On the Cartoon front, I say that the Islamists have won this round because they have put the West back on its heels. Amir Taheri, writing in the New York Post, says that the Islamist charge against Denmark is not some organic reaction arising from universal Muslim outrage, but a calculated and fabricated campaign.
As the first rent-a-mob crowds appeared on global TV screens, Ahmadinejad realized that here was a cow worth milking.
For Denmark is set to assume the rotating presidency of the U.N. Security Council — at the very time that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to refer Iran to the Security Council and demand sanctions. What better, for Tehran's purposes, than to portray Denmark as "an enemy of Islam" and mobilize Muslim sympathy against the Security Council?
To regain the initiative from the Sunni-Salafi groups, Ahmadinejad quickly ordered a severing of commercial ties with Denmark, thus portraying the Islamic Republic as the Muslim world's leader in the anti-Danish campaign.
Syria was next to jump on the bandwagon, again for mercenary reasons. The United Nations wants Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and five of his relatives and aides, including his younger brother, for questioning in the murder of Lebanon's former premier, Rafiq al-Hariri. (Assad has tried to negotiate immunity for himself and his brother in exchange for handing over the others — but the U.N. wouldn't play.) As with Iran's nuclear program, the Syrian dossier will reach the Security Council under Danish presidency. To portray Denmark as "an enemy of the Prophet" would not be such a bad thing when the council, as expected, points the finger at Assad and his regime as responsible for a series of political murders, including that of Hariri.
The Danish-cartoons cow will also be milked in another way: Tehran and Damascus have launched a diplomatic campaign to put the issue of "protecting religions against blasphemy" on the Security Council agenda. If that were to happen, issues such as Iran's quest for the atomic bomb and Syria's murder machine in Lebanon might be pushed aside, at least as far as world public opinion is concerned.
It seems to be true that the vast Muslim world is not inflamed by this controversy, although many may be offended. However, in this case, perception has indeed become reality and the smallish, loud percentage of enraged Muslims have given the radicals significant leverage where none should exist. The West is caving without really getting into the fight. What is so amazing is that this has come not from massive riots in European capitols, but from actions done largely on Muslim soil. The Islamists must be amazed at their good luck at having such a weak adversary. They won this on the opposition's home turf without actually making a road trip. It is essentially, a forfeit.
The Commissar points out that the New York Times has no problem showing the famous dung-Mary painting with an opinion piece (in the Arts section, no less) about the cartoons (which it won't publish). Why? I would speculate that it is not because the Times is sympathetic to Islamism, and anyone who would suggest that isn't really thinking. But the Times is responsible for the safety of its people and property. I think that the editors don't want their offices trashed or their correspondents attacked. That's okay, and I can't say that I blame them. The paper should just come out and say, "Listen people, we want to print these things, but we have too many reporters in Islamic countries, and we are afraid that printing the cartoon would endanger our employees." At least that would be honest.
Last night on CNN Paula Zahn announced that the network was not airing the cartoons so as not to further inflame the situation. This is different, and probably more to the point, than the first explanation that the censorship was out of "respect for Islam." One wonders what the next excuse will be.
Comments