The violence and mayhem fueled by the cartoon war spread further with riots breaking out in Pakistan where American cultural icon Ronald McDonald was abused and a Kentucky Fried Chicken sacked.
This wasn't the action of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but an extension of the organized campaign of anti-Western violence that miraculously sprung up last month to protest the publication of cartoons mocking Islam months ago in an obscure Danish newspaper. Never mind that much of the American media has refused to publish the cartoons out of sensitivity to Islam; nor did Ronald McDonald ever express an anti-Islamic thought.
The Heart of Evil: Iran
In the same week when all eyes turned towards the "scandal" that Dick Cheney didn't immediately notify the White House Press Corps he had been responsible for a hunting accident, Iranians celebrated the 27th anniversary of the Islamic takeover of that country with another display of dangerous rhetoric and threats.
Amid the ritual chanting of "death to America" and "death to Israel" came the very real threat that Iran would pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. During a speech at a massive rally in Tehran marking the occasion, Iranian President Ahmadinejad warned that "The nuclear policy of the Islamic Republic so far has been peaceful," (emphasis mine) but went on to warn that "If we see you want to violate the right of the Iranian people by using those [IAEA]regulations (against us), you should know that the Iranian people will revise its policies."
Basically what he is saying is we reserve the right to do whatever we want regardless of our treaty commitments and it will be the fault of the West should you insist on enforcing the treaty.
Cartoon War is no Phony
During the speech Amadjihad (my name for him) also made repeated references to the cartoon war. Big surprise there as Iran has been a key player behind the violence.
The cartoons were originally published on September 30 2005 in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. A few weeks later they were reprinted in an Egyptian newspaper , El Fagr, without incident.
As the controversy caused by the cartoons grew in Europe, other papers printed them to show solidarity with the principle of free speech. Two Dutch newspapers published the cartoons shortly after the Egyptian paper (chronology of those publishing here). The ever tolerant Dutch had experienced their own insight into the beast of Islamic fanaticism with the brutal death of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, his throat cut down to the spinal cord for offending Islam in his film "Submission" depicting the role of women in Islamic society.
The cartoon war began heating up in late January, 2006. Prior to that Muslim outrage was confined to diplomatic protests and meetings of various Islamic organizations demanding that any offense to Islam should be considered a crime under international law; enshrining Islamic Sharia law as the international standard. The Brussels Journal has one of the best selection of posts on this subject. And Wikipedia has a comprehensive timeline.
By the first week of February we witnessed the takeover of the European Union offices in Gaza. Attacks on Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria and Beirut, Lebanon soon followed leading to attacks on embassies, including curiously enough the Austrian embassy in Tehran.
You can trace the growing violence from the Gaza Strip directly to Tehran and there is more than a geographic connection.
On January 19th Iranian President Amadjihad was in Damascus cementing the old alliance between these two partners in crime. And of course Iran has been funding terrorist activities in Gaza for some time. Readers may recall the Israeli seizure of the ship Karine A bound for Gaza loaded with Iranian weapons. Likewise, Iran holds the leash for their Lebanese attack dog Hezbollah.
When the riots spread to Tehran, it had become rather obvious that these events were orchestrated by the Iranians. But why attack the Austrian embassy? Austrian newspapers had not published any of the offending cartoons?
But, Austria is home to the International Atomic Energy Agency which referred Iran to the UN Security Council on Saturday, February 4th for violating it's treaty obligations regarding nuclear weapons proliferation. Austria also assumed presidency of the European Union for 2006. Two days later, their embassy in Tehran is pelted with firebombs. Coincidence? Only Cindy Sheehan would think so.
Why Now?
The ultimate objective of Iran's whacko fanatics is a worldwide Islamic Revolution. Iranian President Amadjihad has declared it openly: "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 [the current Iranian year] will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world," Ahmadinejad was quoted by the official Iranian news agency as saying.
And he is backed up by the mad mullahocracy, many of whom are growing old and no doubt impatient to see the final act of violence spawned by their crazed and hate-filled delusions before they visit the grave.
Michael Leeden in National Review Online describes the urgency of the timeline. Iran sees the West as weakened by dissent over the war in Iraq; thanks to the likes of Congressman Murtha. But Iranians also need the conflict to control their people, most of whom grew tired long ago of the religious oppression that is much worse than that suffered under the Shah.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei may also be terminally ill, and there's nothing like a conflict with the West to help hardliners knock less radical elements into line in the eventual power struggle.
The West's Response: Talk or Action?
Up to now, the West's response to the bluster, threats and violence emanating from Iran has been to talk tough. You know, the usual routine: report them to the UN Security Council (Demark will chair the Council in June.) Get a handful of paper resolutions, maybe some sanctions.
Europeans were encouraged by the Bush Administration to take the early lead in defusing the Iranian nuclear threat. What's called the "EU-3" of Britain, France and Germany has been working on the issue now for several years without success. It now appears they have seen the ineffectiveness of their efforts.
Newly elected German Chancellor Merkel at a White House meeting with President Bush January 13th had this to say: ""Iran armed with a nuclear weapon poses a grave threat to the security of the world..."And we will certainly not be intimidated by a country such as Iran."
And earlier this week, the French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy described Iran's nuclear program as a "clandestine military nuclear program" and went on to say ""The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us."
And of course the French suggest we go the UN Security Council route with the inevitable conclusion that more talk will lead the same result.
US Objectives
President Bush has consistently and repeatedly spelled out US objectives regarding Iran. When he first included Iran in the famous "axis of evil" State of the Union speech in January 2002 he described not only Iran's role in terrorism, but his concern that "an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."
He reiterated both those concerns and the nuclear issue in his 2006 speech: "the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." But he went one step further and described the ultimate objective of US policy:
Tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.Turning Policy into Reality
But how to get there from here is the question.
With suspicions that Iran is may be about to test a nuclear weapon, a sense of urgency has overtaken the usually slow, tedious and mostly unfruitful diplomatic process. The military option of bombing Iranian nuclear sites is openly discussed. The dangers and limitations of such a strike are clear.
Would surgical strikes succeed in destroying Iran's nuclear ambitions or would such an attack only provoke a wider war for which the West is totally unprepared? Would a military solution embolden democratic activists in Iran to seize the initiative and free that nation from the mullahocracy or would the strikes enable a further crackdown and a propaganda campaign to control the Iranian people?
There are no good answers here, only good questions. And sadly, with a national media more focused on a hunting accident than life and death issues affecting millions around the globe, few of these questions are being asked, let alone answered.
What Does the Future Hold?
Nial Ferguson, writing in the London Telegraph theorized on "The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented." We may now be at a point in history where the confluence of forces, both good and bad, require resolution. We cannot allow villainous madmen like Amadjihad and crazed Islamic fanatics to proceed further down a path that will ultimately lead to the deaths of millions in some nuclear holy war.
But the smart path to avoid such a calamity is also fraught with risk and requires a determination and unity of purpose that is lacking in Western society.
Are we condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past and fail to act until the cost to history is enormous?
Posted also at The Wide Awakes
No comments:
Post a Comment