SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (91671)4/9/2003 9:32:00 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Respond to of 281500
 
Syria and Iran Must Get Their Turn

By Michael A. Ledeen
Posted: April 7, 2003

ARTICLES
National Post (Canada)
Publication Date: April 7, 2003

A year ago, as I was finishing the first draft of The War against the Terror Masters, I wrote that Syria and Iran could not tolerate an American success in Iraq, because it would fatally undermine the authority of the tyrants in Damascus and Tehran. Since the United States has taken too long to move on from Afghanistan to challenge the regimes of the terror masters, they had forged an alliance and would co-operate in sending terror squads against coalition armed forces, with the intention of repeating the Lebanese scenarios in the mid-Eighties (against the United States) and the late Nineties (against Israel).

U.S. diplomats didn't believe a word of it. After all, as Richard Armitage, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, said just a few weeks ago, "Iran is a democracy," and thus is qualitatively different from Iraq and North Korea. The State Department has been pursuing some sort of deal with the Iranian regime since the start of the Bush administration, and didn't want to be bothered--either with the facts, or with those annoying presidential statements that branded Iran a terror state governed by self-appointed religious fanatics. As for Syria, Foggy Bottom has long considered the Assads potential allies (remember how Warren Christopher waited patiently on the runway in Damascus during one of his "peace process" jaunts, only to be dissed? Remember how Henry Kissinger once called Hafez Assad "the most fascinating leader in the Middle East"?) and until a few days ago was working on a strategic partnership.

But war has a way of destroying the self-serving ambiguities of the diplomatic crowd, and in recent days Americans have heard some pretty tough words from both the U.S. Secretary of State and the U.S. Secretary of Defence, warning Syria and Iran to stop their lethal support of Saddam Hussein's crumbling regime, lest the United States treat them as hostile countries.

Just as I have been saying for these many frustrating months, the United States would find itself in a regional conflict, whatever it wanted, and whatever fanciful ideas the likes of Armitage and policy-planning chief Richard Haass conjured up for their personal satisfaction.

Now, Eli Lake of United Press International reports the government is aware of Iranian terrorist operations inside Iraq, and there have been many stories reporting Syria's campaign to send terrorists across the border to attack U.S. forces. In truth, Americans didn't need intelligence to know this was going on, because the Iranian and Syrian tyrants had announced it publicly. Assad gave an interview recently in which he proclaimed--in words that could have been taken right out of my book--that Lebanon was the model for the struggle that had to be waged in Iraq against coalition forces. And Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, gave a speech a few weeks ago in which he said the presence of American troops in Iraq would be even worse for Iran than the hated regime of Saddam Hussein.

So they are coming to kill coalition forces, which means that there is no more time for diplomatic "solutions." The United States will have to deal with the terror masters, here and now. Iran, at least, offers Americans the possibility of a memorable victory, because the Iranian people openly loath the regime, and will enthusiastically combat it, if only the United States supports them in their just struggle. One may legitimately ask if the Iraqi people are fully prepared for the burdens of democracy after the mind-numbing years of Saddam (I think they are, mind you, but the question is fair), but there is no doubt that the Iranians are up to it. And Syria cannot stand alone against a successful democratic revolution that topples tyrannical regimes in Kabul, Tehran and Iraq.

This is the path--the correct path--that President George W. Bush has charted, despite the opposition of so many of his diplomats, and despite the near-total indifference of the Western press to the plight of the Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian people. It is the path that most fully expresses the American revolutionary tradition, and gives the peoples of the Middle East the chance to recapture their dignity by empowering them to govern their own lands. Finally, for those obsessed by the Arab-Israeli question, it is the best chance for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. President Bush has said that he will not support a Palestinian state that is governed by people hostile to democracy. Yet it is impossible for a democratic Palestine to emerge, let alone survive, so long as the dominant countries in the region are tyrannical supporters of terrorism.

If, at long last, the United States is going to transform the Middle East in the name of the democratic revolution, it is madness to entrust this task to a Department of State that does not believe in it. The State Department, and the CIA, does not believe that democracy can succeed in the Middle East. That is why they have long supported a coup in Baghdad, rather than regime change. That is why they have violently opposed the Iraqi National Congress, which has fought for democracy for more than a decade, only to be repeatedly betrayed and sabotaged by the U.S. government.

Yet the U.S. Congress, seemingly unaware of the urgency of the moment and the years of blunders that contributed so much to the current crisis, has now voted to put all the money earmarked for the "reconstruction" of Iraq--which is to say, the creation of the post-war Iraqi polity and society--entirely in the hands of the Department of State.

If this is permitted to stand, it will make the creation of Iraqi democracy even more difficult than circumstances demand. The White House has said that it opposes this centralization of authority in the hands of the State Department, and it is likely that President Bush will veto the proposal, as he should. But, like U.S. diplomats, American elected representatives need a crash course in democratic revolution, the better to advance their cause, defeat their enemies and save the lives of the incredible fighting men and women.

The United States has written an exceptional page of military history in Iraq, but it can be undone by suicidal political blunders in the region in the very near future. It's time to bring down the other terror masters.

Faster, please.
aei.org