Out of the closet - out

Iran and Syria decided to no longer hide in the closet and announced the signing of a military alliance agreement. Considering the possibility of Tehran agreeing with the proposals of the six countries, including Russia, none of them paid serious attention to Ahmadinejad’s embrace of Assad. All countries without exception (Great Britain, Germany, China, Russia, the USA and France) persuading Iran to abandon uranium enrichment are well aware that Damascus is de facto a satellite of Tehran and an intermediary in the transfer of weapons, money and transportation of militants to terrorist Palestinians. organizations.

The Iranian leadership actively supports the entire spectrum of terrorism in the Middle East, from Islamic Jihad to Hamas, which heads the Palestinian Authority, to militants actively exterminating Sunni Muslims in Iraq. However, world leaders decided not to bother Iran's leadership with questions about an alliance with Syria. It is clear that Tehran’s positive response to the proposals of the six seems to them today more important than legitimizing the terrorist alliance between these two countries.

I have already written that the list of proposals to Iran signed by the six in Vienna strongly smelled of the “Munich agreement.” It is unlikely that the lack of reaction to Tehran’s military alliance with Damascus was included in this document, but apparently the powers that be decided to adopt Scarlett O’Hara’s phrase from the book “Gone with the Wind”: “I’ll think about it tomorrow.” She could afford this because she kept all the other characters in the novel in suspense. I don't think that the six countries can lead their noses as easily as Ms. O'Hara.

It is obvious that the center of the crisis surrounding Iran is Tehran itself, and not those who are trying to kiss it on the back while threatening to put it in solitary confinement under economic sanctions. Resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis will not bring the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel closer to some kind of mutually acceptable resolution unless Tehran's refusal to support terrorists with the help of Damascus is on a par with demands to abandon uranium enrichment. It is hardly worth noting that for many years the United States and its European allies have been trying to convince the UN of the need to at least condemn the connection between Iran and Syria.

The three-letter international organization refused to take this step under pressure from a number of Arab states, which were supported by the USSR, and now supported by Russia.

The “candy” proposed by the six to Iran for approval is only a confirmation for the regime in Tehran of the weakness of the leaders of these countries, who for a long time could not come to common approaches.

Especially considering the words of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who announced an incentive package as a basis for negotiations. It is difficult to imagine that Tehran will not demand new concessions from the West, adhering to the same negotiating tactics as the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

The system of power built in Iran is very similar to the one that has developed in Russia. The desire of the opposite side to soften the tone in negotiations is perceived as softness, which must not only be answered harshly, but also create additional leverage that the opponent will have to reckon with. Actually, Iran did just that by announcing a military alliance with Syria.

Not only Israel, but also the United States and its allies will become hostage to such a situation. The latter must understand that Tehran’s military alliance with Damascus will continue to destabilize the situation in the Middle East, raising oil prices ever higher. And this will bring more income to the Iranian treasury, some of which will certainly go to continue terrorist activities in the region.

As for Israel, while it is necessary to install a wall separating it from the territory where Palestinians live, it is unlikely to help completely solve the problem of terrorist attacks. Nor will it become a locked border separating Israel from a possible future sovereign Palestinian state. The creation of the latter was given the go-ahead not only by President Bush and President Putin, but also by the prime ministers of Israel: the former, Ariel Sharon, and the current, Ehud Olmert.

The Qassam missiles launched by the militants, created, among other things, with Iranian money sent through Syria, will fly over higher walls.

After the failure by the Palestinians of the two agreements they signed with Israel in Oslo in 1993 and 1995, I have great doubts that any leadership of the autonomy really wants to create an independent state for its citizens. It’s hard to imagine that Palestinian teenagers, who have been raised by their leaders for the past 13 years to be suicide bombers and murderers, will suddenly take off their explosive belts and start shouting “A farewell to arms,” rather than “Death to Israel.” After which they will begin to plant trees, create real economic infrastructure and build houses.

To ensure that the next generation is not raised in the same way, the world must first deprive terrorist organizations of financial support, coming mainly from Iran and Syria, the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and the global Muslim diaspora. As well as limiting oneself in the desire to help the “suffering” Palestinian people. Everyone has long known that this aid goes into the pockets of militant leaders, forcing Palestinians to put suicide vests on themselves or their children so that their surviving relatives can somehow make ends meet.

Having implemented the decision to strictly combat the financial support of terrorists, we can see how terrorist organizations, including the Hamas government, will survive without such support, and what will happen in the territories populated by Palestinians after its departure or civil war. And only then begin a conversation about the conditions under which a sovereign Palestinian state should exist.

But world leaders apparently took Relanium or Prozac and decided to ignore the monster crawling out of the closet, ready at any moment to occupy their favorite sofa in front of the TV. Having given away the sofa, you will then have to give away your wives, since the animal, having rested and gained strength, will crawl into the bedroom, demanding satisfaction.

All this has already happened in history. Those who signed the Munich Treaty not only made a deal with the devil themselves, they ultimately sacrificed the inhabitants of their countries to Schicklgruber, whose massacres can without equivocation be called a global Holocaust. The leaders of that time, just like the current ones, believed that their diplomatic maneuver would appease the monster. Not so.