Michael Singh wrote what is supposed
to be an article in which he gives President Trump advice on how to make the
best of the current US-Iran standoff. But the deeper you get into the article,
the more you realize it is less the product of hard analysis of the kind that's
proper to pundits, and more the product of an imagination that's proper to
fiction writers.
The title of the (let's call it)
scripted piece, is this: “How Trump Can Get a Better Deal on Iran,” which
sounds analytical and pundit-like alright. But it has a subtitle that sounds
more like the sermon of a preacher itching to tell a long story. The subtitle
goes like this: “The United States needs to keep Europe on board, go beyond
sanctions, and ensure lasting bipartisan support for its new policy.” The
article/script was published on October 10, 2018 on the website of the
Washington Institute.
Wearing the hat of analyst, Michael
Singh recounted the event during which Donald Trump described the Iranian
Hassan Rouhani as being “responsible for chaos, death and destruction,” even if
he remains an “absolutely lovely man.” Singh called this view, a paradox that
serves a purpose. But he also warned that to abide by it would carry
“significant risks” because Iran has the savvy and wherewithal to outfox
America playing this game.
Wearing the hat of scriptwriter,
Michael Singh highlighted the tensions that exist between the various players,
and suggested how to resolve them. Here is an example of how he did that: To
pressure Iran, Trump must frustrate that country's expectations by pursuing a
strategy that (1) will work in the short term, doing it by appealing to
America's allies abroad; and that (2) will work in the long run, doing it by
satisfying the demands of bipartisan members in the American Congress.
The problem is that Michael Singh
missed the mark on both counts. He was weak on the analysis and weak on the
fiction.
Singh's analysis was weak because he
concentrated on telling the allies about the danger of Iran developing nuclear
weapons and missiles to deliver them. But the reality is that Iran has
renounced the production of such weapons, and has negotiated an agreement with
America and its allies to that effect. Iran is honoring the agreement to the
delight of America's allies, when it is America that abrogated the agreement to
the consternation of its allies.
As to Singh's fiction, it was weak because
he concentrated on the kinship that exists between America and its European
allies, even if that kinship has been fraying for some time. Singh also
neglected to explore the drama that can be generate in the clash between the
ancient culture of Iran as it battles the United States whose culture was
contaminated by the Judeo-Yiddish subculture of New York.
Highlighting the contrast between the
stoicism of Iran in hanging on to what is morally correct, and the bullying of
America as it tries to develop a “leverage” it can use to extort concessions
from others – would have created memorable moments of high drama.
Unfortunately, Michael Singh failed to seize the occasion that would have
allowed him to write an awesome script.
The overall effect of Michael Singh's
article is that he produced a hybrid which is neither fish nor fowl, but a tame
creature that is nevertheless paradoxical, and yet seems to serve no purpose.
The Singh creation is paradoxical because he is strongly advocating the wooing
of the allies to stand with America against Iran while at the same time
exposing the futility in trying to achieve this impossible goal.
As well, the Singh hybrid serves no
purpose –– at least not an original one –– in that it repeats the currently
peddled wisdom which says that America has no choice but to divert its
attention and military forces to the Far East where the danger is growing by
the day, while maintaining a small residual force in the Middle East to stand
as sentinel in the business of protecting Israel.
Singh does not use many words to make
that last point, but the intent of his subtle argument concerning a residual
American force remaining in the Middle East, is understood to mean that America
must protect Israel while the latter continues to fill the role of savage
beast, and continues to work on completing the genocidal project of
annihilating the Palestinian population.