The Iranian Assassination Plot: Islamic Statecraft
Iran expected a weak response, knowing our leaders do not understand Islam.
October 14, 2011 - 1:01 pm
The Christians are protesting the burning of churches, a conflagration unleashed with the rise of Egypt’s Arab Spring and the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood. The face of the Arab Spring, so lauded by this administration and the MSM, is revealed in pictures of rank and file soldiers joining with the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood, who were brutally attacking the Christian demonstrators that the soldiers were supposed to protect.
In another indulgence of fatuous behavior, President Obama asked both sides to exercise restraint.
But worse, the mainstream Christian community has been righteous in its silence on the increasing brutalization of Christians in the Islamic world. Even the pope has retreated from his earlier courageous criticism of Islam. Violent attacks on Catholics in the Islamic world have silenced him. In the Islamic world, violence on behalf of Islam is an imperative, and in the face of violence, the Holy See has backed down.
It is not just the MSM that fails to understand the incompatibility of Islamic culture with the rule of Western law. Barry Rubin, in PJMedia, describes the naïve observations of three prominent Republicans on the uprising in Libya, observations that could only be appropriately described as quixotic embraces of a Potemkin Village scene of democratic rebels — who are in reality killing prisoners, bombarding civilians, and selling weapons to terrorists.
The Obama administration is handling the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, which also had the potential of killing scores of innocent bystanders, as a criminal justice problem and not what it is — an act of war. This is an act of war brought on by Obama’s willingness to engage Iran without any demand for reciprocity, and his alacrity to embrace the murderous Bashir Assad as a partner in the Middle East.
When American leaders are looked upon as weak buffoons, our adversaries and our enemies will take risks in dealing with them. Nikita Khrushchev perceived President Kennedy as weak and inept, especially after his abandoning the Bay of Pigs invaders and terminating their air support. Khrushchev gambled on tilting the balance of terror in his favor by putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Fortunately, Kennedy rose to the occasion.
Now Iran moves decisively toward producing a nuclear weapon, and the administration does nothing. The administration has done nothing about Assad’s opening the border with Iraq to move in fighters who kill American troops. The administration has done nothing about Iran’s transfer of weapons to Iraq’s Shi’a militia. Iran is the source of the military grade explosives used in IEDs.
One could not have expected a culture which has no reverence for the norms of international law to abide by legal restraints, but one could have expected that all cultures comprehend the consequences of provoking a strong adversary who is unhesitant in undertaking decisive retaliation, especially for an act of war.
Clearly, the Iranians believed we would not retaliate. And this was to be expected. They did what no nation-state in the modern era has done. In 1979, they flagrantly violated the law of nations as applied to internationally protected persons. They suffered negligible consequences. Their Hitler-like president is honored by our elites and invited to disseminate his hatred at one of our most privileged universities. The Iranians see an administration that pursues them. Their client Bashir Assad was hailed as a partner for Middle East peace, and even after he was shooting people in the streets, the Obama administration clung to him until it became too obscene to continue.
In these times, the nation needs another JFK, a man who learned from his mistakes and had the courage to preserve the nation’s security. Instead, we are burdened with a president who equivocates when decisiveness is needed and who is stymied by a vision of Islamic culture that fails to recognize how it translates into statecraft.