Another transmission from das Heimchen, who writes:

Note that the author lives in Washington. Though it is not clear from his name whether he is American, it is possible that the original text was in English. This would mean that you are looking at a translation of a translation and would explain the somewhat disjointed narrative.

Heimchen didn’t provide a URL for the original, but I think this is it.

The following appeared in the online edition of the German DIE WELT on August 9.

THE VICARIOUS WAR

A Cease-Fire Will Bring No Peace.

By Walter Laqueur

At some time there will be a cease-fire and the war between Hesbollah and Israel will come to an end. But one must not forget that this is a vicarious war. In interviews by Arabic newspapers, Iranian officers have explained how important their role was in preparations of the assault, not only as suppliers of weapons but also as trainers and advisors in almost every aspect.

Tehran was under pressure to quit enrichment of Uranium by the end of August. The distraction from their own aims by the Lebanon war was therefore most welcome.

Today hardly anyone doubts that Tehran will continue with its enrichment program. To stall for time, there will be more negotiations. But already, the Iranian government leaves no doubt as to where the preparations will lead: Iran wants to be the leading power in the Middle East. The Arabian countries will be those chiefly affected by this because Tehran does not only want to control its own oil fields but also those of it’s neighbors. Neither Egypt nor Turkey produce significant amounts of oil but they are not going to enjoy taking orders from Shiite fanatics. Most likely they will aim at obtaining their own nuclear devices.

There are no territorial– or other conflicts between Israel and Iran, besides the odium theologicum of the Iranian rulers. However, Tehran reiterates, time and again, that Israel must be rubbed out.

What this would mean, should Iran succeed in building a nuclear weapon, one can only imagine. On the other hand one has to assume that Israel also has nuclear capabilities and the means for a counter strike. In such a scenario, what would be left of Iranian Cities and oil fields? Possibly, the Iranian leadership would again be implementing a vicarious war, in hopes that this would blur the evidence of it’s own culpability. But the Israelis would hardly be fooled by such a maneuver.

How would a man react who is threatened with death by a neighbor? If he could, he might move or he would weigh the possibility that his neighbor is nothing but a posturing bigmouth. But when the evidence mounts that the danger is getting closer and more serious, he may decide on preemptory action. He might conclude that he owes such action to his family, especially if, already, a large part of his family has recently been killed. His defense might start in the form of negotiations involving third persons or with counter threats but if this doesn’t help he will resort to force. Of course, the latter might be a dangerous step because a historical world court might decide that there was no certainty that the danger was clear and present enough to warrant emergency measures. But, in any case, the survival of the threatened party would, for the time being, be secured.

These thoughts are no more than horror scenarios. But they are by no means absurd. They illustrate that, even after a cease fire, the clouds of conflict will not disappear from the Middle Eastern sky.

The author is known as the father of terrorism research. He resides in Washington, DC.

The ceasefire will be a hopeless failure. Mainly because Hizballah can’t keep themselves from lobbing missles and digging tunnels, and the hapless UN peace-delayers sure won’t stop them.

If you enjoyed Dean Barnett at SOXBLOG then you’ll welcome his move to Hugh Hewitt’s blog. For days now he’s been on fire.

Take this post for instance:

SO HOW WILL THE WAR END? With lots of dead Jihadists. Just like World War II ended with lots of dead Nazis and imperialist troops of Japan. There were so many dead, the rest lost their will to fight on. Only when they realize their destruction is imminent (and accomplished to a great degree) will there be peace.

Until the Jihadists realize they can’t win, they will continue to fight. Every instance of Western weakness succors them. Every U.N. resolution, European cry for diplomacy and academic case for moral equivalency feeds their notion that their victory is inevitable.

Getting to victory will be an ugly thing. Our weapons will kill innocents, just as they did in Nagasaki and Dresden. And we will suffer our own losses. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that America will have to suffer a grievous loss before unshackling its own might. And our first grievous loss will not be our last. Like any global conflagration, this one will be full of horrors, horrors that most refuse to contemplate.

