Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon embodied the emergence of a rational, farsighted
national idea that seemed poised in the coming March elections to create a stable governing political center for
the first time in decades, says columnist Charles Krauthammer. The success of the fence-plus-unilateral-withdrawal
strategy caused the collapse of Arafat's intifada. But now, the severity of Sharon's stroke precludes any assumption
of his return to power, even if he survives.
Immediately, Sharon's political passing throws into doubt the Israeli elections scheduled for March, the Palestinian
elections at the end of January and the future of the West Bank and Jerusalem. In addition, January 4th, 2006 will
become as good a date as any to mark the starting point of the coming nuclear showdown between the Islamic Republic
of Iran and the free world, including Israel. It is a good time to assess the Middle East.
The Virtual Caliphate
In his thorough analysis for RealClearPolitics, Tom Corn makes a number of excellent points about the nature
of World War IV.
Beginning in 1979 in Iran, pan-Arabism which had been the main movement in the Middle East since 1945, was supplanted
by pan-Islamism. The important point is that the 26-year insurgency is within Islam and the dominant force is pan-Islamic
Salafism. The West is now at war with a new totalitarianism that uses terror as one technique. The 21st Century
version of guerilla warfare has two distinct characteristics - the operations are asymmetrical (the small sets
out to defeat the large) and the focus is on destroying the enemy's political will rather than military conquest.
Salafism currently enjoys a semi-hegemonic position in the Muslim world. With 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide, just
a one percent adherence to Wahabbi/Salafism would mean some 12 million believers spread across 60 countries. If
just one percent of these converts volunteered for violence, there would be 120,000 suicide bombers to defuse.
The goal of Salafism is simple - Sha'ria law plus WMD.
The traditional Five Pillars of Islam have been perverted into the Asymmetric Pillars of the radical extreme.
- al-Saudi. Saudi Arabia has used its "soft power" to turn itself into a virtual caliphate providing
funds for expansion world-wide through what appears to be charitable efforts such as payments to suicide bomber
families.
- al-Azhar. This Cairo-based university provides intellectual content. Its graduates fill the employment
needs of expanding Salafist schools and programs. It functions as the Islamic Supreme Court, granting or withholding
legitimacy using Muslim Brotherhood guidelines.
- al-Qaeda. Provides the raw muscle and the primary training for the terror force.
- al-Jazeera. There are some 120 Muslim television outlets which carry propaganda news and advertising
24/7.
- al-Fifth Column. Faithful to their history, academics, elitists and their ilk provide intellectual cover,
academic immunity and a first line of defense so that Salafism is safe from criticism and protected from censure
in target nations. Their calls for a return to the status quo ante are designed to protect the Saudi oil cartel.
Faced with a threat of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in the hands of Persian Shia, Sunni Saudi Arabia
has worked out a deal with Pakistan to exchange oil for a nuclear capacity of its own. Pakistan now has the capacity
in both nuclear bombs and missiles to reach any Iranian city. In other words, as of today, Sunni Arabs have a nuclear
deterrent but the apostate Shia Persians do not.
It is this need by the mullahs for nuclear parity that is the rational motive for acquiring a nuclear capacity.
Israel-hating may be more of a disinformation campaign to disguise a temporary weakness that anything else. In
private talks, the West will not be credible unless it brings to the table a regional agreement that disarms Pakistan
and Saudi Arabia, according to essayist Tom Milstein. If negotiations fail, the neighbors will want access to nuclear
weapons, too.
The neighbors include Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Iraq.
The outside meddlers include Russia and China. If they prove effective, India will be forced into the game.
Under Sharon, Israel has stated its policy that the resumption of enrichment activities is the red line they would
not allow Iran to cross. Iran, says expert Kenneth Timmerman, seems ready to cross that red line.
At the Texas ranch last April, Sharon backed nuclear negotiations. Every other option was worse. Israel had 500
conventional "bunker buster" bombs but Iran had 70 or so hardened sites. Unilateral Israeli action would
unleash a diplomatic, economic and military backlash beyond Israel's capacity to endure. Negotiations suggesting
that the UN would approve sanctions against Iran were not credible to the Iranians who have ties with both China
and Russia and would expect to be protected by their vetoes in the Security Council.
In Israel, there is now and always have been just four choices. As defined by columnist Christopher Hitchens, they
are (1) maintain the status quo which means that the Israelis would attempt to rule without their consent a hostile
and poor population larger than their own, (2) Create a single state with all citizens having the right to vote
which would create a Palestinian majority and mean the end of the Jewish state; (3) Have a war-to-the-finish and
see who "wins," or (4) Create a partition between two separate states.
Ariel Sharon could make tough choices. He could face "less bad" consequences. It would be the irony of
ironies if Israel's survival became partially based on a nuclear standoff between Iran and the Saudi kingdom.
12/23/05
