There is no legitimate or criminal
activity that Israel conducts in the region or beyond, without the Jews forcing
America to endorse it by expressing the preprogrammed, robo-mechanical opinion which
goes like this: “Israel has the right to defend itself”.
America never tried to explain whether it
believes this principle is a universal right applying equally to all nations
and entities, or if it applies to Israel only. In fact, the world never even
bothered to inquire as to America's thinking on this matter because the world
knows that when it comes to politico-diplomatic thinking, America rises only to
half the height of the totem pole of understanding. And when it comes to
thinking about Jewish matters, America remains at the foot of the totem pole,
if not below ground.
But now that the question of Iran's right
to defend itself has become a hot issue, it is imperative to ask the question:
Does America believe that Iran has the right to defend itself whether or not
its conduct appears legitimate to the Americans? Well, three opinion pieces
have appeared recently, discussing Iran's relation with America. They offer a
wealth of insights as to how the pundits of America split over the subject of
Iran's inherent rights and moral obligations.
One piece came under the title: “How to
answer Iran's deadly Gulf games,” written by David Harsanyi, and published on
June 14, 2019 in the New York Post. A second piece came under the title:
“Preventive War Against Iran Would Be Foolhardy And Unpopular With Americans,”
and the subtitle: “Instead of reducing the chances of conflict with Iran, a
policy of maximum pressure only increases the threat of another needless US war
in the Middle East,” Written by Willis L. Krumholz, and published on June 14,
2019 in The Federalist. A third piece came under the title: “Don't let oil
prices drive Iran policy, Mr. President,” an editorial of the Washington
Examiner, published on June 15, 2019.
David Harsanyi seems to telegraph that
Iran has moral obligations but no inherent rights. This is why he started his
discussion by explaining the facts of life as he understands them. And his
facts, as they work in this case, are such that America had every right “to
send an aircraft carrier, destroyers and cruisers to the Persian Gulf” because
Iran had the obligation to accept America's decision to renege on the nuclear
deal, but refused to do so.
Animated by this mentality, David Harsanyi
saw wisdom in Mike Pompeo saying that the US will “stand with its partners and
allies to safeguard global and regional stability,” which presumably means the
use of those naval assets to blackmail or mug Iran into “coming to the
negotiating table” and formally accepting, if not blessing America's decision
to renege on the nuclear deal. And so, Harsanyi ends his piece by expressing
the hope that Donald Trump will follow through with Pompeo's promise, and does
what's necessary to bring Iran to its knees.
As to Willis Krumholz, he seems to be more
attuned to the voice of the American people than do the politico-diplomatic
operators who populate the piece of Zombieland known as the Washington Beltway.
Because Krumholz believes that getting America involved in another futile war
in the Middle East will seriously damage America while doing nothing to change
the existing order in the region, he set out to remind his readers how things
got to this point in the first place. Here is what he said:
“Tensions are running hot. The backdrop to
all this is the White House's maximum pressure campaign of sanctions on Iran.
The latter responded by quadrupling its uranium enrichment. Ironically, Tehran
will probably continue to respond to America's sanctions and military buildup
by upping its nuclear program further –– the exact opposite of the stated
intent of maximum pressure. Common sense, and the American people, demand that
we stick to our historical commitment to deterrence and peace”.
It is obvious from all this, that unlike
David Harsanyi, Willis Krumholz believes that Iran has legitimate concerns, and
has the right to defend its interests when someone, such as America, does
damage to them by right or by pretense.
As to the editors of the Washington
Examiner, they deviate from Krumhloz's view as to how the current situation
began. Whereas he saw the backdrop as being America's reneging on the nuclear
deal and the imposition of sanctions on Iran, the editors see the backdrop as
being “Iran's escalation of hostility in the Gulf of Oman.” The editors go on
to express the dread that Donald Trump will want to appease the Iranians for
fear that confronting them will damage the economy, thus diminish his chances
at getting reelected.
For this reason, the editors ended their
missive to him with this advice: “Trump must not allow a fear of short-term
strife and oil price hikes to interfere with America's [read Israel's]
long-term strategic needs”.