A long, long time ago, when I was a teenager living in the old country, I used to watch American movies because they were entertaining. They included the Western movies which might be objectionable in the woke era during which we now live, but were not at the time.
Because they all looked the
same, I have a difficult time telling which scene –– that pops to mind once in
a while –– belonged to which plot. The effect is that the impression with which
I now live, is that of seeing one long Western movie that streamed for several
years. And this lends credibility to the saying that goes: You've seen one,
you've seen them all.
Amid all of this tumult,
however, there is one scene that left such a profound impression on me, it
often pops to mind as I follow the news events of the day. I cannot remember to
which plot it belonged or who the actors were. The scene said something about
man's inhumanity to man, and this is why I cannot forget it. The scene is that
of a man, carrying a gun, catching another man in the middle of an arid desert,
and tying him to the trunk of a shriveled tree. They are both extremely hot and
thirsty.
The one with the gun pulls out
a bottle of water from the bag, giving the other guy the impression that he'll
be getting a sip to quench his thirst. But that's not what happens. What
happens is that the gunman takes a drink, pours some water over his head and
face, and throws the bottle with some water still in it. He thus adds to the
suffering of the other guy. What can be more cruel than this?
That scene popped to my mind
when I read the article that came under the title: “Iran probably Already Has
the Bomb. Here's What to Do about it,” and the subtitle: “We can start by figuring
out how to defend ourselves.” It was written by James Woolsey, William Graham,
Henry Cooper, Fritz Ermarth and Peter Vincent Pry –– five of the group of men
who are supposed to know the most about America's defenses and those of its
allies.
It becomes clear early on, as
you start reading the article, what the five authors are trying to do. Having
always been among the most hawkish opponents of Iran, but getting nowhere
advocating armed confrontation with that country, they still want to express their
true feeling, but without tuning out their readers. To that end, they came up
with the idea of asserting as much as possible, the notion that Iran is already
a nuclear power, without advocating that it be bombed to the Stone Age.
They know that bombing Iran is
what several American presidents sort of promised they would do, having said
that all options were on the table for when Iran proves to have the bomb. And
so, what the five authors did, was take the readers up to the edge of
credulity, and let them decide the inevitable, which is that Iran must have the
bomb and lying about it.
It is a clever debating
technique, but not without danger. Look what the five authors were forced to do
in order to reinforce the assertion that Iran has the bomb, and that it must be
bombed before it bombs its neighbors and perhaps bomb America too. Here is the
pertinent passage: “Contrary to mainstream thinking, Iran can build
sophisticated nuclear weapons by relying on component testing, without nuclear
testing. The US, Israel, Pakistan and India have all used the component-testing
approach”.
They, who know so much about
the armament of America’s allies, have just confirmed that Israel has the bomb.
True or false, on the humanitarian side of things –– to the people that value
the liberal-democratic principle of equality for all –– the stance of the
authors that Israel can have the bomb and not Iran, is offensive. It indicates
the willingness to use American power and prestige to shower one man and serve
him with a cool drink, while letting another man die of heat and thirst.
It gets worse when you look at
that situation from the logical point of view. The quandary in which America
finds itself today with regard to nuclear proliferation and disarmament, began
with the Jewish insatiable hunger to have their cake and eat it too. That is,
they say one thing from one side of the mouth, and the opposite thing from the
other side. They pull one prong of their forked tongue out one side and lick
the cake. And they pull the other prong out the other side of the mouth and eat
the cake.
Whereas this was yummy as far
as the Jews are concerned, they left it to the Americans to enforce the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, bombing even innocent Iraq to prove the
point. And while this was happening, the Americans were also torpedoing efforts
by Middle Eastern countries to keep their region free of nuclear weapons. But
why would the Americans do this, you ask? They did it and continue to do it, to
allow Israel to have it both ways under a regime of ambiguity that has become
synonymous with Jewish intellectual fraud and American moral debasement.
The good news is that the world is beginning to come out of that morass, and we all have the Iranians to thank for it. They endured unimaginable pain, and in the end, triumphed over the forces of evil, thus reaffirmed that no matter the size of the dark force which are pitted against the human spirit, humanity never succumbs to evil.