. But what did Syria really unleash in those Fatah camps in Lebanon? Whoever is fighting the Lebanese government has support from Hizb'Allah, an Iranian backed terror group. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood in Pakistan would love those nukes. They are going full bore to remove Musharaf. I am struck how 61 years later and the Democrat's view does not see the noose tightening, nor accepts much of the reality outlined in either "report".

Also, both reports shed some light on Iran. The Brotherhood was despised by the Mullahs. The Nazis didn't really penetrate into Iran. Still, they bought the hatred against Jews, pushing it into their Fundamentalist mindset. They played into Stalin's ruse at first. The nationalists in Iran that actually prospered in the decade before the war, didn't want any part of East/West struggles but they forgot in the end, it was the Shah that really introduced the modern culture in the first place. One thing they completely overlooked was the threat to them posed by the Mullahs themselves. As the nationalist moved to be independent (offered little compensation for their nationalizing British oil investment) and resisted the Shah, the Mullahs began to see the dangers of the Soviets AND the nationalists. They questioned the reform of the Shah, but also disliked even more, the nationalism and flirtation with Russia, by modernists seeking the loyalty of Iranians. The Mullahs backed the generals and the Shah, which is one reason the coup cost only about 1 million dollars (having been hatched by the British). Any comments about any of this from Churchill?

Of course, the fascinating part is how it fits into today's headlines. Quite amazing.

Thanks....

Of course, Assad suffers from belonging to a sect that the Sunni fundamentalists regard as even worse heretics than the Shia. Which leaves him with no good options for allies -- if Iran is what's on offer, he pretty much has to jump at it. And for decades the Alawites(sp?) under the Assads have run roughshod over the Sunnis in Syria, so he doesn't have a very large fan base at home either. (It's a very small sect.)

You are right. Funny how we can't wrestle him towards a better side despite many, many offers.