For three days the small boys at the Weekly Standard have
ignored the giants of an earlier era, among these Henry Kissinger and George
Shultz … and have pushed forward their own arguments with regard to the hot
topic of the day: the nuclear deal with Iran .
It is that the boys at the Weekly Standard thought they
represented the debating gold standard of the Neocon era; the one they spawned
not long ago, only to see it die under the weight of its own irrelevance
shortly thereafter. And when the glare of reality proved too hot for them to
withstand this time around, the boys of the Weekly Standard ran to seek relief
in the shadow of the old giants.
One after the other, William Kristol, Michael Makovsky and
now Lee Smith, have acknowledged that the Kissinger-Shultz article which came
under the title: “The Iran Deal and its Consequences” is a far superior way to
present one's views than the rubbish they have been inflicting on their readers
for a time now. This time, Lee Smith wrote “War with Iran ” and published it on April 11,
2015 in the Weekly Standard.
The Kissinger-Shultz article was published in the Wall
Street Journal on April 8, 2015. I wrote about it and posted my article on this
website on the same day under the title: “The Correct Diagnosis but the wrong
Cure” in which I said that the Kissinger-Shultz piece was “a refreshing
development given what has poured out the pens of other writers lately.” Like
the title of the article indicates, I agreed with the diagnosis of those two
gentlemen but disagreed with the cure they proposed.
And so, we see that in his latest article, Lee Smith uses a
typically made-up Neocon excuse to run away from the Neocon mentality and hide
behind Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. Here is the excuse: “The White House
is using 'science' as a smokescreen to obscure its failure in Lausanne .” And here is the flight to the
shadow of the giants: “As the deans of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger
and George Shultz wrote last week in an important Wall Street Journal
article...”
For a few paragraphs, Lee Smith hitches a ride on the
coattails of Kissinger and Shultz by quoting them directly, and then adding his
own commentary to emphasize a point; one that the giants might not necessarily
approve of. Where he deviates substantially from them is in the fact that they
did not predict the future whereas he retained this Neocon habit and used it in
the article. Here is how he does that: “An Iranian bomb will push Riyadh to acquire one as well, setting off a nuclear arms
race that may include the UAE, Algeria ,
Egypt , and Jordan …
Accordingly, the regional Sunni-Shia conflagration will be fought by two or
more nuclear powers.”
He then does the very Jewish thing of arguing against
himself as he tries to have it both ways. Unable to decide whether Iran makes
friends (Tehran has already seeded assets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America)
or subjugates nations (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen) … also unable to decide
whether Iran manages to do that now or will manage when it will have the bomb,
he contradicts his earlier assertions and says that “as a nuclear power, Iran
will find new friends eager to sign on to its project of challenging the
established order – an order underwritten by American power.”
And this is what tells you what the Smith article is all
about. Given that when the Neocons say American power, they mean Jewish power,
what these people fear the most is competition to Israel
coming from Iran .
And in the same way that Israel teamed up with World Jewry
to have the big powers stand in the way of the Arabs and the Muslims making
progress (the Aswan Dam), or have the powers destroy those nations if they
achieve a measure of progress, Israel is now teaming up with the Neocons to
have America destroy an Iran that is progressing at a rapid pace. They want Iran destroyed under the pretext that: “An
Iranian bomb will engender another empire in thrall to evil” when the only evil
in the Middle East is an Israel
that pretends to have the bomb.
The Smith conclusion is that it is better to attack Iran now
than wait till it has the bomb because it will use it for certain, not only
because he knows it but also because: “Kissinger and Shultz know [it] only too
well.”