SO WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE? Graham Allison, Joe Nye and other Kennedy School types will tell you that we can talk Radical Islamists out of this whole crazy Jihad thing with just some judicious use of our “soft power.” We can win hearts and minds, they argue, if we just try a little tenderness.

Their argument, however, betrays a spectacular ignorance regarding Jihad philosophy . There’s nothing new going on here, nothing that’s not 14 centuries old. The only difference is that a trillion dollars in petro-dollars has given the forces of Jihad power and reach that even the Prophet never imagined. To think we can jawbone our way out of this is dangerously wishful thinking.

Emphasis mine.

If I had a dollar for every person I’ve met who expressed a strong opinion on geopolitics but admitted to not knowing very much about Islam (“but I’m sure they’re just like us”) I’d have a hundred bucks by now. But that’s not the point. The point is I have yet to meet a pacifist who does know much about Islam. Leftists just aren’t interested. For them it’s all a big neocon hoax. Other people barely have time to track the news. Only those who have some understanding of Islam see clearly the imperative to resist it. They may disagree concerning timing or methods, but they don’t question the threat.

The problem is Westerners who know something of Islam are in the minority. Western politics wouldn’t be nearly so divisive if every infidel (or at least those who like to argue geopolitics) took some time to educate themselves. What are Islam’s values? What are its goals? What are its methods for achieving those goals? What is its history? I’m confident that most anyone who digs for honest objective answers to these questions will arrive at conclusions similar to Dean Barnett’s, and my own.

Some will instead come to see it Islam’s way. The infidels are pigs and monkeys. They are unclean and unworthy of compassion or respect. Their lands and riches will belong to the umma soon enough. That some will feel this way we cannot help. There will always be misfits, and among them are the idealists and nihilists who can and have become traitors.

Most of the prominent voices questioning Islam, like Barnett, choose to use the qualifier “radical”. As in “radical Islam”. Is this really justified? If the intent is to imply that our enemy is a minority of Muslims I’m afraid it is in error. Jihad and sharia law are incompatible with civilization. Yet they are also fundamental tenets of Islam. Without them Islam is not Islam. In other words the very foundation of Islam is rotten, and the “radicals” who adhere to it are in the majority.

Many may consider this an unacceptable thing to say, but the power of such honest statements should not be underestimated. When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire Western pacifists laughed, nervously. Years later word came from behind the ruins of the Iron Curtain that Reagan’s words helped bring it down. We can pretend not to notice Islam’s flaws, perhaps to avoid offending the moderates, but then again only radicals are offended by honest criticism.

What’s that? They’re all offended? Well then, not what I had hoped, but I do rest my case.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: “One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all.”

We must not blame the poor and downtrodden for exploiting whatever means to which they are forced to stoop in order to wage war against their brutal oppressors. Civilization on the other hand must tie both hands behind its back while trying to keep the surprisingly well-armed poor and downtrodden at bay.

The sooner we all recognize and reject the contradictory and ultimately suicidal logic behind this double standard the better.

Once again there is open war between the Israelis and Muslim Arabs, and once again there are threats to unleash the Oil Weapon.

With prices already at record highs the crazy people who live atop much of the world’s most easily recoverable oil still aren’t happy. They need more money. For palaces. And maybe a few rockets and nukes.

The same Wall Street kool-aid drinkers who think countries should just throw open their borders for cheap labor also hallucinate that the oil market is free. They say nobody controls the price, that the government shouldn’t interfere by increasing taxes. Following this advice has produced disasterous results. Out of ignorance or greed these geniuses have helped fleece the West and enrich the enemies of civilization.

The oil market is most definitely not free. Every time an oil oligarch acts nutty the market rewards him. The formula is so obvious that by now even Hugo Chavez surely knows it: Make loud threatening noises and the price of oil will jump.

