By David Harsanyi
Friday, January 03, 2020
We have no clue how Iran will react to the elimination of
its terror chief Qasem Soleimani. Religious fanatics tend to be unpredictable.
One thing we can be certain of, however, is that every time the United States
acts in its self-interest in the Middle East, a bunch of pundits and policy
experts will start spouting lazy tropes about the Iraq War.
Of course an Iran reprisal is likely to come sooner or
later, and Americans will also likely be in danger. We shouldn’t dismiss these
serious concerns. They are nothing new. Iran has been conducting a terror
campaign against the United States and its allies for 40 years. It was the
mullahs, not Trump, who “escalated” tensions when Iranian-led militias stormed
the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Until recently, the Iranians faced few
repercussions for hundreds of Soleimani-coordinated murders and the maiming of
thousands of American troops. And let’s not forget either that there is not a
single conflict in the region that Soleimani wasn’t fueling or coordinating in
some way. If this is not an enemy worth knocking off, who is?
But the notion that the United States is now on the
precipice of a “world war,” or even another Iraq War, is simply scaremongering.
Iran, like Iraq in 2003, is in no position to fight a full-blown conflict with
the United States. People have probably forgotten that we annihilated the Iraqi
army within weeks. The United States is a military hyperpower with the ability
to atomize virtually any fighting force it pleases. (It feels ridiculous
writing that sentence. I had assumed most people understood this basic truth.
After spending time on Twitter today, though, I realized I’ve been operating
under a misconception.) The decade-long disaster that cost thousands of lives
and trillions of dollars in Iraq was not a war, but a misguided and mishandled
social engineering project and police action that was meant to install
“democracy” to the region. As far as I can tell, there’s no evidence that
Trump, or anyone else, has any appetite to invade Iran or force regime change.
Many brave Iranians are already trying to do that on their own.
It’s simply that Trump, who showed plenty of
restraint with Iran, couldn’t ignore Iran’s behavior anymore. This is the
consequence of eight years of Obama pandering to the mullahs. Let’s remember:
Not only did Trump’s predecessor give Soleimani — a man who specialized in mass
murder — a pass, but helped fund his terror apparatus with ransom money. It’s
no wonder that Soleimani functioned with impunity. Only days after
orchestrating an attack on the American embassy, the head of the Quds Force, a
U.S.-designated terror organization, felt free to drive around Iraq. Not
anymore. As Eli Lake points out, Trump has effectively erased the distinction
between Iran and its terror proxies. It’s about time.
You might not believe it was worth killing Soleimani.
Maybe you’ll turn out to be right. Maybe the consequences will be too severe.
But the idea that United States should be inhibited, in perpetuity, from
defending its interests abroad because we failed to transform Iraq into a
functioning democracy, is both ahistorical and unconvincing. We can’t let the
failures of Iraq dictate American foreign policy forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment