Actually, there was one more peril between the Yellow and
the Persian, which you see in the title of this piece; there was the OPEC
peril.
First, the highly paid professional alarmists tried to scare
the non-Asian world about a rising Asia that
will turn the globe into a forced labor camp. This will be achieved, they said,
with the coming together of the industrial might of Japan
and the massive population of China .
Hordes of them will conquer the planet, said the alarmists, as unruly as they
are seen in action, participating in the Chinese Cultural Revolution that was
unfolding at the time.
But then, it happened that by the time the Chinese
phenomenon began to quiet down, and the Japanese economy was beginning to slow
down, the OPEC nations were jacking up the price of petroleum. And so, the same
alarmists got to work again telling the world that soon enough the entire
planet will be working to produce petrodollars, and send them to the Arab
Sheiks who will live in splendor while the rest of us will live in squalor.
But when the surplus money that the Arab Sheiks were making,
selling their barrels of oil at a higher price, was deposited in “Western” bank
accounts, the alarmists began to see that the peril might be someone else.
Because these events coincided with the rise of revolutionary fervor in Iran , the
alarmists found it convenient to point the finger at the rising Persian Peril.
That notion was steadily reinforced with the passage of time
to a point where some alarmists now see the Persian Peril as the foremost peril
in the world. In fact, this is the content of the article which came under the
title: “The new Persian empire” and the subtitle: “Why American troops must not
serve as Iran 's
expeditionary forces.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on
September 19, 2017 in The Washington Times.
The point that Clifford May is making begins with his
denunciation of the actions taken by two former Presidents of the United States ,
George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The first destroyed Persia 's
archenemy Saddam Hussein, says Clifford May; the second withdrew America 's troops from Iraq ... deployed there by W. Bush
after the destruction of Saddam's forces. If by that, Clifford May is
suggesting that America
can never get it right when interfering in the affairs of other nations, it
would be the one smart observation he made in a long time.
He goes on to say that America 's
blunders caused the erosion of Iraq 's
stability, opening the door for Iran
to take its turn interfering with the internal affairs of Iraq . This
happened, says the writer, when Iran 's
rulers started to twist arms in Baghdad .
But take heart because all is not lost, he hastens to add, because the U.S. is back again “playing a key role in the
defeat of the Islamic State in Syria
and Iraq ”.
But wait a minute; even Clifford May saw something wrong
with that development. He put it this way: “If the territories taken from the
Islamic State are bequeathed to Iran ,
American troops will have served as Iran 's expeditionary forces.” And
that's just the excuse he needed to segue to his favorite pastime: railing
against the Iran Nuclear Deal. He says this was the American blunder that
allowed the transfer of confiscated Iranian wealth back to Iran . It was a
windfall, he says, that made it possible for Iran 's
rulers to bankroll the defense of Syria 's
regime, thus establish a foothold in Syria . Because of this, “Iran 's imperial
project is becoming a colonial project as well,” says Clifford May.
Without assigning the slightest blame to America 's ill-advised activities or
to Jews such as himself who provided the bad advice, Clifford May went on to
make a number of false observations. He then built on them scary scenarios
filled with speculations that assume the Persians are evil characters bent on
hurting America .
The writer began this segment of his argument with the following introduction:
“Imagine what it will mean if Iran succeeds in becoming the hegemon in Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon and Yemen … imagine too if this empire goes on to acquire
nuclear weapons...”
Having learned through bitter experience that no matter what
argument he creates to support the advice that America
must attack Iran ,
it will be demolished by a critic, he refrained this time from making a direct
suggestion to that end. But he made a subtle one that went this way: “Iran 's rulers represent the fulfillment of a
dream of imperial rule, if the United
States does not stop them, no one else will
stand in their way”.