The dreaming Eunuch and his barking Dogs

The French let it be known that they consider the train to have left the station. The British let it be known that to reopen their embassy in Tehran is a better alternative to keeping it shut.

The Russians, on their part, let it be known that they prefer to sell their S-300 air defense system rather than hide it in a warehouse or worse, display it in a museum. Finally, both the Germans and the Chinese let it be known that the thing they worship the most is doing business with someone, anyone ... forging deals with everyone who would partner with them, including the Iranians.

So then, for the sake of the deities in any mythology you choose to consult, tell me this: What's a Jewish eunuch to do now? This is the question that Benjamin Netanyahu has been whispering in the ear of his minions, his supporters and his running dogs. The result is that most – who looked at the situation closely – drifted away from him without saying a word. But there were a few exceptions; one being a publication in Israel that hinted in very subtle ways at the possibility that Netanyahu may not be a fully castrated eunuch after all because he almost ordered the bombing of Iran on three previous occasions.

Another exception is John R. Bolton who wrote an article under the title: “Facing Reality on Iran,” published on August 24, 2015 in National Review Online. What Bolton is doing this time – which differs from what he used to do in the past – is that he no longer pleads with the American administration to give Israel B-52s and bunker busting bombs to enable it to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. No, he is not doing that anymore because he knows he lost this battle for ever. Rather, he is doing the moral equivalent of holding a rubber dildo between Netanyahu's legs to make the eunuch look like the stud he is not, and never was.

Bolton is barking harder than he ever did before in an article that is lengthier than he ever wrote before. He basically emphasizes the point that whether Congress accepts the nuclear deal negotiated with Iran or rejects it, is like having to make a choice between a bad deal and something worse. He stresses that to come now and say “no deal is better than a bad deal” is to engage in fantasy because “we have been overtaken by events, no matter how Congress votes.” He goes on to say that the approach to dealing with Iran was wrong from the start because “to have stopped Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons, global sanctions needed to be sweeping and comprehensive, swiftly applied and rigorously enforced by military power.” And this was not done, he says.

Because sanctions did not work before, they have no chance of working now, he says, thus the idea of a “snap-back” must be rejected off hand. This leads him to conclude that the only course of action left which can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is for “America or Israel to be prepared to use military force.” Unlike the days when he was seriously advocating such course of event, he does not now tell what Israel requires in terms of weapons to carry out such an operation.

And because America will not do it, he asks the question: “Can Israel succeed alone?” He answers “not well enough.” He then justifies trying it anyway by doing something truly odd for someone that has gone through this length to explain why Israel should attempt a risky operation. This is what he does: “As the British statesman Mick Jagger once wrote, 'You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you want.'” But what if you don't get what you want? What if the pattern of Iran getting what it wants persists, and it is Iran that gets what it wants? Alas, Bolton offers no answer there.

However, unlike before, he now admits that “Iran, of course, would respond.” He does not say anything about Iran defending itself while Israel is carrying out such operation, but says that “Iran would most likely retaliate by unleashing Hezbollah and Hamas to rocket Israeli targets.”

And because: “If Jerusalem strikes Iran, we will undoubtedly learn of it only after operations have commenced,” America should prepare itself, he says, to “immediately do two things to help Israel. First, politically and diplomatically, we should argue that Israeli strike is self-defense. Second, Congress should authorize all necessary assistance for Israel by forcing Obama's hand to help.”

Well, my friend, you must now expect to see more pundits come out, pick up on that theme and echo it over and over. And you must expect to see more Anglophile publications to publish and propagate such works.