Few organisms on Planet Earth produce offspring that is so independent;
the broods go off on their own at birth and remain solitaire till they die. All
others seek company, engaging in the kind of rituals that allow them to be
accepted in a group, or rituals which are meant to seduce a mate of the
opposite sex and become a couple.
This means that organisms of all kind live in relationships
that vary from the arm's length acknowledgment of the other's existence to the
intimate conjugal interaction of the two. Most of the time – but not always –
such relationships are formed smoothly and naturally while the individuals get
to bond together over time before joining the group or becoming a couple.
As to the individuals that fail to bond with others through
the natural process, they experience one of two possibilities: They quietly
withdraw into a solitary kind of life, or they labor to acquire extraordinary
powers which they use to force the others into a dependent relationship with
them. Here too, the dependence can vary from the cultivation of a platonic
relationship to that of bondage.
With the development of culture and civilization, that model
of kinship was transferred from the living organism to the artificial
organization. Indeed, from the small institution to the sovereign nation, all
kinds of organizations display traits that resemble those of living organisms.
Unbelievable as it may sound, the kinship among institutions does, at times,
acquire human-like attributes. This phenomenon can be so stark that you might
think you're witnessing a master-slave interaction or a love triangle or something
in-between.
You'll get a taste of that reality when you study an article
that came under the title: “How Iran
seduces the Europeans,” written by Jed Babbin and published on February 4, 2018
in The Washington Times. The relationship you detect in the title is amplified
in the article, and hints at the existence of a love triangle. Here is how it
is described: “Iran 's
foreign minister [Zarif] presented his European counterparts with artfully
stated arguments. It was an elegant attempt at diplomatic seduction, aiming to
increase European and Iranian opposition to [American desired] changes in the
agreement”.
As can be seen, there used to be an intimate relationship
between Europe and America .
What remains of it is now being threatened by the seductive advances which Iran is making to the Europeans with the clear
intention of pulling them away from America . And so, we are forced to
ask the question: What arguments has Zarif put forward, and what arguments has
Babbin developed to counter them?
Here, in a nutshell are Zarif's arguments: “The historical
modes of forming alliances have become obsolete because they assume a commonality
of interests. Instead [there should be] security networking to address issues
that range from divergence of interests to power and size disparities …
Security networking being premised on the principles of the UN Charter such as
accepting differences among nations, [respecting] the sovereignty of every
nation, and the non-intervention in their domestic affairs”.
To which Babbin responded – not by offering a counter
proposal – but by attacking Iran 's
record as he understands it. Here is what he said: “Iran's military facilities
are off limits to UN inspectors; that's hardly transparency … The security
networking exemplified by the treaty Iran signed with Russia and Turkey
protects Bashar Assad in Syria … The commonality of interests that Iran has with
Russia makes of Syria a joint satrapy … Iran supports the Houthi rebels in
Yemen; how is that in furtherance of the UN Charter?”
Feeling that he lost the debate to Iran 's Zarif, Babbin expresses his sorrow with
these words: “Zarif's bid for European appeasement is both direct and clever …
His article is icing on the cake for the European leaders eager to thwart
Trump's demands to change the Iran
deal or cancel it.” In addition to this, Babbin also mentioned the business
dealings that the Europeans are eager to do with Iran .
But aside from all that, what is it that made Babbin feel he
lost the debate? Well, he attacked Iran for the bad things he says it
is doing in the world. They do not measure up to the ideals that Zarif has
enumerated to win the affection of the Europeans, Babbin went on to explain.
So? What's wrong with that?
Well, what Babbin said about Iran may be entirely or partially
true. But it is also true of everyone else to one extent or another. In any
case, these are precisely the kind of ills that Zarif seeks to remedy with his
proposal.
Thus, for Babbin to kind of predict that the remedy will not
work because the patient has not been cured is to speak an absurdity. He must
have felt instinctively if not intellectually that the patient will not be
cured until the remedy has been administered. It hasn't yet, and this is why
the world is in bad shape.