David Ignatius wrote a column on the subject of Iran for the Washington Post under the title: “Iran –
the next stage,” and it was published on November 27, 2013. The next day, the
editors of the Post published their own piece on the same subject under the
title: “Final Iran deal needs to balance out the concessions.”
What comes out these two pieces is that they show the two
sides of America 's
character. First, they show the mindset that made the superpower the success it
has been over a good part of the Twentieth Century. Second, they shown traces
of the toxic elements that have eroded America 's ability to maintain its
dominant position during the last third of the century, even caused the
superpower to degrade in relative terms as compared to the other ascending
powers.
When in the first paragraph of the Ignatius article you read
the three optimistic words: “won its breakthrough,” you know this is the same America that
rose with confidence early on to tackle the challenges of the Twentieth
Century. You are confident that things will work out with the “officials [who]
are planning strategy for the second round that will seek a broader agreement.”
But then, you learn that “negotiators will be fencing off brickbats from hard-liners
in Israel
and Congress.” And this is when you start to feel that the cancer which brought
America
to the sick bed of nations is still metastasizing and rotting the flesh of the
enfeebled superpower from the inside.
The word “inside” used here means inside America, not inside
the bargaining delegations for, like Ignatius says, what points remain “will
have to be negotiated in the diplomatic equivalent of the circus ring, with
hoots and catcalls from bystanders.” He already said who these outside
bystanders are; they are the hard-liners in Israel and the Congress to which
can be added the media and think-tank mouthpieces who will endlessly repeat the
refrain: End the talks here cold turkey and give us the warm blood of the
dying. Show us the color of young American blood; show us the color of Iranian
blood at every age. Shock and Awe them, Barack, and send them to the Stone Age
where they belong.
After listing what the negotiating agenda with Iran will most
likely include, Ignatius comes back to the points of the sidebar that will be
taken care of simultaneously. There are two points, the first being America 's
relation with the Sunni Arab world. To this end, President Obama already spoke
with the Saudi King informing him that the U.S. “seeks an equilibrium in the
Sunni-Shiite schism.” This is the normal sort of diplomacy; the sort that
normal nations engage in all the time.
As to the second point, it has to do with the “wild card
[that] is Israel .”
To this end “Obama has asked Netanyahu to take a breather from his clamorous
criticism,” and where possible from “the bombastic pressure campaign by Israeli
advocates.” These would be American Jewish and non-Jewish mouthpieces – inside
the US Congress and outside of it – who will repeat the propaganda points that
will come from the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of war and crimes against humanity.
They are the characters who will endlessly repeat the refrain demanding the end of talks and the start war.
And so we get a taste of how this will unfold when we look
at the piece that was authored by the editors of the Washington Post for, the
first thing they do is criticize their country's administration: “The Fact
sheet of the administration is notable for its omissions.” Of course it is as
it should be; and that's because it is a summary. The Post had access to the
full text, and this is how they knew the summary omitted a few things. So why
the bitching now but to sing the Jewish refrain that clamors for war? You get
no answer here from them.
They also know, as did we all, that the matter concerning
the right to enrich uranium will be left “ambiguous” for now till the time when
it will be negotiate towards the end. It will be done in light of the
confidence that will have been built up between the two sides by then. So why
is it that the editors of the Post delight at bitching about this moot point
but to sing the Jewish refrain that clamors for war? You get no answer from
them here either.
Finally, they tell what it is they are objecting to. It is
what they say “amounts to a sunset clause [a time after] which Iran will be
treated the same as any non-nuclear weapon state.” Well, why object to that? If
Iran
will have become officially a non-nuclear weapon state with all the safeguards
that go with that, why bitch about it? Guess what my friend, actually there is
an answer to this question, but you'll have to infer it yourself because they
will not come out and tell it honestly.
It is that the Jews, who believe they have been humiliated
throughout the four thousand years of their existence, wish to get back at
humanity by humiliating anyone and everyone who gets hit by something and, in
their view, becomes susceptible to being humiliated by them. This is why you
always hear them call for the humiliation of this one here and that one there.
In fact, what dances inside their heads at this time like sugar plum dances
inside the head of a Christian child at Christmas, is the Treaty of Versailles.
This event was not only the apex of humiliation, it was the
treaty that led to the bloodiest of all wars, the savage Second World War at
which time blood sweeter than plum was flowing like a river. It all started
when Germany
lost the First World War, and was forced to sign a treaty according to which it
made huge payments to the allies – not only to make reparation but to admit
guilt. This was so humiliating; Germany
started the second war to erase the vestiges of the first