Muhammed-saken handler om noe helt annet enn tegningene. Det er en advarsel til Europa om ikke å forsøke å sette grenser for muslimer i Europa, og om ikke å blande seg inn i Irans atomprogram, krigen i Afghanistan, Syrias forhold til Libanon, og om å akseptere Hamas valgseier.

Det betenkelige sett fra Europas standpunkt er at aktivistiske imamer dro til Midtøsten og fikk ballen til å rulle. Danmark ble valgt fordi landet er lite, tradisjonelt tolerant, men har gjort forsøk i den senere tid på å markere grenser for toleransen. I det øyeblikk stater i Midtøsten så anledningen til å utnytte saken til storpolitikk, begynte demonstrasjonene.

The most coherent case that the upheaval is a specific political warning directed at Europe has been made by Olivier Roy, a highly respected French analyst of Iran and the Islamic world.

In a telephone interview, Roy described a significantly changed Middle Eastern equation involving an increased European role in actual fighting in Afghanistan, France’s statement that its nuclear deterrence doctrine extends to terrorists and rogue states, and the hard French posture on Syria and its destabilizing role in Lebanon. All this comes alongside Europe’s resistant stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Hamas.

«There is new trend,» he said. «Before you might have argued it was the United States that was interventionist and Europe the neutralists.»

And he added: «There is a message going out here to Europe. Don’t replace the Americans. Denmark is under attack because it represents Europe. They have gone after Denmark because it is small. There is real desire for vengeance.»

At Europa har endret sin posisjon fra «nøytral» til aktivistisk, har vært lite fremme i mediene. Men det er slik spørsmålet om Irans atomvåpen, Syrias rolle i drapet på Rafik Hariri, Hamas og engasjementet i Afghanistan blir sett på i den arabiske verden.

Når disse spørsmålene veves sammen med hvordan muslimer kan leve i Europa, begynner saken å bli sensitiv. De scenarier som har vært projisert inn i fremtiden, er med ett realitet.

Two different – or until now, reluctantly articulated – interpretations of what’s going on are emerging:

That the attacks are a direct warning to Europe from Iran, Syria and Islamic extremists of the consequences of its markedly hardened positions on taking Iran’s development of nuclear weapons to the United Nations Security Council, and its refusal to consider the newly elected Hamas party as a legitimate Palestinian interlocutor.

That, in a general sense well beyond the caricatures, an attempt is being made to force Denmark to ask forgiveness for making clear its limits in accommodating Islam. This line argues that Denmark has been singled out as a politically correct European country that is most actively insisting that its immigrants from the Middle East demonstrate compatibility with the European humanist tradition.

The chronology of events reinforces the pertinence of this analysis.

The caricatures were initially published in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Shortly after the New Year, Muslim leaders in Denmark praised the government for expressing concern about the insulting character of drawings, while saying at the same time no apology could be forthcoming from a country that prized the freedom and independence of the press.

But it was only after Europe’s subsequent show of determination on the Iran nuclear issue and Hamas’s refusal to renounce terrorism and its determination to destroy Israel that the attacks on Danish and other European installations began. Iran and Syria appear to be the leaders of a campaign that other Islamic countries have joined.

The Danish center-right government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, while trying to avoid confrontation, has privately told friends that it now believes that not only its own but also Europe’s society and sovereignty are being targeted.

The argument that Islamic extremist elements want to intimidate Europe from demarcating the areas at home where it will defend its national cultures from the establishment of (at least notional) no-go Islamic enclaves is not part of Roy’s thesis.
In fact, the Danish government has been in the forefront in Europe in formulating rules on immigration and integration that instead of new accommodations by the majority essentially demand compatibility with Danish lifestyles from the Muslim immigrant community.

The Danes’ sensitivity to the issue has been heightened since the onset of the crisis by statements from imams in that community. In Danish, some imams have talked of reconciliation. But in Arabic, according to press reports, when appearing on Arab radio stations, the imams have been inciters who refer to caricatures that never appeared in Denmark or turned out to be fakes.

The government has been in the awkward position of avoiding any justification of its views of the stakes at hand for all of Europe because the Danish opposition has held Rasmussen’s line on integration as responsible in part for the problem.

News Analysis: Signs of a ‘confrontation of cultures’
By John Vinocur International Herald Tribune