Islamist terrorists rarely make an effort to conceal their religious motivation. But some in the West—prominent politicians, intellectuals, journalists, and others—are ready to conceal it for them, and instead to justify their actions by assigning moral responsibility wholly to the affluent West. Paul Hollander writes:

We are . . . instructed that it is Western governments and societies that radicalized the terrorists—bred terror—by the colonialism of the past, the failure to integrate new immigrants, our refusal to allow them to voice their just grievances, and, finally, our demonization of them for no other reason than their disagreements with us [over such things as] the religiously sanctioned mistreatment of women or the sharia law that justifies stoning female adulterers to death, chopping off the hands of thieves, . . . flogging other criminals, [and] fatwas against the likes of the novelist Salman Rushdie, targeted to be killed as punishment for blasphemy. Presumably all such disagreements should be seen as matters of cultural diversity and tolerated in a good-natured, nonjudgmental manner.

Such explanations . . . suggest that the perpetrators had little choice in the matter. . . . In this scheme, only the powerful, the top dogs and victimizers, are capable of making choices and thus can be held responsible for their actions; the underdogs, the victims, the victimized are not in a position to make morally relevant choices as their behavior is determined by brutal social forces.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.