Washington Times: More than four decades ago, while I was a Naval Academy Midshipman visiting this delightful seaport city, one of my “summer reading” texts was “Sufferings in Africa.” The Washington Times
Commentary
Oliver North
SAN DIEGO, Calif. — More than four decades ago, while I was a Naval Academy Midshipman visiting this delightful seaport city, one of my “summer reading” texts was “Sufferings in Africa.” Originally published in 1817 by Capt. James Riley, a shipwreck survivor enslaved by North Africans, the book is said to have profoundly influenced young Abraham Lincoln to the necessity for abolishing slavery. The tome ought to be required reading for U.S. politicians and diplomats who insist that “meeting and talking with Iranian officials” as they did this week in Baghdad can be a productive endeavor.
Without giving away too much of the story, Riley’s account of what he endured nearly two centuries ago as a shipwrecked American merchant sea captain, enslaved by “Mohammedan Arabs” as he called his captors is still relevant today. His observations are particularly germane to how we deal with modern radical Islamists, the prospect of a nuclear jihad being waged against us and the fate of Westerners in their hands.
Riley’s perspective is that of a devout, articulate Christian who suffered terribly in the clutches of men who “performed all the rituals of their religion,” but who “set no bounds to their anger and resentment, and regard no law but that of superior force.” It’s a lesson that’s been missed by those who believe we can find “common ground” by talking with the theocrats running Iran.
Riley would not have been surprised at the lack of “progress” in our “discussions” with the Iranian regime. The tea cups had barely been picked up after this week’s Green Zone gab fest between U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi-Qumi before Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appeared before the television cameras to declare that Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons would continue unabated.
“Iran will never abandon its peaceful (nuclear) work,” Reuters quoted Mr. Ahmadinejad saying the day after the Pelosi-Reid-inspired talks between the U.S. and Iran and a day before U.N. nuclear inspectors were due to arrive in Iran. While some might consider that this statement indicative of Iranian intransigence, our State Department deemed the statement “not relevant” since the talks focused on “other matters.”
It turns out the “other matters” for the talks were neither Iranian human-rights abuses nor the fate of four American hostages held by Iran. If we must “talk,” both these issues should have been on the agenda along with the race to acquire nuclear bombs. But these matters are apparently deemed “irrelevant” to those who believe simply sitting down for a chat indicates “progress.”
Instead, we are told, last week’s “discussion” was a “follow-on” to the May 28 meeting in which the parties were supposed to find “common ground” for cooperation on security in Iraq. According to our State Department’s press release, the purpose of the Baghdad talks is for both sides to find a way to create “a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq, in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbors.” Unfortunately, in a moment of undiplomatic candor, Ambassador Crocker let it slip that Iranian meddling in Iraq has increased since the last soiree. “The fact is,” said the ambassador, “that over the roughly two months since our last meetings, we have actually seen militia-related activity that can be attributed to Iranian support go up and not down.”
With that kind of “progress,” by the time we have the next round of talks with Tehran, their nuclear weapons program will be running full bore, Islamic courts will be sentencing dozens of violators of Shariah law to be stoned to death and the four American citizens held hostage by Tehran may well be dead.
Ever since the first drafts of the so-called Baker-Hamilton Report were leaked last year we have been told by the potentates of the press and the global left that diplomacy is the answer to all our concerns: for Iraq, for Iranian nuclear ambitions, for just about all that ails us. Talking is the magic potion. It has become a panacea. Diplomacy may be an effective tool when dealing with reasonable people. But that’s not the case with Tehran. No matter what the potentates of the press and the liberal pols say, there are no reasonable people in power in Persia.
But hope in “talks” springs eternal in the minds of the media elites and ambitious politicians. This week an editorial in the Los Angeles Times lauded British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for banning the use of the term “war on terror.” The Times editorial noted that a recent public opinion poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that among Lebanese Muslims “only” 34 percent believe “that suicide bombings against civilians were sometimes or often justified.” Apparently that’s down from 74 percent a few years ago. The Times described this as a “hopeful trend.”
And last week during a bizarre candidate debate in Charleston, S.C., a questioner asked Sen. Barack Obama via the Internet if he would be willing to set aside all preconditions and meet in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. “I would,” he replied.
Note to Mr. Obama and the L.A. Times’ editors: read “Sufferings in Africa” and then do something about four modern American hostages suffering in Iran.
Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and host of “War Stories” on the Fox News Channel and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, which provides support for our troops and scholarships to the children of American heroes.
