From welcome Policeman to coercive Bully

If at first it is difficult to discern how much hypocrisy exists in the sayings and doings of hustlers, it becomes easy to detect that hypocrisy as well as the ramifications that could resulted from it, when the hustlers lose the argument, and the scheme they were developing becomes unmasked.

In fact, a loss of this kind just happened to the hustlers that were pushing for another war in the Middle East under the guise of saving the region from a future they warned will be dominated by Iran. The real reason for the hustlers' warning, however, was that they feared Iran will deny Israel that privilege; a scheme they had been working on very hard for very long.

When the hustlers saw their scheme evaporate in thin air, they lamented loudly. In so doing, they exposed their dirty linen for all to see, and did something else. They blamed their loss on their opponents, unleashing a severe diatribe against them, which is the standard method used by hustlers to lick their wounds and console themselves while engaged in regret and self-pity.

You can see all that in the latest article written by Matthew RJ Brodsky – a piece that might entertain you – and you'll see something more important. You'll see clues as to how America was transformed from a welcome policeman of the world to a spurned coercive bully … all in the span of a half century. And that's something that will nourish your intellect. The article came under the title: “On the Left, the Missing Debate over the Iran Deal,” published on October 26, 2017 in National Review Online.

To transit from expressing Right Wing lamentation and self pity to attacking the Left Wing, Brodsky brought up the subject of President Trump deciding to remain in the Iran nuclear deal for now. He says this will diminish the probability that Mr. Trump will confront Iran, and blames the setback on the Left. He explains that the latter's opinion makers made it possible for Mr. Obama to squander the “leverage” America had to force Iran to change its ways. This encouraged the Islamic Republic to go forward with its scheme to dominate the region, he says, and there is nothing America can do now precisely because it no longer has the necessary leverage over Iran.

And there lies an important clue as to how America was transformed from being the welcome policeman it was in every neighborhood on the globe to being the hated coercive bully it is now in the eyes of just about everyone. “Leverage” being the modern code word, referring to the nineteenth century mentality of resolving foreign issues with the use of gunboat diplomacy, Brodsky mentioned “lack of leverage” six times to explain how in his view, the Left Wing handicapped America. The following is a compilation of those sayings:

“They claimed they reached the best agreement, having exhausted the limits of U.S. leverage … The agreement requires fixing, but 2015 was the time to do it – before parting with America's leverage … No, Obama didn't lack the leverage – he lacked the will to demand a better deal … America's lack of leverage today stems not from the ticking clock that started two years ago … America's lack of leverage today is a result of the decisions Obama made at that time … If the choice boils down to one between war and acquiescence because the U.S. lacks leverage, it will be a result of the bet Obama placed on a flawed deal of his making”.

And this is where you can see the mechanism by which America diminished itself in the eyes of the world. It embarked on a double-headed mistake; one being that America copycatted the method of colonial powers when, in fact, its own inclination was never to colonize another nation. Worse, America copycatted an anachronism that had been despised the world over, and rejected more than a century ago even by those who practiced it.

But who was it that transformed America from the welcome policeman that it was, to the hated bully it has become? Here – from Brodsky's article – is a reminder as to how this happened: “The approach was developed in the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), and it involves a strategy called 'decertify, pressure, and fix.' Mark Dubowitz of FDD recently wrote that the president's choice moved the debate from keep it or nix it to fix it or nix it”.

And you know what, my friend? Hundreds of this kind of shibboleths are developed all the time by the “New-York/Tel-Aviv Axis of Perpetual War” to stand as doctrines, and be fed to America's elites. In fact, FDD sits at the American end of that Axis. It sends American intelligence to the Likud party which sits at the Israeli end. In return, FDD receives instructions on what to do next. And the instructions are always: advocate war, war, war.