Posted on 03/27/2002 12:10:54 PM PST by My Identity
As I reported in this newspaper on Friday, the "jailing," or rather probationing of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has been taken over from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney. It is an extremely significant step, not because it "disempowers" the Israelis, but because it puts the United States forward directly in the role of Israel's protector, negotiating on Israel's behalf.
While lost on the western media, the point has been taken in several capitals of the Arab world: Mr. Arafat and his terrorist groups are no longer simply confronting Israel. They are now confronting a United States that is increasingly aware of their international connections.
Mr. Cheney set the conditions for a meeting between himself and Mr. Arafat in Cairo yesterday, which did not take place because Mr. Arafat did not meet them. The essential, verifiable condition was that Mr. Arafat would deliver a public address, to his people, in unambiguous Arabic, demanding an immediate end to all terrorist strikes against Israel, and be seen delivering like orders to all the Palestinian militias under his ultimate command.
Instead, he appeared on Palestinian TV looking as if he were a hostage reading a prepared statement by his kidnapper. He condemned, after the fact, only one particular suicide bombing in Jerusalem. This was 11 eggs short of a dozen.
At the meeting in Cairo, Mr. Cheney would have had an opportunity to tell Mr. Arafat, face to face, that all of his brigades were at the point of being declared "foreign terrorist organizations" by the U.S. state department, with consequences he should imagine; and that Mr. Arafat must immediately and dramatically sever his connections with the "Islamist International," or be considered a part of it.
Mr. Cheney has even instructed Mr. Sharon to let Mr. Arafat go to Beirut, and return to the West Bank afterwards, notwithstanding his failure to meet any of the American or Israeli conditions. This, to preclude an unnecessary explosion of Arab passions at tomorrow's Beirut summit.
Mr. Arafat has nerves of steel. The moment he was certain Mr. Sharon would be compelled to let him go to Beirut, he instructed his negotiators to walk out of the ceasefire talks with Israel under U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni. In his own mind, and in Palestinian propaganda, he thus successfully spat in the United States's face. If he goes on to deliver an incendiary address to the Arab League he will have unwittingly advanced a U.S. objective, which is to show the world why the Bush administration can no longer deal with him.
But why is Mr. Arafat sounding so confident, when the Israelis have recently, through Operation Root Treatment, done tremendous damage to his terrorist infrastructure, and through retaliatory mortar and airstrikes, smashed almost all of the material symbols of his prestige? In the past, either operation would have been enough to make him accommodating.
The smaller part of the answer is beginning to float through the western media. Palestinian triumphalism is being fed because Israel has been seriously spooked by the latest round of suicide bombings. It is not only the sense of security shattered for people going about their everyday lives, who must flinch constantly in expectation of another nail bomb, but also the compound damage done to an increasingly fragile Israeli economy. Imagine if, to put this in proportion to population, there were bomb blasts in every major Canadian city, almost every day, with more than 100 killed, and 1,000 maimed, in the course of an average week.
The larger part of the answer is more frightening.
Over the weekend, the Bush administration in effect used the liberal New York Times to communicate a message, alike to friend and foe. A remarkable article appeared at the top of the Sunday front page, detailing relations between Mr. Arafat and his major new sponsor, the Iranian ayatollahs. The relationship has come more fully into the light since the Israelis intercepted the Karine A arms shipment in the Red Sea in January. The article was supplied with what can only be read as intentional leaks from both U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources.
It omits several important dimensions: that Iran is urgently supplying Syria with the technology to produce scud missiles on its own, and that significant shipments of very lethal weapons, including medium-range missiles capable of devastating Israeli cities, may now be passing from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, to the Hezbollah army that is building up in southern Lebanon.
The article touched on the increasing Iranian effort to infiltrate and supply arms for attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and on strong suspicions that the Iranians are now hosting al-Qaeda operatives who have fled the Afghan theatre. But it did not mention Turkish intelligence reports of the rapid build-up of facilities for a Kurdish Islamist terrorist army across the Turkish frontier in Iran. This appears to be a co-operative project between the Iraqi and Iranian regimes.
Sunday on U.S. television, Mr. Cheney would not confirm the content of the New York Times story. (Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. national security adviser, questioned a few details.) However, he allowed the main thrust of it to carry: that the U.S. is aghast to see this further evidence of what President George W. Bush in his state of the union speech described, accurately, as an "axis of evil."
