IRVINE, CA--"Destabilizing" the Middle East is one of the best results we can hope for from an invasion of Iraq, said Robert Tracinski, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. Robert W. Tracinski was a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute between 1997 and 2004.
Tracinski asked us to consider a few examples of what passes for the "stable" condition of the Middle East today:
· Iraq's Saddam Hussein supports terrorist groups and is working to acquire nuclear weapons.
· Iran's theocratic regime terrorizes its own population, and at least one mullah has declared the regime's intention to nuke Israel.
· Syria's dictatorship serves as a home base for many terrorist organizations, including Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
· Saudi Arabia's religious dictatorship preaches hatred of unbelievers and pays bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
"What is really 'destabilizing'--i.e., destroying--the Middle East," Tracinski concluded, "is obvious: dictatorship, religious fanaticism and the worship of brute force."
"Invading Iraq," Tracinski argued, "would demonstrate that America has the independence and resolve to oppose these evil forces. It would therefore boost the region's 'stability' by removing Hussein's regime from power, by interrupting the physical supply lines that bring weapons and money to Palestinian terrorists, by putting us in a better position to give moral and material support to Iranian dissidents who oppose terrorism and want to establish a secular society.
"Most important, however, is what an Iraq invasion would 'destabilize' at home: the foreign policy establishment that tells us we can't defend ourselves without the permission of nations that are hostile or indifferent to our interests. A successful attack on Iraq would show, once again, that America can go it alone and that compromise and consensus are no substitutes for principled action."