There have been attempts to define the word
“disinformation,” and each definition may have served a useful purpose. So,
allow me to make a contribution of my own to that effort. I define
disinformation as the shedding of darkness on an issue that is inherently
clear. A simple way to retain this idea is to think of disinformation as being
the opposite of clarification. That is, think of it as being the act of
committing a declarification.
And we are lucky today because Thomas L. Friedman took pain
to show how declarification is done in practice. He did it by shedding darkness
on an issue that is essentially clear. He wrote, “The Real Next War in Syria : Iran
vs. Israel ,”
a column that was published on April 16, 2018 in the New York Times.
No one that's old enough and learned enough to know that the
word 'Iran' does not refer to a newly discovered planet in outer space – but to
a country that's located here on Earth – will have missed that Iran has had a
long history of complex interactions with most nations here on Earth.
Currently, it has good relations with some neighbors and has bad blood with
other neighbors. Also, it has good relations and bad blood with nations that
are strewn all around the globe. This means that when Iran does
something, the chances are that it does it not out of whim but because it has
taken many historical and present-day factors into consideration.
This being the reality of the situation, to say otherwise is
to be silly. Worse, to say otherwise and write a 1,400-word essay to make the
silliness sound plausible, is to commit an act of disinformation by shedding
darkness on the real issues of the day for the purpose of declarifying them.
Well then, how did Thomas Friedman shed darkness on a Middle Eastern issue he
admits may explode into a “real” war in Syria ?
What Friedman did is write the following: “Tehran 's
attempt to build a network of bases and missile factories in Syria appears
to be an ego-power play by Qassem Suleimani to advance his power struggle with
Hassan Rouhani.” In other words, Friedman is telling us to forget about the
trials and tribulations that Iran
was forced to endure in the past, and continues to endure today. What we must
understand, according to Friedman, is that Iran is marching to the beat of a
rivalry that's raging between two of it leaders.
When looked at as a stand alone statement, the Friedman
suggestion jumps out the page as a goofy utterance meant to belittle the
Iranian system of governance and the two leaders responsible for the
shenanigan. But the problem is that the statement was not a stand alone
utterance. It was an integral part of a long presentation dealing with life and
death; the most serious subject anyone can discuss. And so, we must dismiss the
Friedman interpretation that put the blame on two Iranian leaders, and search
for what Friedman and the Jewish propaganda machine are really trying to
accomplish.
To that end, we recall that Iran
was once a close friend of the United States
and Israel .
And then, it happened that in the 1950s America
interfered in the internal affairs of Iran ,
the result of which being the imposition of an alliance between the ruling
class and the foreign influences that sought to exploit the resources of Iran . The
people revolted and toppled the regime. America
responded by rallying its friends, including Israel ,
and led them to put pressure on Iran .
The confrontation between the two camps escalated to the
point that America supplied Iraq 's Saddam Hussein with the means to attack Iran with
chemical weapons. And this was the act that led the revolutionary rulers of
Iran to the conclusion that the survival of the country will depend on their
ability to grow so strong that America and her allies will not be able to
destroy their regime or their country.
This history, combined with Israel 's
incessant provocations and American utterances to the effect that “all options
are on the table,” are the reasons why Iran is taking the defensive
measures it is seen to take today.