Michael Barone's Take on the Mideast

Looking at the war in the Mideast today, I can't help but think that it is an incredible opportunity for rapid change. The usual suspects on the Left and in the media (including many on Fox News) are longing for good old days of Bill Clinton, forgetting that he failed utterly and helped plunge the Mideast into the Second Intifada which was launched on his watch. And John Kerry just said that if he were President this wouldn't have happened - which has to rank as one of the stupider statements he has ever made.

This war was precipitated by Iran and Syria to get the West off of Iran's back regarding the nuclear weapons issue and to get the West off of Syria's back regarding Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Harirri. It was co-ordinated with Hamas in Gaza as a way to turn the world against Israel and precipitate a war to push Israel into the sea while the West watches impotently. The left-wing and Democrat lies about Iraq and the 'broken' US military has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by Iran and its proxies.

But Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Democrats, the Left, and the media have miscalculated once again. Appeasement and weakness are over, and of all people the Arabs in the region know it. Michael Barone has an important article over at Townhall this morning on how this Mideast Crisis is different from all of the others.

Will we see something positive and lasting coming from this? Too soon to tell, but there is a better chance of something positive happening under Bush leadership than under anything the other side has  offered. Time and time again I see diplomats and leftist pundits offering up appeasement, as if that has ever worked before. There is no negotiating with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, or Hamas. Their objective is clear, as must be our own. Here's Barone:

"The Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah has also prompted leaders of other Arab nations to respond differently than they have in Middle East crises in the past. Then, they were content to give verbal support to the likes of Arafat, to please the "Arab street" and the intellectuals in their own countries. Arafat and his ilk posed no real threat to them. But they have responded very differently to this crisis, which appears to be an attempt by the Iranian mullahs to project their influence throughout the region. Iran, with its missiles and its nuclear program, with its non-Arab ethnicity and militant Shiite Islam, is a threat to the rulers of countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Hence their denunciations of the Hezbollah attacks.

The guiding impulse of most leaders in Europe and of many in the United States is to seek some sort of negotiated compromise. That is what Bill Clinton did when Hezbollah attacked Israel 10 years ago, and he sent Secretary of State Warren Christopher to negotiate with President Hafez Assad of Syria. But today, even the Europeans recognize that this approach is not only futile, but dangerous. Syria is a cat's-paw of Iran, and Iran, with its missiles and possible warheads, is an existential threat not only to others in the Middle East, but to Europe. Appeasement is possible when the attacker stands ready to be appeased, as Sadat and King Hussein were. It is dangerous where there is no such willingness, as seems to be the case for Iran's mullahs and its batty, Holocaust-denying president.

The question now is whether Israel has the capacity and the will to eliminate the aggressive capability of Hezbollah and Hamas. And whether the United States has the nerve to continue to back Israel in its determination to do so. The outcome is not clear. But at least there is no cry for the non-solution of land for peace."