Syrians climb a pole and hold flags during a protest against Syrian President Bashar Assad, in Kafranbel near Idlib, February 21, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)
AIPAC and the Push Toward War
Robert Wright of The Atlantic looks at the pro-Israel lobby’s support for a new resolution on Iran’s enrichment activity.
The key is in the way the resolution deals with the question of whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium, as it’s been doing for some time now. The resolution defines as an American goal “the full and sustained suspension” of uranium enrichment by Iran. In case you’re wondering what the resolution’s prime movers mean by that: In a letter sent to the White House on the same day the resolution was introduced, Lieberman, Graham and ten other senators wrote, “We would strongly oppose any proposal that recognizes a ‘right to enrichment’ by the current regime or for [sic] a diplomatic endgame in which Iran is permitted to continue enrichment on its territory in any form.”
The Economist comes out against a military operation to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
A decision to go to war should be based not on one man’s electoral prospects, but on the argument that war is warranted and likely to succeed. Iran’s intentions are malign and the consequences of its having a weapon would be grave. Faced by such a regime you should never permanently forswear war. However, the case for war’s success is hard to make.
Pioneering new forms of intervention
Mark LeVine of Al Jazeera warns that military intervention in Syria will not lead to a breakout of democracy.
The idea that great powers such as the US or Europe (Russia and China don’t bother with the facade of democracy promotion) can unleash their military power, which has for decades been crucial to creating and preserving such a dense web of violence, corruption and authoritarianism globally, for good remains a powerful and alluring fiction.
Spike Johnson of Foreign Policy meets an organization fighting to uphold what they say are true British values.
The Mosquebusters, or the Law and Freedom Foundation as they’re officially known, are part of a new wave of anti-Islamic campaigners in England with links to more established anti-immigrant groups such as England Is Ours and Stop Islamisation of Europe. Like many of these groups, the Mosquebusters fear that traditional British culture, laws, and values will disappear with the changing face of Britain and worry that extremist interpretations of sections of the Koran urge Muslims to kill non-believers and take slaves.