On top of that oil is subsidized by trillions of dollars in US defense spending. The concept of externality might be a bit too subtle for the Wall Street types. It’s simple. Ignoring the consequences can make any action appear sensible.

The US pays to keep Mid East oil safe and ensure stable prices. What would the price of oil be if the US didn’t police the Mid East? Lower? Why? Because the US is a bullying imperialist power exploiting the world’s resources and those who rebel are altruistic patriots who only want peace? Puhlease. Iran would be a threat whether there were troops in Iraq or not. Without US policing the price of oil would be higher. Some strongman or another would long ago have seized a large enough chunk of the supply to extort oil consumers. Saddam tried. Iran is trying.

So why does the US fear an oil embargo? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Suppose country X threatens to alter their oil exports with the stated aim to harm the US. This is an act of aggression. Suppose the US responds by calling the bluff and deliberately crippling country X’s oil infrastructure. This would have several predictable consequences:

• The price of oil would go up worldwide.
• Oil would stop flowing out of country X.
• Money would stop flowing into country X.
• Enemies and rivals of the US, including a coalition of Leftists, pacifists, and Islamists living throughout the civilized world, would condemn the US.

This is not the unmitigated economic catastrophe the fearsome Oil Weapon is supposed to produce. The economic losses shared by the oil consumers would be matched and concentrated on country X. The higher more honest prices would spur the development of alternatives. Other sources of oil, particularly in North America, become profitable above certain thresholds.

Yes this scenario requires the US to make a “preemtive” strike against country X. This action could be legitimately justified by self-defense, in response to the threat from country X’s use of an Oil Weapon, and the WMDs funded by oil money. Is it not more humane to destroy pipelines and pumps then to wage war by deliberate acts of violence and destruction against people?

To those who say that preemptive strikes are beyond the pale I respond: This is how the war is already being waged against the US. Civilization’s enemies are envigorated by the influx of oil money, using their profits to strengthen and broaden the pursuit of their repressive aims. They are intentionally bleeding civilization into backruptcy. It isn’t unfair for the US to fight fire with fire.

The Danegeld doesn’t have to be paid. It shouldn’t be paid. The US produces a large fraction of the oil it consumes. It can quickly find alternatives for the excess.

Can the leaders of Iran and Venezuela stay in power and export their poison without oil income?

So Fidel’s amigo and leftist icon Oliver Stone made a 9/11 film. What I want to know is: Where are the distraught women sobbing “too soon”? Where are the cynics and their accusations of exploitation? In an election year! You know, the kind of handwringing United 93 was greeted with only four short months ago.

Stone talked about his new movie at the Bangkok International Film Festival:

However, when asked whether the world in general and America in particular was ready for a drama about the 9/11 attacks, the director was dismissive.

“I would hate that to be the main question about the movie, though I sense that is what’s going to happen,” he told the BBC News website.

“I’m not in the business of knowing whether America is ready. You just hope it will be.”

Charlie Sheen was quoted as saying

Call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?

He’ll be disappointed if Stone is hyping government “myths”. It’s more likely Stone’s story will amount to: building falls on two buddies, who with luck and perseverance survive. That wouldn’t be a big surprise. Out of fear or disinterest Hollywood has so far felt no pressing need to confront the more complicated issues.

Questions like who brought those buildings down and why. It’s pretty clear to many of us. If others need mass media treatment and consensus then by all means let’s move it along.

UPDATE: For many New Yorkers it is too soon. It must be true. AFP says so.

UPDATE: An essay by Christopher Hitchens written shortly after 9/11, about an encounter with Oliver Stone:

I challenged Stone to reconsider his view of the immolation of the World Trade Center as a “revolt.” He ignored me. Later he added that this rebellion would soon be joined by the anti-globalization forces of the Seattle protesters. When he was asked by a member of the audience to comment on the applause for the September 11 massacres in Arab streets and camps, he responded that the French Revolution, too, had been greeted by popular enthusiasm.

Hmmm, I wonder if Stone’s opinion has changed?