To explain an abstract concept, it is sometimes necessary to
create a fictitious story that would bring to life important points, and with
that explain what is abstract in concrete terms. At other times, a writer can
get so lucky; he is spared the effort that is necessary to create a story.
That's because someone would have handed him a made-for-the-occasion story, on
a silver platter.
I must thank Lee Smith for doing me this favor. He wrote:
“Fuel on the Fire,” an article that was published on July 31, 2015 in the
Weekly Standard. He reports on real events, which are concrete stories played
out by well known human beings. But when he gives an interpretation of what
these events mean to him, you realize that his understanding of reality is out
of whack with the reality to which you and everyone you know would ascribe.
Thus, when you juxtapose the reality on which he is reporting with his
interpretation of that reality, you get to understand something about an
abstract notion you may call delusional fanaticism.
The two main characters in the Lee Smith story are the
American Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the American Secretary of Defense,
Ashton Carter. Here is what he says about Mr. Kerry: “John Kerry is bullish on
the Middle East . He believes that the Iran deal will make it possible for the White
House and Tehran
to tamp down wars.” And here is what he reports Mr. Carter as having said: “If Iran were to
commit aggression, our robust force posture ensures we can surge an array of
forces into the region, leveraging capabilities that put no target out of
reach.” This is where the drama begins as you ask a pertinent question.
Are the two secretaries at odds with each other? Of course
not. In essence, Kerry says: We just concluded something that bodes well for
the future. And in essence, Carter says: if (this is a conditional if) … if Iran was to commit aggression, then and only
then will America
take the necessary steps to counter its doings. But is this how Lee Smith
interprets the situation? No, it's not. Instead, this is how he sees it:
“Kerry's colleague [Carter] is less sanguine. He thinks the Islamic Republic is
less a fireman than a pyromaniac.” That's a huge difference.
The juxtaposition illustrates the difference which exists
between the reality that Smith has seen and has accurately described, and the
way that he interpreted what he saw. Why this difference? There can only be one
explanation. It is that the things which Lee Smith sees do not go directly to
the part of the brain which seeks to make sense of them. Instead, they go
through the filter of fanaticism on their way there. The filter gives them a
different shape but Smith doesn't know that. Thus, what seems perfectly
sensible to him appears as delusional to the rest of us.
He goes on to say that what confuses him further is that in
response to a specific question put to Kerry while testifying on Capitol Hill,
he agreed with Carter's assessment. Kerry having said this: “We will push back
against Iran 's
activities.” And so, Lee Smith asks two questions that lead him to construct a
whole fantasy on a foundation that is made of pure delusion: Why can't Obama's
cabinet get its story straight? Is Iran a potential helpful partner or
a strategic threat?
Obviously, the filter has robbed Smith of the ability to
realize that Iran 's
future behavior cannot be predicted with certainty. While the administration is
optimistic, it is mentally prepared to counter Iran if (yes, it's that if again)
... if it behaves disappointingly. Afflicted with an incurable condition, Lee
Smith connects the dots to create a fictitious story that brings together the
elements of what he believes he is seeing. Here is that story: “Kerry and
Carter can't get the story straight because the narrative is being woven above
their pay grade.”
To tell the rest of the story, he drops the two characters,
John Kerry and Ashton Carter, and replaces them with Barack Obama and Ali
Khamenei: “The only one who has the answer is Obama – and of course Ali
Khamenei.” Because the characters are different, the story line must also
change: “They sent their diplomats off to Europe
to talk about the nuclear file, but the actual agreement is about far more than
nukes.”
Now the question: What is it that fuels the delusion? The
answer: It is fear. The fear that in the shuffle, Israel
will lose its preeminent position in the American narrative: “The
administration aims to bring Iran
closer into the American orbit and pushes [other] allies, especially Israel , further
away.”