If you want to know what hate looks like, look into the face
of Claudia Rosett, a foremost professional hater. She calls herself
journalist-in- residence operating out of the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, and claims to head the investigative reporting project of that
group of repetitive and boring clowns.
Once in a while Rosett would write an article that aims to
cloud the view of the readers on a given subject, and she has done so again in
an article titled: “Iran 's
Worrisome Shipping News” published in the Wall Street Journal on November 5,
2013. It also comes under the subtitle: “Diplomats in Geneva this week should pay more attention to
the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines' long record than to political
sensitivities.”
This article is very much in the vein of everything Rosett
has written previously except in one sense. While hanging on to the formula of
hate-humanity that she is notorious for, she tries this time to avoid boring
the readers by putting a fake smile on the same old propaganda of fear which
she continues to espouse. Thus, you see her start the article like this: “Bravo
to the European Union, whose authorities are seeking ways to maintain sanctions
on Iran 's
national cargo fleet.”
But after several paragraphs in which she provides no hints
as to how the Europeans are seeking what she says they are seeking, she ends
the article like this: “...Dajmar celebrated the EU court annulment of
sanctions … If the earlier accusations couldn't hold up in court, there's every
reason for the EU authorities to dip into the record for some charges that just
might.” Indeed, hate is resourceful and has no boundaries.
Also, published in that same issue of the Wall Street
Journal is an article by the American of Iranian origin, Sohrab Ahmari, under
the title: “Iran to America: Let's Do Business” and the subtitle: “The New Iran
America Chamber of Commerce is ready to build on Obama's desire for a deal.”
Traditionally cautious about Iran , yet desirous to see better
relations between the country of his routes and his homeland, Ahmari reflects
his true sentiment in this article. He thus begins it this way: “Barack Obama
[has] renewed negotiations with the Islamic republic … some congressional
Democrats are proposing a pause in the sanctions as a show of goodwill.
Meanwhile the White House has been warning Congress away from passing new
sanctions lest lawmakers scuttle chances for a diplomatic breakthrough.” And he
ends it this way: “[Iran ] is
already positioning itself to profit from Washington 's softening approach. Let's hope
the bargain is worth it.”
Those two Wall
Street Journal articles come at the heels of two
other articles published the day before, November 4, 2013, in the New York
Times. One of those is an editorial that reflects the thinking of the newspaper
editors who published it under the title: “Congress Can Help on Iran .”
They begin with the advice: “It is crucial that Congress
work with President Obama as he leads the way to negotiate with Iran .” They go
on to explain why they give this advice: “some lawmakers are so blindly
committed to more sanctions that they could sabotage the opportunity for
improvement in relations between our two countries while complicating the
prospect for stability in the Middle East .”
They explain how that can be done: “The negotiating session
in October went well, but Congress can poison the atmosphere by imposing more
draconian sanctions on Iran … the House voted to impose new sanctions, and
similar legislation is under consideration in the Senate.” The Times editors
tell of the effort that is made by the administration both in public and in
private to dissuade the Congress from gushing out its venom, and they single
out the face in the Congress that is the image of Claudia Rosett's face of hate
and of hate-mongering. It is the face of Senator Robert Menendez who is
inclined to “plow ahead with new penalties,” they say.
They end the editorial with a conclusion that takes several
paragraphs, and can be summed up this way: “Iran appears reasonable, more
sanctions could halt negotiations. The United States would be blamed and the
unified international front could unravel … experts say Iran has not produced a
nuclear weapon and [Iranian] leaders say Iran will never produce one … This is
the wrong time for doubling-down on punitive policy.”
The other article in the New York Times, published on
November 4, 2013, was written by Ryan C. Crocker who was at one time or another
the US ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq. He actually knows the region as well
as any American will pretend to know it, and so he wrote his article under the
title: “Talk to Iran ,
It works.”
He begins by cautioning: “The window for achieving a
diplomatic solution to the crisis is not open-ended.” But goes on to sound the
hopeful note: “talks with Iran
have succeeded in the past – and they can succeed again.” He tells how that
happened while he was serving in the State Department at which time: “I sat
down with Iranian diplomats to discuss next steps in Afghanistan … They were
constructive, pragmatic and focused.”
Crocker goes on to list the numerous ways that the Iranians
were helpful to the United States ,
then makes this observation: “The experience demonstrates that progress between
the United States and Iran is
possible … The government [there] is a rational actor, and like all
governments, it is capable of being pragmatic and flexible. There is a chance
that Obama can replicate past successes.” To this end, Crocker makes
suggestions, drawing on his experience negotiating with the Iranians.
Thus, while there are the haters such as Rosett, Menendez
and company, there are the peacemakers such as Crocker and – in this case at
least – the editors of the New York Times. For the sake of humanity and for what
is left of America