The foreign policy think-tanks that wish
to project the image of thinking, seem to always find the characters who will
whip up articles that float like a silvery blimp capable of reflecting light
but not producing it. The tanks then proceed to publish the articles under
their own name, not realizing that they are nothing more than shallow haggling
loads of rant carrying no useful message.
An example of this asinine reality is the Council
on Foreign Relations whose record in the area of shedding light on matters of
importance, looks like the notes of a witch doctor who took pain to describe
the brain operations he performed “successfully” on hundreds of patients even
if all those he treated died before he was done with the song and dance ritual
that's performed at the start of each ceremony.
Whether they are retained by the Council
on Foreign Relations or by any other so-called think-tank, the characters that
consider themselves experts in the fields they choose to pontificate, repeat
the old mistakes over and over. It is that they refuse to let go of the many
false assumptions they grew up with. Instead, they build on them, thus
construct monstrosities that bear no resemblance to anything you'll find in
real life.
A case in point is the article that came
under the title: “Hormuz and Oil: The Global Problem of a Global Market.” It
was written by Amy M. Jaffe and published on July 24, 2019 on the website to
the Council on Foreign Relations.
Jaffe starts with a preamble which reminds
the readers of the known fact that oil is a commodity which behaves like any
other commodity that happens to be in demand worldwide. In fact, in the same
way that the price of gold or wheat or copper or cotton, fluctuates the same
way everywhere in the world when influenced by events in one place –– so does
the price of oil, says Jaffe.
But having brought attention to this bit
of truism, the writer left the real world behind to enter the fantasy world of
tailor-made false assumptions, stereotypes and preconceived characterizations.
She unavoidably reached the same old conclusions and repeated the same old
empty recommendations; those that were proven to have been dismal failures time
after time.
All of this boils down to the reality that
unless and until the self-nominated experts begin their thinking process with
the acceptance that nations take defensive measures only because they are
threatened –– the so-called experts will not leave the table around which they
all sit and drink from the same delusional brew. And so, they'll keep producing
the same old witches brew and inflict its aftermath on the public.
But if these people wish to become more
useful, they should be told they can serve their readers better by first
admitting to themselves that the Soviet Union, China and North Korea would not
have developed nuclear weapons, were they not provoked by the reckless policies
of the United States. Likewise, Iran's behavior today would not be what it is,
were it not for the American provocations that cause its leaders to take what
they see as appropriate measures to protect the nation and its people. This is
their duty after all.
On her part, had Amy Jaffe started her
thinking with those notions, she would have written a different article. For
example, the preamble to her argument might have sounded like this: “To avoid a
conflict whose expanse we cannot fathom at this time, it behooves us to find
out what America is doing that's unsettling the Iranians, forcing them to
behave the way they do.” And Jaffe would have gone on to discuss one or more
possible solutions that would have satisfied all the parties affected by the
same issues. Instead of doing that, however, here is the mindless speculation
with which the author started her argument:
“The problem is Tehran is showing the
world what a problem it could become if it had nuclear weapons. A future
nuclear-armed Iranian declaration that only the oil Tehran dictates will be
allowed to transit the Strait of Hormuz would present a more complex situation
than today's challenge of sanctions and shipping. The military problem of
protecting shipping would become more dangerous, requiring a military campaign
to destroy active warheads before engaging the conventional forces blocking
free transit of the Strait”.
That’s why Amy Jaffe did not write a
better ending for her article than what follows:
“All this means that now is a good time to
study up on years of US military gaming exercises regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
The US military has years of study and knowledge to fashion and lead an
effective coalition for diplomacy and deterrence in the Strait of Hormuz. It
should use it”.
And it should be clear to you by now, my
friend, that this is how and why America's foreign policy was pushed into a
Jewish sewer so deep, Washington is unable to pull the country out of it.