"Aghast" is the word, for what we are witnessing looks like joint preparations by the Palestinian Authority, Syria, its Lebanese client, Iraq, and Iran, for war on a regional scale, against both Israel and U.S. interests. I fear we may face a major, sudden, external assault on Israel, meant to precede U.S. action against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, and indeed prevent the U.S. from going there by enmiring it in the defence of Israel.
This last would be a catastrophic miscalculation, but typical of the Islamist mindset, both Arab and Persian. It goes with the usual optimistic expectation that the "Arab street" will rise in the "moderate" Arab states, compelling even Egypt and Saudi Arabia to join in the anti-Israeli and anti-American fray.
I am aware of the magnitude of this prediction, and I am not making it casually. Everything I now know about the deployment of forces in the region points in the same counter-intuitive direction: toward an organized, external attack on Israel, coinciding with a final escalation of the Palestinian intifada. Whether or not a surprise attack is already planned, the equipment is being put in place to launch one.
A pretext for such a strike will never be lacking. Whoever happens to be prime minister of Israel at the moment can be blamed for having brought this Armageddon upon himself by failing to accede to Palestinian demands. Alternatively, such an attack could be launched to create a second front the moment the U.S. moves against Saddam Hussein, and using that for pretext.
The problem for the Bush administration is that while it makes contingency plans for an unavoidable regime change in Iraq, it becomes increasingly aware that Saddam Hussein is no longer isolated; that there is a real risk the Americans could find themselves fighting, alongside Israel and Turkey, against all of their common enemies in the region, simultaneously. But given the constant development of weapons of mass destruction in each of these enemy states, and the constant stoking of Islamist fires, such a war might better be fought sooner than later.
Mr. Cheney's continuing mission is hardly restricted to trying to broker a quick truce between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I think he knows that will, anyway, not be possible, given what is now behind Mr. Arafat. Rather, he is preparing for the U.S. to take charge of that second front, by moving the U.S. from behind, to a position in front, of Israel. He is raising the stakes for any attack on Israel, in the hope this can prevent such a thing from happening.
There is a certain logic to this prediction, inasmuch as President Bush is serious about his Manichaean formulation of the war on terror--"either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The Arab world has taken the side of the terrorists, at least those who target Israel. (The Washington Times reports that the Arab League yesterday completed a draft communiqué praising the Palestinians' "heroic intifada.") For diplomatic reasons, the Bush administration has drawn a distinction between Israel's antiterror struggle and America's, but this is not sustainable given the Palestinians' palpable determination to spurn all peace overtures and the financial and other ties between anti-Israel terrorists and Iran and Iraq.
What's more, despite Arab despots' willingness to have their young men and women blow themselves up in the name of killing Jews, it's hard to imagine the dictators themselves are all suicidal. Israel alone has defeated the Arabs in three wars; a U.S.-Israeli-Turkish alliance would surely be unbeatable.
It's also true, though, that if Baghdad unleashes weapons of mass destruction, victory could come at a steep cost to Israel. The ideal outcome surely would be to topple terror-sponsoring regimes one at a time, starting with a U.S. attack on Iraq with "moderate" Arab support. Despite public statements to the contrary, there's reason to think some such support--or at least a willingness to fall into line--exists. London's Guardian reports that "the US Air Force has begun preparations to move its Gulf headquarters from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, to bypass Saudi objections to military action against Iraq." The Army also has a substantial presence in Kuwait.
Certainly it's in Saddam's interest to widen the war quickly so as to take the heat off him. Little wonder the Iraqi regime has increased its payments to Palestinian suicide bombers' families (all the while complaining that U.N. sanctions are starving Iraqi children). Warren is right at least to fear that the war will become wider and deadlier than the U.S. would prefer. If it does so, there is no doubt the right side would prevail--but if Saddam unleashes weapons of mass destruction, victory could come at a high price to Israel.
This piece, on the other hand, is very insightful.
Israel's time running out? Your money may be on Iraq, Iran, Syria and the PA, but mine's on the US, Turkey and Israel.
May need a new index name, like Warclouds and hope
we don't need to change it for a few months to
War_IS _Here!!
tom, just a few minor edits to your comment might be indicated:
I keep telling my wife that we are going to have to wipe all of them out in a series of humiliating battles, before they get the message that we are serious.
We just kill all of the al Queerdos in each country and their immediate backers, one country at a time. Then, they will get the message, when only Saudi Arabia is standing to await the sword of justice!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.