Charles Krauthammer wrote what may be described as an
editorial spoof. Unhappy with the way that the Republicans have reacted to the
America-Iran prisoner swap, he tells them to relax because there is a bright side
to the story. He elaborates, and in so doing, the reader realizes that the
author has seized on a trope, and he is milking it for all it is worth.
Krauthammer did that in the column he wrote under the title:
“The GOP gets the Iran
prisoner swap wrong,” published on January 21, 2016 in the Washington Post. He
begins with the premise that the swap is a sideshow, which makes it that the
Republican preoccupation with it is unwarranted. In fact, he says, “the
near-simultaneous exchange was meant to distract from the sanctions-lifting
deal.”
To call the event a sideshow means that it was stage-managed
by the White House. And this could not be done without the cooperation of Iran , the other
partner in this enterprise. Furthermore, because this is not simply a stage
play meant to entertain but a matter of importance to the national security of
the United States, staging such a sideshow must have risen to the level of
conspiracy in the mind of the writer. To him, this is more than comical
burlesque; it could be as serious as a life-and-death situation.
The author must have reasoned that because it is a
conspiracy involving the White House and Iran , it must be that the
performance was meant to serve the political designs of the White House or hurt
those of the Republicans … or it could be much worse. If you want to know what
Krauthammer thinks, here is what he says about the swap: “cleverly used by the
administration to create a heartwarming human interest story to overshadow a
rotten diplomatic deal, just as the Alan Gross release sweetened a Cuba deal that
gave the store away to the Castro brothers.”
Not only does he say that the Administration gave away some
sort of store to the Iranians, he accuses it of recidivism, having staged a
similar piece of theater with Cuba 's
Castro brothers on a previous occasion. And this is the point at which we must
pause to ask if this is recidivism or a normal kind of activity whose nature
calls for simultaneous exchanges that end up looking like conspiracies.
The fact is that there are plenty of examples in which this
kind of simultaneous exchanges happened between parties that did not trust each
other. We would have to go to the Cold War era to find them … the example of
Natan Sharansky being one that Krauthammer himself has cited. But there is also
something that should disturb the Republican crowd that our author is trying to
calm.
Here is what happened as I remember the history – leaving it
to others to research it in depth, and perhaps correct me on a few minor
points. The late Republican President Ronald Reagan who was running to be
President had been negotiating secretly with the Iranians for them to release
the embassy employees that were held hostage for more than 400 days already.
The two parties reached an agreement several days before the
first inaugural of Reagan, and the Iranians were prepared to release the
hostages right there and then. No, said Reagan, keep the hostages locked up a
few more days, and release them on the day of my inauguration. Whoa! Did you
get that?
The hostages had been locked up more than 400 days already,
and the newly elected Republican President, Ronald Reagan tells the Iranians to
keep them locked up a few more days so as to give him the chance to stage a
theatrical splash on his inauguration day. What a big heart! What a fine
example of Republican value system!
What do you say to that Charles Krauthammer? What do you say
to that, all of you Republicans out there? Is Reagan a hero, and Obama a zero?
Or is it the other way around? Say it loudly, Republicans: Barack Obama is a
hero, and Ronald Reagan was a zero.