If, in the face of repeated threats and provocation by an aggressive dictatorship, you refuse to go to war, the war will eventually come to you.
That’s the meaning of Iran’s de facto declaration of war against Israel–which is, ultimately, a new war Iran is waging against the US. Iran is so desperate for war with the West that it is bringing the war to us, openly and willfully initiating a regional conflict that may soon involve three of Iran’s proxies–Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria–fighting against America’s proxy, Israel.
The danger for us is that, in seeking to avoid an unavoidable war with Iran, we have allowed Iran to start the conflict on terms that it believes will be most favorable to it.
Den andra heter ”What Part of ‘War’ Don’t We Understand?”:
Political debates tend to be moved forward by new facts generated ”on the ground.” At these moments, it is far easier to convince people of the truth, because that truth is tied directly to facts people can see out in the world.
Hezbollah’s initiation of a war with Israel is one of those moments.
A few of us have been saying for years that the War on Terrorism is not just about Israel by itself or Iraq by itself–that it is a ”regional war,” as Michael Ledeen has put it, in which the US and its allies are being attacked by an ”Islamist Axis” connecting Iran to its network of terrorist proxies across the Middle East.
Now this is everybody’s headline.
Samtidigt har folket vid ARI skrivit två nya op-eds som förklarar USA:s roll i krisen i Mellanöstern.
Peter Schwartz förklarar i sin artikel, ”Freedom vs. Unlimited Majority Rule”, hur USA:s försök att sprida demokrat i regionen har resulterat i att terroristerna har stärkt sina positioner. Det är så det går när man förväxlar demokrati med frihet:
America helped empower Hezbollah, by confusing the idea of freedom, which rests on the principle of inalienable individual rights, with the idea of democracy, which rests on the principle of unlimited majority rule.
Hezbollah, which has been waging war on Israel, and America, for years, is the immediate cause of the current fighting in the Middle East. The broader cause, though, is the United States government.
When Washington declared that freedom could be advanced by elections in which Hezbollah participated, and by which it became part of Lebanon’s government, we granted that terrorist entity something it could never achieve on its own: moral legitimacy.
We gave legitimacy to Hezbollah–just as we did to such enemies as Hamas in the Palestinian Authority and the budding theocrats in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people all came to power through democratic elections promoted by the U.S. But a murderer does not gain legitimacy by getting elected to the ruling clique of his criminal gang–nor does anyone gain it by becoming an elected official of an anti-freedom state.
The premise behind the Bush administration’s policy is the hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections–a premise stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy.
Onkar Ghate förklarar i sin artikel, ”The Indispensable Condition of Peace”, vad USA kan och måste göra för att hjälpa Israel och skapa ett fredligare Mellanöstern:
As Israeli soldiers reenter Gaza and bomb Lebanon, and Israeli citizens seek shelter from Hezbollah’s missiles, the world despairingly wonders whether peace between Israel and its neighbors can ever take root. It can–but only if America reverses course.
To achieve peace in the Middle East, as in any region, there is a necessary principle that every party must learn: the initiation of force is evil. And the indispensable means of teaching it is to ensure that the initiating side is defeated and punished. Decisive retaliatory force must be wielded against the aggressor. So long as one side has reason to think it will benefit from initiating force against its neighbors, war must result. Yet this is precisely what America’s immoral foreign policy gives the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah reason to think.
Israel is a free country, which recognizes the rights of its citizens, whatever their race or religion, and which prospers through business and trade. It has no use for war and no interest in conquest. But for years, Arafat and the Palestinian authorities, with the aid of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other states, sought not to learn the conditions of freedom, but to annihilate the only free nation in their midst: Israel. Did the United States demand that the Palestinian leadership be destroyed?