Aus dem Text von Agha und Malley bleibt mir vor allem Folgendes haften:
Many questions surround these three still-incomplete deals. [Gemeint sind Libanon-Hisbollah, Israel-Syrien und Israel-Hamas, RB] They could collapse or move in unintended directions. They may end up serving a quite different purpose, like constraining Syria’s, Hezbollah’s or Hamas’s ability to retaliate in the event of an American or Israeli attack against Iran. On all this there is understandable uncertainty.
Hervorhebung von mir: You don’t say so?!
Ich halte es mit der Schlussfolgerung von Young:
Are Malley and Agha suggesting that the US get real, abandon those in Lebanon who, for all their shortcomings, seek a sovereign and independent state, and instead deal with Syria and by extension Hizbullah, the stronger parties by virtue of their capacity to intimidate and kill? That is precisely where they are leading us. The US does need to overhaul its credibility in the Middle East, but if a new strategy is based on looking the other way while Syria and Hizbullah and Hamas use violence to advance agendas that cannot possibly be in the US interest, then you have to wonder if the ritualistic denunciation of the Bush administration is not feeding into a policy approach devoid of any moral center, and worse, that will only end up favoring those destabilizing the region.
und ich fuerchte sehr, dass eine Praesidentschaft Obamas genau dorthin fuehren wuerde.