The focus on the 3 year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom overshadowed the anniversary of another day important in the annals of terrorism - Aum Shinrikyo's sarin attacks on the Tokyo subway.

The strange cult, with its apocalyptic ambitions, is right out of a Bond thriller. Their use of sarin and their attempts to acquire biological weapons raise interesting questions about the future of terrorism. Did Aum Shinrikyo, which only had limited success at acquiring WMD despite its recruitment of top scientists and vast financial resources, show just how high the bar would be for a terrorist group to acquire WMD? Or where these attacks the equivalent of WTC I, a harbinger of a much deadlier attack in the future.

Another aspect is how Aum Shinrikyo represents an "X" factor terrorism that is very difficult to predict or deter. Much of the terrorism today is connected to radical Islam. There are also various terrorist groups left over from the Cold War and various seperatist movements - most notably the FARC and the LTTE. Aum Shinrikyo represents something very different - a truly radical group disconnected from any political stream. Aum Shinrikyo was actually a large group and carried out its attacks, at least in part, because its many enemies (particularly the Japanese government itself) were beginning to crack down. But smaller groups with equally bizarre goals, fueled by obscure frustrations, could operate under the radar sceen and carry out mass attacks.

A final note - Aum Shinrikyo operatives, on the order of the cult's leader, underwent flight training in Florida. There is no evidence that they made any attempts to use this training. It is just an odd, disturbing coincidence.

The accusation that Operation Iraqi Freedom was the product of the pro-Israel community and serves Israeli purposes more than those of the U.S. is not new. However, when a pair of highly respected political scientists author an in-depth paper purporting to show the distorting effects of Israeli influence on U.S. policy, it lends credibility to the conspiracy theorists. In fact, the story behind Operation Iraqi Freedom is not that of a small conspiracy - it is a story of ideas.

I won't dwell on the specifics of "The Israel Lobby," by Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago. Some excellent rebuttals include:

- Martin Kramer's "Stephen Walt's Word," in which Kramer elegantly argues, on strict realist grounds, why Israel is the strongest most reliable ally in the region

- Lee Smith's "A Place Called Saudi Arabia in which Smith argues that there is a country that exerts a disproportionate influence on U.S. policy towards the Middle East

- and if you want the facts, as opposed to the distortions of Walt and Mearsheimer, visit the responses by Power Line or CAMERA

I would only add that their animus towards Israel is not anti-Semitic, but is because the strong U.S.-Israeli relationship cannot be accounted for by their theories. Hell hath no scorn like an academic with a failed theory.

Having written a book for JINSA and worked for MEMRI and Morrie Amitay, I know some of the reputed members of the "neocon Zionist" conspiracy. ( guess I am sort of a junior conspirator, a cabal scout.) While the neocons are certainly pro-Israel, they are also pro-democracy , pro-freedom, and pro-U.S. But more importantly, they saw, going back to the mid-1990s and in some cases before, that the societies of the Middle East were profoundly dysfunctional and that this dysfunction was eventual going to cost us (and not just in higher oil prices.) Their feeling was that strong, dramatic action was necessary to help break the multi-century malaise that had afflicted most of the Muslim world. They were inspired by Reagan's vision and the collapse of the Iron Curtain. They fervently hoped for the same things for the oppressed societies of the Middle East. Yes: these things would also be good for the American position in the region (including the security of Israel). There is no reason that the United States should not do well by doing good. Ultimately, the neocons are democracy theorists, believing that stable democracies are the best behaved players on the international scene.

For various reasons they settled on the idea of regime change in Iraq is the key pivot point for breaking the pattern of corruption, oppression, and violence. Iraq's strategic location and cultural weight as one of the great centers of Arab culture were important factors. Saddam's history as a mass murderer who had started two major wars continued presence in power reinforced the image of American weakness was also an important factor. When 9/11 hit, this crowd had been thinking about the Middle East and Iraq for some time. In effect, they were the only people to have a real plan to take on the dysfunctional region. They saw 9/11 as a symptom of the region's broader problems - not simply as the actions of a lunatic fringe.

That the neocon crowd was pro-Israel is not a coincidence. People interested in Israel were the most likely to look at the region critically. Other Middle East specialists were likely to either gloss over the tremendous problems facing the region or accept the local explanations for the problems (Israel, Western exploitation, etc.) I remember in the late 1990s, when I worked at MEMRI, trying to explain that there was a madness in the Palestinian discourse that went beyond any rational animus towards Israel. We kept trying to explain that this would destroy the Oslo process, regardless of the details of the negotiations.

When 9/11 brought this rage and madness here, no one could articulate clear ideas about how to address it.

There were calls for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. This was rooted in the theory that poverty breeds terrorism. But the Middle East has had enormous inflows of cash. The failure to translate this fortune into development is another symptom of the regional malaise.

Many have touted the need for a "War of Ideas" but no one seems to have a strong concept of how to do it. Unlike the Cold War, in which the opposing ideology was a mutant offspring of Western ideas and the pretty thin gruel at that, Islam is a real civilization in its own right that has depth, history, and a well-entrenched non-Western perspective. This is not to say that public diplomacy, human rights advocacy, and civil society strengthening are not worth doing - only that it will take a very long time.

A few voices suggested other countries where the U.S. might intervene. Then Senator Bob Graham suggested cleaning Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Rep. Elliott Engel considered Syria a bigger problem than Iraq. Iran is guilty of everything we have accused Iraq of. Then there are the Saudis...

Others thought that there wasn't much to be done about the Middle East - that we had to live with it as it is. This is not to say that terrorists should not be hunted down, or that U.S. interests should not be defended - but that the region would have to address its own problems and there was little we could do about them but try to mitigate the damage.

Into this vacuum of ideas stepped the neocons - who, in effect, had a bold plan for addressing the problems of the Middle East ready. We settled on Iraq in the absence of alternate compelling options.

While I supported liberating Iraq (although I wish some things had been done better) I would have welcomed a serious debate about how to take on this problematic region and move it towards real change. Perhaps different countries should have been targeted for regime change and transformation. Perhaps a much more vigorous course combining "soft power" democracy advancement and energy independence (depriving the region's corrupt regimes of their only asset) would have been an appropriate strategy.

I remain hopeful that Iraq can become a reasonably successful modern state. I have not given up hope and believe success in Iraq will only help the other goals. The United States is poorly equipped for the often touted war of ideas (although the idea that no one deserves to live under a monster like Saddam is a good one). The real work must be done by moderate Muslims. Unfortunately they have very little operating space in the Middle East. In a free Iraq (and for all that is going wrong, Iraq is hosting a more open media than anywhere in the region) these moderates can operate, build a following, publish books etc.

There was a logic to the Iraq endeavor - hopefully it will not be another theory scorned by the facts.