What would you think of a wrestler who gets into a free for
all, no holds barred, mud wrestling match, and cries before the fight begins
that his opponent will cheat and will gain all kinds of advantages over him who
will play by the non-existent rules and obey everyone of them?
You would think this guy should go home and hold the soft
and loving hands of his wife or girlfriend … maybe watch a love story on
television as well, because there is no room for someone like him in the arena
of the rough and tumble. And you would be thinking the right things. That's
exactly what the world is thinking as it watches an America whose pundits and
legislators incessantly cry that the Iranians will in the future cheat on a nuclear
agreement that is yet to be finalized, signed and sealed.
And the pundits and legislators of America cry and
accuse the Iranians of all sorts of things because they view them as doing the
wrong thing when the latter respond to the provocations they themselves never
stop generating. Talking about a double standard … it is left up to you to
figure that out.
One of those pundits is Stephen Hayes who has decided to
show the world how the provocations and the crying are done at the same time.
To this end, he wrote: “The Iran Deal, Then and Now,” an article that was
published on June 26, 2015 on the website of the Weekly Standard. His approach
is to show what the maximalist position of America was before the start of the
negotiations, and contrast it with what is believed the deal will look like
when the negotiations will have terminated.
Reproduced in abbreviated form, the author of the article
writes the following about Iran :
“The impending deal is not a good one. It legitimizes a rogue state, shifts regional
power to a state sponsor of terror, strengthens the mullahs' hold on power, and
guides Iran
to nuclear threshold status.” And yet Hayes, other pundits like him, and many
American legislators from both parties, cry their eyes out when the Iranians respond
to these insulting provocations and to other ones.
Look at this: “Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a
series of demands: An immediate end to UN and US sanctions; no inspection of
military sites, no freeze on nuclear research, and no interviews with
individuals associated with the nuclear program.” As to Iran 's own legislators and ordinary people, they
usually respond to America 's
provocations with chants of “death to America ,” which is the Oriental
equivalent of “go jump into the lake.” The reality is that both recommend the
death penalty for the other, but only one specifies the method by which death
is to happen.
But, believe it or not, this is what brings tears to the
eyes of the American wrestler … that super giant wrestler who – not long ago –
did not need to carry a stick or speak a word for people everywhere on the globe
to know what he meant, and what he wanted to see done. What a difference there
is between the spectacle of then, and the spectacle that's mounted on his
behalf today!
Note also that the American pundits and legislators cry not
only about the way that the Iranians respond; they cry about the way that their
own Executive does some things, and fails to do other things. Here is an
example of that: “The New York Times headline read 'Iran 's Leader Seems to pull back on
Nuclear Talks.' That's one explanation. The more likely one: He understands
that Obama is desperate for this deal and will agree to just about anything to
make it a reality.” In fact, most of the Stephen Hayes article deals with this
theme.
You see, my friend, these characters consider the Ayatollah
and his entourage to be bad players, and potentially cheaters too because they
dare to understand what they are not supposed to understand. Worse, the
Americans see the Ayatollah's habit of trying to understand what is forbidden
as being but a microcosmic representation of the nation of Iran as a
whole.
In their view, this is a nation that insists on doing
research and development on nuclear technology – something it has no right to
understand in the first place because they say so. And they recommend that if Iran tries to master the technology and make use
of it if only for peaceful purposes, it must be bombed into the Stone Age by America and its
allies.