At all time, we go through life being certain about some
things and skeptical about other things. Also, there are times when we change
the mind, and go from being certain to being skeptical about some things, or go
from being skeptical to being certain about other things. But the one thing
that remains constant in all of this is the fact that our certainties and our
skepticism can be valid or can be fake depending on our disposition, both
cultural and personal. At he cultural level, we are heavily influenced by the
framework in which we now live; at the personal level, we cannot escape the
experiences through which we lived in the past.
That was a concept I formulated long ago, and kept buried in
my memory ever since. Also, the launch of this website contributed to
distancing me from the concept because I now had the opportunity to do the
thing I like most which is to express myself on the issues of the day ...
wrapped in the certainties and the skepticism that accompany the act of self
expression.
If memory serves, the reason why I formulated that concept
in the first place was that I had a “Picasso” view of the reality that powered
the world of punditry. I knew enough about Picasso to understand that he was of
the “Cubist” school of painting. I may be wrong about this, but to me at the
time, this meant that Picasso could see things frontally, and see their
backside also as if he could see through what's behind the cube. And this was
the view I had of the world of punditry. Let me explain.
Over the years, I maintained contact at all time with the
people that could have given me a break in “big time” journalism. I knew that a
number of individuals (I consider them friends) wanted to give me the break
they thought I deserve. I also knew what they did for this to happen but were
overruled by those higher up because I was blacklisted and they wanted me kept
there. The friends did not tell me the whole truth about the status of my
blacklisting but invented all sorts of fake reasons as to why my piece was not
published: things like not enough space, the theme I am tackling has been dealt
with already ... and so on.
I also had another group of friends who were not of the
trade, but were doing other things to earn a living such as practice law, teach
in college or pursue a political career, for example. They were in touch with
the people who made the decision to keep me on the blacklist, away from the
public domain. And they were the ones who gave me the back view of what was
happening behind the scenes. They told me of the debate that was ongoing
between those who wanted to publish me and those who did not. The argument of
the latter was to the effect that I had nothing to say that would interest the
public so why bother publish me. The counterargument was to the effect that I
should be given the chance, and I fail to maintain the interest of the public,
I can always be dropped and forgotten about. No, said those who wanted to keep
me out, it would be a waste of time.
That train of thoughts came to mind when I read Sohrab
Ahmari's piece in the Wall Street Journal. It came under the title: “An Iranian
Insider's View of the Geneva Deal” and the subtitle: “If the right to enrich is
accepted, which it has been, then everything that we have wanted has been
realized.” It was published in the Journal on November 27, 2013.
Like everyone else, I have been looking at the frontal view
of the arguments as they unfolded here with regard to the interim deal between Iran and the
P5+1. I saw the legitimate and fake certainties as well as the skepticism that
come with the territory. And what Ahmari is giving us now is the back view of
the cube.
While our skeptics here argue: Why give the Iranians a
chance; they will not perform as well as expected? The skeptics over there say:
Let's go along for now, and see if the other side will perform as well as
expected.