The recent unprecedented Iraqi democratic elections were not only a reason for cheer in Washington and Baghdad; there was another capital that hailed the results. The Tehran Times, without mentioning the US part in the affair, gushed with happiness over the results, and warned about neighboring Arab regimes that might try to interfere and spoil them.
The positive attitude by Tehran is no surprise to those who know that Iraqi Shiite spiritual leader Seyyed Ali Sistani has very considerable Iranian connections. But an even more real reason for joy in Tehran is that the Sunni Iraqi regime that was Iran's bitter enemy in the bloody 1980s war, in which Iran suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, including those from Saddam's WMD, is now out of the picture. And there is the promise that down the line one hidden aspiration of the Iranian mullahs will be realized - a Shiite super-state dominating not only the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but the world's oil supply. As Iran has been for twenty years the chief state sponsor of terrorism in the world, such a state's coming into being might mark a disastrous negative turning point in the Western world's war against Islamic terrorism.
The possible negative consequences of democratic elections are also apparent in the other venue of new democracy, 'Palestine'. Condoleezza Rice has indicated that Israel must provide "contiguity" for the Palestinian state that the Bush Administration is working to help establish. She has strongly hinted that Israel must divest itself of more than Gaza and remote settlements in Judea and Samaria. Her contiguity statement may be, as commentator Moshe Bobrovsky points out, a sign that she accepts that Israel will annex major Jewish populated areas of Judea and Samaria. But it also might mean that the Bush Administration is going to stick to a Road Map that requires almost total Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. If this kind of concession should be demanded, it would be disastrous for Israel to comply.
There has been no indication to this point that the Bush Administration is truly going to demand changes from the Palestinians, including an overhaul of their anti-Semitic media and educational system, which would presage a real turning toward peace with Israel. What seems more likely is that both the US and Israel are going to accept very temporary concessions on terrorist operations as sufficient for going ahead with major Israeli concessions.
There is a strong possibility that a Palestinian state will come into being with its whole apparatus of terror organizations intact, including the Al-Aksa Brigades of Palestinian leader Abbas' Fatah. Such a 'democratic state' with full control of its own borders would in no time become one of the largest centers of terror in the world. If Israel believes it has a problem with rockets from Gaza on Sderot now, the problems it will have when surrounded not only by the rockets of Hizbullah on the north, but by the increasingly heavier and more long-range weaponry that will flow into Palestine will be wholly unmanageable.
Undermining the security of Israel in this way would be disastrous not only for US Middle East policy, but for its credibility throughout the world. It would also be a devastating moral blow for that goodly share of Americans , Jewish and not, who care very deeply about Israel.
Neither of these negative consequences of the two quasi-democratic elections is an inevitability. It may well be that the US has no choice but to remain in Iraq for years. It may well be too that both Israel and the US will not settle for Oslo-like double-talk, nor for pseudo anti-terror action on the part of the Palestinians, but will truly insist on a fundamental change in the orientation of the Palestinians toward Israel as a Jewish state.
If the US truly hopes to see these two elections result in peace-loving democracies, then it must exercise the utmost vigilance in monitoring both situations. Short-term democracy is wonderful, but not if it leads to a more totalitarian world in the end.
The positive attitude by Tehran is no surprise to those who know that Iraqi Shiite spiritual leader Seyyed Ali Sistani has very considerable Iranian connections. But an even more real reason for joy in Tehran is that the Sunni Iraqi regime that was Iran's bitter enemy in the bloody 1980s war, in which Iran suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties, including those from Saddam's WMD, is now out of the picture. And there is the promise that down the line one hidden aspiration of the Iranian mullahs will be realized - a Shiite super-state dominating not only the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but the world's oil supply. As Iran has been for twenty years the chief state sponsor of terrorism in the world, such a state's coming into being might mark a disastrous negative turning point in the Western world's war against Islamic terrorism.
The possible negative consequences of democratic elections are also apparent in the other venue of new democracy, 'Palestine'. Condoleezza Rice has indicated that Israel must provide "contiguity" for the Palestinian state that the Bush Administration is working to help establish. She has strongly hinted that Israel must divest itself of more than Gaza and remote settlements in Judea and Samaria. Her contiguity statement may be, as commentator Moshe Bobrovsky points out, a sign that she accepts that Israel will annex major Jewish populated areas of Judea and Samaria. But it also might mean that the Bush Administration is going to stick to a Road Map that requires almost total Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria. If this kind of concession should be demanded, it would be disastrous for Israel to comply.
There has been no indication to this point that the Bush Administration is truly going to demand changes from the Palestinians, including an overhaul of their anti-Semitic media and educational system, which would presage a real turning toward peace with Israel. What seems more likely is that both the US and Israel are going to accept very temporary concessions on terrorist operations as sufficient for going ahead with major Israeli concessions.
There is a strong possibility that a Palestinian state will come into being with its whole apparatus of terror organizations intact, including the Al-Aksa Brigades of Palestinian leader Abbas' Fatah. Such a 'democratic state' with full control of its own borders would in no time become one of the largest centers of terror in the world. If Israel believes it has a problem with rockets from Gaza on Sderot now, the problems it will have when surrounded not only by the rockets of Hizbullah on the north, but by the increasingly heavier and more long-range weaponry that will flow into Palestine will be wholly unmanageable.
Undermining the security of Israel in this way would be disastrous not only for US Middle East policy, but for its credibility throughout the world. It would also be a devastating moral blow for that goodly share of Americans , Jewish and not, who care very deeply about Israel.
Neither of these negative consequences of the two quasi-democratic elections is an inevitability. It may well be that the US has no choice but to remain in Iraq for years. It may well be too that both Israel and the US will not settle for Oslo-like double-talk, nor for pseudo anti-terror action on the part of the Palestinians, but will truly insist on a fundamental change in the orientation of the Palestinians toward Israel as a Jewish state.
If the US truly hopes to see these two elections result in peace-loving democracies, then it must exercise the utmost vigilance in monitoring both situations. Short-term democracy is wonderful, but not if it leads to a more totalitarian world in the end.