Old timers such as yours truly remember a time when the West
feared the Yellow Peril of Asia. We thought at the time that the Japanese will
eventually get together with the Chinese and the other yellow races in Asia to begin the process of conquering and colonizing
the planet.
This fear developed despite the fact that the history of the
yellow races, especially the Chinese, indicates that these people – as an
organized society – are more introvert than they are extrovert. The proof is
the Great Wall of China behind which the inhabitants enjoyed being left alone,
living their lives the way they saw fit … and without bothering anyone.
Yes, the history of Planet Earth – from Alexander the Great
to Hitler – is full of examples that tell the story of this or that one trying
to dominate the World. Except for a handful of successful empires, such as Rome and Great
Britain whose reigns lasted a number of
centuries, most other attempts have failed because the people that the invaders
tried to dominate fought back and expelled them after a short period of time.
Eventually, every empire that rose came to an end; leaving a world so
structured, it will not allow another empire to rise ever again.
Thus, it is a foolish exercise for someone to badmouth a
nation like say, Iran, by accusing it of working to dominate its region, if not
the world. Yet, this is what Soner Cagaptay, James F. Jeffrey and Mehdi Khalali
have done in the article they wrote jointly under the title: “Iran Won't Give
Up on its Revolution,” published on April 27, 2015 in the New York Times.
The silly thing about this article is that the authors make
their point by citing the history of Iran ,
saying essentially that the country has hegemonic aspirations such as those
that motivated Russia , France , Germany ,
Japan and Britain in the
past. But, instead of concluding that Iran would fail if it tried to repeat
those histories, the authors of the article conclude that in the way those
countries pushed the world into war in the years 1914 and 1939, so will Iran in
our time.
In effect then, the writers are saying that Iran will not
achieve its goals without triggering a war. But if such is the case, what comes
after that? The authors do not say, because they stop pursuing this line of
thought at this point. They neglect to say who will be drawn into the war, how
it will go, and how it may end. Also, they avoid saying if they would recommend
that someone should spoil a possible Iranian attack on the neighbors by
attacking Iran
preemptively.
And there is a good reason why they avoid getting into this
line of inquiry. It is that it leads to one outcome only; that of saying – to
avoid a war that may or may not happen, “our” side must launch a war now, and
eliminate the possible Iranian threat before it happens ... if it was going to
happen at all. In other words, the certainty of a war we launch is preferable
to the uncertainty of a war Iran
may or may not launch. And this, my friend, would be the kind of Jewish logic
that led the Jews to the proverbial gas chamber time after time.
Now, if we are to believe the propaganda of the Nazis, they
were the Aryan race; the Caucasians who migrated from the Iran/Caucasus region
to settle in Central and Northern Europe . They
tried once to establish what they called the thousand years Reich but failed
because they did not represent enough of a White Peril to intimidate their foes
and convince them to refrain from fighting back. Alternatively, they could have
befriended those they wished to dominate, but failed to do so as well.
Now comes Iran ,
which represents the authentic in-situ Caucasian race, reviving the notion of a
White Peril, and having the chance to succeed where the previous Reich has
failed. The authors of the article stress the point that the leaders of this
country aim at “building Iranian influence through sectarian and political
alliances,” wrapping themselves in the flag of the Shiite Muslim religion only
when it is convenient for them to do so.
Thus, while standing as guardians for the broader Shiite
community throughout the Middle East, the leaders of Iran see nothing wrong in
befriending belligerent Sunni actors, or siding with Christian Armenians
against Shiite Azerbaijan when that works for them.