Losing by intimidation

Submitted by jdubow (United States), Mar 17, 2015 at 20:34

The obvious interpretation of not mentioning Islamism or Islam is that the West is intimidated by Islam. If our politicians and our societies had principles they believed in and were confident in their military and civilian strength then they would have no fear of mentioning some people who oppose them. I've spent a little time in the Middle East and know that respect comes from strength. People recognize fear and take advantage of it. The fear of mentioning Islam is interpreted as weakness.

In a similar manner Obama's policy toward Iran is seen as a surrender, "peace with honor". Resistance is ruled out. Obama is promising lifting sanctions, recognition of Iran's influence in Iraq, recognition of Assads' primacy in Syria and recognition of Hezbollah's primacy in Lebanon. Iran has to promise not to build nuclear weapons and submit to some inspections that will surely leave loopholes.

Once Obama leaves office a pretext will be found by Iran to say the agreement was breached by the US or some others and then they will be off to the nuclear races again. All they have to do is avoid total humiliation of the US President at the time and Pax Iranica can be established.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".