For several days now, the US has been in an uproar, after a number of Americans held hostage Iran in 1979 identified newly-elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as one of their captors from 26 years ago.

"This is the guy. There's no question about it," former hostage Chuck Scott, a retired Army colonel, told the Associated Press. "You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him," he said.

The Iranians vehemently deny the charge, but a number of photographs that have surfaced from that period seem to back up the allegation.

But here is the really interesting part: in light of recent US policy toward Israel, why all the fuss about the new Iranian president’s kidnapping career?

After all, the Bush Administration is coming down hard on the Jewish state lately, pressing it to release hundreds of Palestinians involved in terror attacks against Israelis over the past few years. If Israel is expected to “forgive” those who try to kill its own citizens, then why shouldn’t the Bush Administration adopt the same stance towards the new Iranian president?

Don’t get me wrong – I think it is morally indefensible for Israel release Palestinian terrorists, and I don’t think the Iranian leader’s criminal background should be overlooked either.

But I do think it is high time for Washington to stop applying a double standard, and start treating all terrorists (be they Palestinian or Iranian) alike.

Lebanon took a big step toward freedom last week with the departure of Syria’s army.

But here’s a juicy bit of Middle Eastern irony for you: local residents are now demanding that the Palestinians end their occupation of Lebanese soil.

A report by Agence France Presse (AFP) notes:

Residents of eastern Lebanon encouraged by the recent Syrian troop pullout from the country are calling for an end to the presence of Damascus-backed Palestinian military positions in the region.

"We do not want Ahmed Jibril's men who have been deployed here since the 1982 Israeli invasion to maintain their positions. The Syrians are gone, they should do the same," said one resident, Fouad Abu Farah.

The report notes that for the past 23 years, Jibril’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) has maintained bases in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley and in the hills south of Beirut. This has come largely at the expense of local Lebanese, whose land was confiscated to make way for the Palestinian presence.

Toni Keddy, a municipal council member from the Lebanese village of Qussaya, told the AFP that, "it is our right to ask for their departure, even if they never did any harm to us. We want to regain and cultivate the lands that they have confiscated from us."

UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which was passed in September of last year, calls for the disarming of all Lebanese militias – including Hizbullah and the PFLP-GC.

So now that the Syrians have (mostly) left Lebanon - they reportedly still have a covert intelligence network in place there – the time has come for Washington to turn up the heat on Palestinian terror groups such as the PFLP-GC to lay down their weapons and dismantle their infrastructure.

Ending the armed Palestinian occupation of Lebanese soil will go a long way toward stabilizing that battered country and pacifying Israel’s northern border.

Summer may still be a few months away in the Middle East, but for the Lebanese terrorist group Hizbullah, the heat is already here.

Under mounting US and international pressure, Hizbullah’s patron Syria appears poised to end its occupation of Lebanon and withdraw its troops from the country before they hold parliamentary elections next month.

That will leave the notorious Shiite terror group, which was responsible for kidnapping Western hostages and killing hundreds of US Marines in the 1980s, exposed and increasingly vulnerable.

Not surprisingly, Hizbullah is now lashing out, thumping its chest with mock valor even as it retreats into a corner like hunted prey.

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the group’s terror master, launched a verbal broadside against the US, practically daring Washington to come on over and fight. Speaking at a memorial ceremony in Beirut for the late Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin, Nasrallah had this to say:

We tell America and all those who want to disarm the resistance in Lebanon and the resistance in Palestine to safeguard Israel: This is forbidden. It is not possible.

The only option left for them [Americans] is that they come themselves to disarm the resistance and the [Palestinian refugee] camps in Lebanon.

I wish they would come, I wish they would come.

With its long and bloody history of anti-Western and anti-Israel terror attacks, as well as its destabilizing effect on the region’s security, there is little doubt that the Middle East would be far better off without Hizbullah and its lethal mischief. And that is precisely why Washington has begun to insist that Hizbullah disarm.

But since it appears unlikely that Nasrallah will do so voluntarily, and his rhetoric suggests that he is just itching for a fight, don’t be surprised if the coming months see an escalation.

Once Syria is out of Lebanon, that country’s entire internal political dynamic will change, and the US might feel more keen to step in and squash Hizbullah – thereby removing both a dangerous threat to Western interests as well as the last remaining obstacle to a free and democratic Lebanese regime.

Hizbullah is well aware of this, and might conclude that its only hope of justifying its continued existence is to draw Israel into an armed confrontation of some sort in an effort to rally the Arab world behind it.

The sooner Washington moves against Hizbullah, then, the better. And if Nasrallah truly wishes for the Americans to come, then by all means, why not send a couple of US Marine battalions to pay him a visit.

The world, and the region, would be much better off as a result.

Palestinian rockets in Gaza may still be flying, and their bombs still exploding, but that hasn’t stopped Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from agreeing to make a series of “gestures” to Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Abu Mazen.

Just yesterday, the Palestinians fired two mortar rounds at the Jewish community of Neveh Dekalim and opened fire on Israeli army posts at Gadid and Rafiach Yam. In addition, four explosive devices that had been planted by Palestinians next to Rafah were discovered and neutralized by the IDF.

Nonetheless, in advance of next week’s summit meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Sharon convened a meeting of several ministers this morning, where it was decided to free 900 Palestinian security prisoners and turn over control of 5 cities in Judea and Samaria to the PA.

And so, simply for reducing the level of anti-Israel violence (reducing, not eliminating!), the Palestinians are being rewarded handsomely by Sharon – who is once again sending them the message that violence does indeed pay, and quite well at that.

The sight of thousands of Lebanese in Beirut bravely protesting against the Syrian occupation of their country yesterday is a compelling sign that the archaic political foundations of the Arab world are suddenly being shaken to the very core.

The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri a week ago sent shock waves across the region. The US and the UN expressed outrage, and even the Europeans are now demanding a full-scale investigation, even though it is all but clear that Syria lies behind Hariri’s murder.

But the big question in the wake of the incident was how the Lebanese would respond. Would they sit tight and bite their lip once again at this latest Syrian outrage, or would they muster up the courage to defy their Damascene overlords once and for all?

It is still too early to tell, but the rally yesterday was an encouraging sign. After all, the Syrians are known to play hardball, and their willingness to take out someone of Hariri’s prominence was either a sign of utmost confidence or downright stupidity on their part.

Say what you will about US President George W. Bush’s goal of democratic reform in the Middle East – he is clearly having a major impact on this part of the world. The sight of Iraqis and Afghans voting at the polls in recent months surely left its mark on the Lebanese, who have been chafing under Syrian domination for decades.

A freer Lebanon would clearly be in Israel and America’s interests. It would reduce Syrian influence in the area, and might lead to the establishment of a more responsible government along Israel’s northern border, one that would be less likely to tolerate the presence of Hizbullah terrorists provoking cross-border trouble.

So while we might disagree with President Bush when it comes to his views on the establishment of a Palestinian state, his goal of reshaping the region in a more democratic fashion is one we can, and should, embrace.