They call themselves conservatives; they even inherited an
authentic conservative publication – certainly by mistake – because in reality,
they are but a sort of neocon gang that can only be formed with a collection of
newly minted con artists. To be sure, a conservative is someone who knows how
to conserve the best of the past, and knows how to build on it and construct a
future that will be the best it can be. Sadly, however, this is not what the
editors of the National Review Online (NRO) are mentally equipped to do or
prepared to be.
Their latest creation in the horror category of a rotting
mind comes under the title: “Stand Firm on Iran ” and was published on November
9, 2013. Speaking of a possible deal that is currently being negotiated between
Iran and the United States , they say this: “The deal … will
substantially weaken the U.S. 's
sanctions against Iran .”
A little further on, they say this: “While the core restrictions on Iranian
trade aren't up for negotiation, new loopholes will be enough to embolden Iran
and restore some of its strength, and the more cosmetic measures would enrich
and equip the country.” Who then … who but a small child or a grownup neocon
would fail to see the idiocy in saying “substantially weaken US sanctions” and
saying “loopholes and cosmetic measures”? How can some loopholes or cosmetic
measures substantially weaken the US sanction?
And yet, it is based on this laughable sort of neocon logic
– which has nothing to do with conservative logic – that the editors of NRO
construct what they call “the economic concept of utility” on which they
happily give a lesson to their readers. To this end, they say that the concept
has to do with the relative values that someone puts on different goods. Having
said this, they attack the value system of President Obama by explaining that
he should have obtained the dismantling of Iranian centrifuges, the destruction
of enrich uranium, and the guaranty that the country will end or slow most of
its nuclear program.
Wow! Were these editors in the driver's seat conducting the
negotiations on behalf of the Permanent Five plus Germany, would they have
insisted on getting this much, threatening to walk away from the talks? But
really, they wanted this much in return for what? For allowing Iran
to have a few loopholes or a number of cosmetic measures? Do these people mean
it when they call the emerging current deal an exercise in futility, and when
they say that the value system of President Obama – and by extension that of
the “West” – is out of whack because they did not insist on obtaining this much
from the Iranians in return for giving up that little?
Yes indeed, this is what they are saying because it is how
they also end their presentation: “If the U.S. is at the table in earnest
today, it means not only that the president holds a dangerous set of utility
preferences, but also that he does not understand those of his opponent.” It is
that according to the editors of NRO, America holds the sanction card, which it
can use to extract further concessions from Iran, but that the utility
preferences of the President makes him give away that card because he prefers
to secure for himself “a reputation for diplomatic plaudits, goodwill and
engagement.”
To those editors, being at the table in earnest and goodwill
is bad because the Iranians are a bad people, and the Americans are a good
people. But if we assume this to be true, will the Americans continue to be
good as they go to the table not with goodwill but ill-will; not with sincerity
but without it? And if the Iranians go to the table with goodwill and
sincerity, will they remain bad people?
As you can see, my friend, the logic of the NRO characters
is that of a bunch of neocons whose value system is fashioned inside the sewer
that is the domain of Jewish organizations. It is a logic that is unfit to be
considered a product of the human mind, be that American, Western, Iranian or
the mind of any member of the human species.
It is a good thing that Barack Obama is not one of these
characters. He has the mind and the will to save America
from them and from everyone like them because, even if he does not call himself
a conservative, he knows how to conserve the best of America 's past, and knows how to
build on it to construct a future that will be the best it can be.