Joel C. Rosenberg. The Last Jihad. 2002, Tyndale, 2006.

We have reviewed a few of Joel Rosenberg’s international thrillers. This was his first. It begins with an Islamic terrorist attack on the United States. In his introduction, Rosenberg writes that he had written the story before the Al-Qaeda attacks on New York and the Washington, D.C., area in 2001. After the attacks, his agent and various publishers were suddenly interested in getting his work into print.

One is tempted to compare Rosenberg to Tom Clancy, and while Clancy’s first, Hunt for Red October, published during the Reagan administration, is dated (the Soviet Union earned its place in the dustbin of history), the Clancy novel is still a good read. We can draw a similar parallel with The Last Jihad. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq plays a key role in the story. While Iraq in the first decade of the twenty-first century turned out differently, The Last Jihad still makes for a good story.

A few of the details in the story have proven to be more or less true. An afterword in the 2006 edition notes a number of successful oil and gas explorations in Israel. In the novel, the characters express confidence that these discoveries will bring Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews together. There is no sign of that happening yet, though recent diplomatic exchanges between Israel and a few Arab countries are promising.

We note that Rosenberg like some of the oil explorers he mentions were inspired by certain passages in the Hebrew Scriptures. Ezekiel 36:11 and 38:11-13 speak of a future Israel being very prosperous so that other nations will want their resources. Genesis 49:25 speaks of the blessings that lie beneath the land. Deuteronomy 33:24 speaks of a son of Jacob dipping his feet in oil, and one that I recall from many years ago, Deuteronomy 32:13 speaks of another son of Jacob getting “oil out of the flinty rock.”

All this is interesting stuff and tells us something of Rosenberg’s inspiration, but what about the story? The Last Jihad begins with an unsuccessful attempt on the life of the American president. While the president is visiting Colorado, his motorcade is ambushed by an air attack. He survives, but it becomes clear that Iraq is behind it. After all, Iraqi agents earlier had tried to assassinate ex-President George H.W. Bush on a visit to the Near East.

Before going into politics, this fictional president had been CEO of a successful investment firm. The person who appears to be the main character in the story is a young, single up-and-comer in that firm who has been asked to work for the Treasury Department. Jon Bennett also knows Stu Iverson, the current Secretary of the Treasury, who also had worked for the same firm. We see echoes of both Blackwater from the Bushes and Rose Law Firm from the Clintons.

The reader gets a shock about a third of the way through the book. These political thrillers usually follow a kind of formula. The main character will have something to do directly or as a witness to bring about the climax. But Bennett is killed. Who, then, is the main character going to be? What will happen?

It has been pointed out that the Great Wall was mostly successful in keeping hostile groups to the north out of China. The wall failed when people on the inside let the outsiders in. So it appears to be happening here. One or more people close to the president may have been giving terrorists information. Although they may not be aware of where their money is going, they may be supporting the terrorists with money, too. After all, many international corporations are set up in such a way as to be opaque to various governing authorities. We may think we are doing business with a legitimate Western oil company, for example, but the company is actually run by Communists or supporters of terrorism.

The plot is intricate, but at the same time, it moves fast. It sounds like nuclear Armageddon could be happening. It turns out that the attempt on the president is just one of several attacks on various world leaders in various countries within the same week. When some, like the attack on the president, fail in their goal, it appears Iraq is going to ramp things up. Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction? That was a question from about eighteen years ago. We know they had nuclear reactors. What if Saddam was planning something bigger than a few assassination attempts?

If war is imminent, we cannot focus on just one person or group anyhow. Various people from various countries including diplomats, retired spies, current spies, politicians, businessmen (and women), all play their parts.

One discussion is presented like a Socratic dialogue and is worth repeating when the President and one of his cabinet members are discussing the literal nuclear option:

“How can you begin to consider incinerating several million souls with the push of a button, in the blink of an eye? We cannot become the barbarians we’ve been forced to fight. The end never justifies the means. Never. That was the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was the lesson of Vietnam. And that was the lesson of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. How can you—?”

“Mr. Secretary, that is absolutely not true,” the president shot back, firmly but fiercely. “That is not true. It just isn’t. The lesson of Vietnam was never fight a just war—a war against an evil empire and its proxies to enslave mankind—unless you intend to win. The lesson of Afghanistan was don’t fight a war you have no business winning. And lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Mr. Secretary, was that a president must never—never—flinch from using any and all means necessary to prevent the wholesale slaughter of American citizens and our allies.”

“Sir, this is repaying evil for evil. It’s becoming the very essence of what we hope to defeat.”

“No, no, no—it’s not. It’s not. It’s stopping evil once and for all.”

“How? By using the instruments of evil, the instruments of war?”

“The instruments of war are not evil, Mr. Secretary. Not in and of themselves. Not unless they are in the hands of those who use them for evil. Preventing the slaughter of innocent Americans is not evil. It is profoundly moral and inherently just.” (208, italics in original)

There is also a great quotation that I am sure I have read elsewhere. In The Last Jihad, a top Israeli security official tells a American, “The problem with you Americans is that you don’t believe in evil” (234). Yes, Americans believe most people are trying to do the right thing. That is why we trust in the outcome of honest elections. But what if someone is simply being evil?

In the context here, there are plenty of quotations from Saddam Hussein saying he will attack and destroy Israel and America. Older readers may recall his “mother of all wars” rhetoric or current “Death to America” chants from Iran. The typical American response in such instances is that Saddam or his ilk is bluffing—he is lying, he would not actually do it. Or if he is seriously thinking of doing it, he is crazy.

“…there is a third option—Saddam Hussein is not a lunatic and, in that case, he wasn’t a liar. He was rational and calculating and evil. So he told the world what he was going to do—commit an act of evil, not an act of madness—and then he did it. It took a bunch of highly paid analysts with Harvard degrees to completely miss the simplicity of the moment.” (237)

While Saddam is no more, it does seem that a lot of highly paid “specialists” in and out of government, with or without Ivy degrees (we can’t forget Stanford and Berkeley these days of FAANG), can be awfully naïve.

So, yes, not only are there a nuclear facedown reminiscent of Fail-Safe, lots of entertaining action and suspense reminiscent of Clancy, discussions reminiscent of Socrates, but also there are many things in The Last Jihad that are meant to get the reader thinking.