Every one of those who called for the bombing of Iran
had a reason why they wanted to see this done. Bret Stephens of the Wall Street
Journal is no exception but for the fact that the reasons he cites are the most
unusual of all. He explains his position in the column he wrote under the
title: “Obama and the 'Inevitable Critics,'” also under the subtitle: “We are
dealing with a case of Mutually Assured Obfuscation.” It was published on April
7, 2015 in the Journal.
The column is the Stephens response to President Obama's
open question: “Do you think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented,
backed by the world's major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another
war in the Middle East ?” Ignoring for now the
caveat: “if fully implemented,” the columnist answers with a “yes,” and accuses
the major powers that when the time comes, they will fail to do the necessary
due diligence to prevent Iran
from cheating. It is worth noting at this point, that Stephens and those of his
ilk were the people that called for the bombing of Iran even before the framework was
negotiated, much as they are doing now.
And right now, Stephens says that the deal fails the test of
verification because of two reasons: (1) lack of clarity as to what is in the
deal; and (2) the deal cannot be verified even if it is clarified.
Having these two conditions back to back reinforces the
image of the Jew as judging something negatively because he does not understand
it … and predicting that he will continue to see it negatively even if he is
made to understand it. In fact, this image was first projected to the world
long ago … at a time when America
was free of the Jewish bondage that now keeps the mouth of its politicians
shut.
Americans used to speak freely in the old days. But then,
they began to be slapped with Jewish demands for “clarification.” This prompted
the floating of a saying to the effect that you cannot keep clarifying to
someone why two plus two make four. And this proved to be what the Jews were
waiting for. They accused innocent Americans of being antisemitic, causing
them to shut up and let the Jews have it their way. Well, the fact that
Stephens is reviving this trick, says these people are getting desperate.
For example, even when ironclad agreements are made between
nations, disputes arise as to what some of the provisions in them mean. This is
why international tribunals are set up to interpret such provisions. And here,
you have a case that is described by both sides as being only a framework (not
yet an ironclad agreement), and you see the Jews jump on the different
interpretations given by America
and Iran
to ask: Who is lying? These Jews are truly desperate.
As it always happens with Jews when they begin to sense they
are losing the argument, Bret Stephens pulls the wild card from his sleeve at
this point in the discussion. He accuses the Iranians of all sorts of bad
things, which automatically paints them as the bad guys while painting “our
side” as the good guys. This relieves him from having to explain the
unexplainable; and so he says anything he needs to, justifying his stance by
the fact that we are good and they are bad.
In fact, Stephens does not even bother painting the Iranians
as the bad guys; he quotes a card carrying clown from the comical troop
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to make the point. As to our side, he
adds that in addition to being good, we are also stupid. He does not use this
word, but uses a long explanation to make the point. This is how he put it: The
deal is beholden to the world's major powers which include the Europeans, the
Chinese and the Russians, all of whom are eager to re-enter the Iranian market,
having invested much in that country already. Worse, the deal subordinates the U.S. to the
U.N. – a move he calls fatal flaw.
In case this is not enough to convince his readers, Stephens
pulls another Jewish trick from his sleeve. He attacks Barack Obama and John
Kerry; accusing the first of hypocrisy, and the second of incompetence. Well,
slandering people is as Jewish as matzoh bread … what did you expect?