The Titanic of Judeo-American punditry is sinking, and there is nothing that anyone can do to save the ship of self-deception, wishful thinking and false predictions.
We must now think of an entirely new approach
to discussing foreign relations so that the world will be spared another
Afghanistan, another Iraq, another Libya or another Vietnam. Honestly speaking,
the world cannot sustain another blunder of this magnitude.
The first thing we need to do is recognize
that a new crew is needed to sail the new American ship of state lest it meet
the fate of the sinking Titanic whose crew was none other than the mob of
Jewish pundits telling their elected and appointed Congressional and Executive deputies
— themselves former pundits of the mob — what to think, what to do and how to represent
to the world what they did.
For several decades now, America has been
under the spell—hypnotic or otherwise—of fanatic Jews who view the world
through the pessimistic prism of the pariah faction that could never get things
right even after 4,000 years of trial and error. It is that the Jews see in
others, and they paint a landscape that has nothing to do with the real world, but
has everything to do with the horrors they see in themselves. They have been
making decisions based on falsehoods they believe are real, and have been
feeding erroneous decisions to the executors of America’s foreign policy. The
result has been blunders the likes of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and others.
What America needs to do now is assemble a
new crew that will end the practice of painting the landscape of a nonexistent
world, and concentrate on mending relations with everyone out there, regardless
as to how their landscape appears like.
First, we need to go over and study an
example of what used to be, continues to be, and must never again be. It is an
article that came under the title: “Iran Cements Its Advantage While Biden
Sleeps,” and the subtitle: “Iran’s leaders recognize the pain that results from
sanctions do not pose an existential threat to a regime willing to rule through
hard power.” It was written by Jason Killmeyer and published on September 24,
2021 in The Federalist.
Here, in condensed form, is how Jason
Killmeyer started his discussion:
“One thing was clear in Iran’s city of Ahvaz:
after weeks of irregular access to water and periods with no water, a protest
emerged. The growing service shortages plaguing Iran reached a breaking point.
Citizens blamed the government, and corruption, for water and power shortages.
Some reports indicate the regime was taken aback. Conventional wisdom has for
years suggested that relief from sanctions is needed for the regime. But a more
careful read of their actions suggests relief as maybe the third or fourth
priority of the government”.
Basically, what Killmeyer is saying at the
outset is that he and those like him have been getting it wrong for years because
they misinterpreted what they thought they were seeing. But he assures the
readers that he is correctly interpreting what he is seeing now because he
embarked on a careful read of the mullah’s actions, which is this: sanctions
relief is the mullah’s third or fourth priority.
So, where does a pundit go after admitting he
was wrong in the past, making guesses that turned out to be false, but is
correct today, interpreting that a water shortage in Iran has led to a protest,
which the mullahs have classified as a low priority? Well, what a quack pundit
does, is go deeper in duplicating his past mistakes by assuring his readers that
he knows what the mullahs are thinking deep down their souls. He says this:
They do not believe that a small protest poses an existential threat to the
regime.
But does Jason Killmeyer know why the mullahs
think so? Of course, he believes he does. Yes, it is true he used to make
mistakes in making wrong guesses, but he is infallible now. For this reason, he
can assure you that the mullahs are counting on the fact that Iran’s
“protesters and would-be revolutionaries lack much international support”. And
that should answer all your questions.
Jason Killmeyer goes on in that fashion,
producing a long chain of guesses, with each guess begetting the next one, till
he gets to the point where he is compelled to make guesses about America. This
happened because Killmeyer reached the conclusion that, “By using subversive
proxy support in places like Lebanon and Iraq, the Iranians could override
democratic institutions, and shape the outcomes. Also, armed militias have a
veto over outcomes they don’t like”.
Killmeyer goes on to complain that despite
the fact the region cannot make progress with a hegemon such as Iran acting badly,
America is unwilling to intervene. And so, he proposes that two possible
developments will decide the future of the region and the world.
The first development might come as an open
war between two or more states that could affect the stability of other nations,
thus turn half the populations of the Middle East into refugees.
The second development might come in the form
of an escalation in the low-level conflict that exists right now between Iran
and Israel. The conflict might reach a point where it can only be called a
regional war.
Jason Killmeyer seems to suggest that all of
this can be avoided if only America got involved deeply in the affairs of the
Middle Eastern nations.
Here we go again because: Everything old is new again.