There are times when artists would be so absorbed by what
they do, they fail to notice that what they put on paper, on a canvass or a
strip of celluloid, is nothing less than the essence of what goes on deep
inside their subconscious mind.
An example of this is the article that was written jointly
by Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, and was published in the Wall Street
Journal on July 8, 2015 under the title: “The Iranian Nuclear Paradox” and the
subtitle: “Once an agreement is reached, a U.S.-Iran confrontation becomes more
likely, more quickly.”
You can already see in the subtitle that the two authors are
going as far as to advise those of their ilk, it is better to accept the deal
negotiated between Iran
and the major Western powers, rather than reject it. Later in the article, they
explain that with this strategy, they do not go against the grain because their
goal remains the same as that of the collective; to keep inciting America to bomb Iran . The difference is that their
new strategy will make the fulfillment of that goal more likely; and its
potential attainment more quickly.
They go on to say this will come to pass because their
strategy will increase the likelihood that a confrontation will erupt between
the US and Iran . When this
happens, America
will be more inclined to bomb that country … which is what they and those of
their ilk want. From the looks of it, this is what the two authors view as
being the nuclear paradox. It boils down to this: you must accept the deal to
hasten its rejection.
Well, let's say all that may be true but only if you look at
the situation from their point of view. It is that they perceive the Iranians
as being evil characters who cannot prevent themselves from building the bomb.
Thus, Marc and Mark believe that sooner or later – beside pursuing an
aggressive policy in the region – the Iranians will cheat, will be caught red
handed, and America will be tempted to bomb them … which it may or may not do.
It is like letting a pesky prisoner escape so that you may have the excuse to
shoot him dead.
They see that scenario unfold in the following manner: “Mr.
Obama's deal-making is in effect establishing the necessary conditions for
military action after January 2017, when a new president takes office.” They
are certain that things will happen this way despite what some people think
who: “assume that the Iranian regime will give priority to economics over
religious ideology.” But the two authors assure the readers that: “Such a regime
by definition would never bend to America 's economic coercion.”
And that's not all, say Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz,
because something else that is just as important lurks in the background. It is
that “the clerical regime cannot be understood without appreciating the
centrality of anti-Americanism to its religious identity.” To explain this
point, they toss in the air a few ideas that don't make sense. And there is a
good reason why; it is that they claim to understand something which isn't
there.
The fact is that the concept of hating someone or something
defining a religious identity happened only once in history. It is that Judaism
is founded on the hatred that the Jews are required to hold in their hearts for
Egypt .
This is a religious dogma they have been celebrating on Passover Day for three
and a half millenniums. Take that out, and Judaism disappears. Thus, the Jews
cannot live without hating Egypt
and never have. By contrast, the Iranians have lived without hating America for two
centuries or longer. They only changed when the latter started hating them at
the urging of the Jews. And so, the Iranians returned the favor.
But that's not how Gerecht and Dubowitz perceive the
situation. Their view is that nuclear deal or not, the Iranians are now and
will remain terrorists to the core. When this is added to their
anti-Americanism, conflict between the two countries will become inevitable.
And this, they predict, “will eventually provoke a more muscular U.S. response.”
But the two are pessimistic about this happening even if the
deal fails, no peaceful alternative is offered and Mr. Obama is out of office.
The odds are that in the end, the military option will be rejected because it
will not be a one-time affair. Thus, “even a hawkish Republican president may
well default to containment.”