It is said that if Napoleon had not existed, he would have
had to be invented. That's because the drama of the human condition would have
required it to add an appropriate amount of tension to life, and force the plot
of the human existence to keep moving forward.
Well, it has been a long time since larger-than-life
Napoleon came and went, and much has changed on this planet since that time.
The result has been that something else replaced him: the rise not of a single
larger-than-life figure to fill his shoes, but the rise of a multitude of
smaller figures who collectively strive to fill his shoes.
One of those figures is the notorious Rebeccah Heinrichs who
is not as good in anything she does as Napoleon was in strategic thinking.
Well, someone may argue she is good at running off the mouth when it comes to
doing Israel 's
bidding. I yield to the judgment of that someone, but when it comes to
deterrence, defense, and proliferation, I have something to say. It is that the
size of the Heinrichs charlatanism makes Napoleon look not like the giant that
he was but like a tiny Lilliputian. This is because the woman's propensity to
fill her environment with dishonesty is without bounds.
Heinrichs wrote: “Iran sends a Message to the West at
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference,” an article that was
published on May 12, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. When you bear in mind that
this is the woman who runs around telling America's elite that a billion
dollars siphoned off the American treasury and going to Israel for the
development of a fictitious missile defense system, is money well spent, you
cringe at what you'll be reading before you start reading her article.
You read it anyway, and you encounter this passage: “Given Iran 's abysmal
human rights practices and illicit nuclear program, the speech provides ample
example that the entire conference may be an exercise in futility.” Speaking of
futility, you wonder if it is useful for America to continue supporting
Israel's attitude concerning its possession or not of nuclear weapons it may or
may not have on submarines that are or are not capable of carrying such
weapons, let alone capable of firing them.
If that was ambiguous, what is not ambiguous is America's
continued support and continued bankrolling of the occupation of Palestine
where Israeli crimes against humanity are committed as a matter of course;
crimes so beastly, they rival the Stone Age practices which are described with
pride and aplomb in the Jewish book of folklore known as the Old Testament.
Having omitted all those realities from her discussion,
Heinrichs tells the readers that the purpose of the Non Proliferation Treaty
Review Conference is to improve on the treaty. She then suggests a system that
will curtail an Iranian threat that does not exist while leaving intact an
Israeli threat that may not exist either, but one that the Israelis, and people
like herself, want the world to believe does exist with certainty, or could
exist with some probability, or perhaps exists not at all. Pick your pick.
She now gets into the business of telling the readers why it
is bad for the Iranians to know how to make the bomb, or learn about doing the
R&D that would lead to improving the methods by which the bomb is made. One
of the reasons she mentions is that: “[Other] countries … will now demand the
same treatment … Why would Saudi
Arabia not demand the same treatment? And
what leg would the United
States have to stand on if it wished to say
so?”
Of course, your reaction – upon reading that passage – will
be to come close to exploding in laughter with the force of a nuclear bomb. And
you'll naturally be inclined to ask if America has had legs to stand on
since it began to sing the Jewish refrain of ambiguity decades ago. But that
reality was never enough to deter Heinrichs from describing her vision as to
what the American nonproliferation efforts ought to be about.
Just look at the following passage and marvel at the
temerity of these people: “The entire goal of U.S. nonproliferation efforts ought
to be to prevent catastrophic war, not to move the world to zero nuclear
weapons.” Do you realize what she means by that? She means to say, “we” can
have nuclear weapons but they (whoever they are) cannot.
This is because she believes that “the best way to prevent
catastrophic war is for Washington to threaten
to destroy [other people's] nuclear programs and for the United States
to maintain a reliable nuclear deterrent.”