A popular saying goes like this: “know who
your friends are and who your enemies are.” Good advice, but how can you
separate your true friends from the enemies that act as your friends? This is a
good question that requires a detailed in-depth response.
If you think of life as a journey that we
all take through time, it is easy to imagine that everyone else is a fellow
traveler on the same journey. We can also think that the journey is made of two
parts. There is the distance we travel when we go somewhere, and there is the
destination where we end up.
What usually happens as the journey moves
on, is that a group of people will signal their antipathy toward us. We know
they have become our enemies for one reason or another. If necessity compels us
to transact with them, we should do so carefully. Another group of people will
deal with us as neither friends nor foes. We should maintain a correct posture
toward them till such time that a bond has developed between us, and we become
friends. And then there is a third group of people.
This last group is made of an assortment
of people who are (1) genuine friends we enjoy being with; (2) naturally nice
people who might someday become our friends; (3) temporary friends who are here
today sponging on us, and gone tomorrow when the well will run dry; (4)
charlatans who pretend to be our friends while working on a nefarious plan they
will execute upon reaching one of the destinations ahead.
The trickiest part of our journey through
life, is to separate the genuine friends from the charlatans who pretend to be
our friends while preparing to pull a fast one as they play a little game on
us. Whether or not they intend to hurt us, this will happen when we reach our
destination and they unfurl their game. To protect ourselves, we must find a
way to sort out the good friends from the charlatans without signaling that
we're testing someone's sincerity.
Because there is not a full-proof method
by which we can identify who is who, we'll go over an actual case and analyze
it in such a way as to generate useful insights we can use when analyzing other
cases. To this end, we pick an article that came under the title: “The flaw in
Trump's maximum pressure campaign toward Iran,” written by Dennis Ross and Dana
Stroul, and published on August 29, 2019 in The Washington Post.
Think of the article as a journey that's
dotted with small destinations along the way, and has the one important
destination where you're going at the end. If Dennis Ross and Dana Stroul are
genuine friends of yours, they will not pull a fast one upon reaching that last
destination. But if they are charlatans bent on doing something that might get
you into trouble, you need to develop a way to find out before you get there.
The secret to your success at discovering their intent, lies in the smaller
destinations along the way. You can use them to probe what goes on inside the
head of the two authors.
So, let's go through the article they
wrote, and see if any of the small destinations along the way, are flying the
red flag of danger. In fact, we see a number of these flags lining up as
follows:
“Trump says his maximum-pressure on Iran
is working. If only that were true. A strategy based on starving Tehran of
money will not compel changes in behavior. In Syria, Iran-backed groups are not
suffering from salary cuts. Hezbollah has not called home its fighters from
Syria. In Yemen, Iran-supported Houthi fighters are intensifying their attacks
against Saudi Arabia. In Gaza, Iran is increasing funding to Hamas. The budget
reductions in Iran did not translate into reduced threats in the Strait of
Hormuz. The Iranian cyber command was the nexus in attacks on America's
government, communication and internet infrastructure. The pattern does not
back the Trump line that maximum pressure is working. A successful strategy
toward Iran must be based on political isolation, along with the credible
threat of military force. Unfortunately, Trump has signaled unwillingness to
use military force. His missteps have emboldened Iran's leaders. Iran will not
be sanctioned into changing its behavior. A successful policy comes from the
threat of meaningful consequences”.
We notice that Ross and Stroul began the discussion
by denouncing President Trump for making the false claim that his strategy of
maximum pressure on Iran is working. This done, the writers cited six examples
about which they asserted that the strategy has failed. These were the minor
destinations you might have used to determine what goes on inside their heads.
You would have interviewed Ross and Stroul
face to face and asked them to explain how they would remedy the situation in
Syria or Yemen or Hormuz or Gaza, for example. Proposing solutions would have
indicated they were sincere in trying to solve the problem. Otherwise, their
disinterest in finding a solution, would have indicated they were preparing to
commit a nefarious act upon reaching the last destination.
But you're not interviewing them face to
face. Instead, they wrote an article for which they had ample time to think
about and explain what they had in mind. What they came up with, is what you
see at the end of their article, which is the ultimate destination of the
journey.
What you see there, is a push for the same
old military confrontation with Iran; an adventure that is meant to serve the
interests of the Jews and Israel … which can only happen by diminishing
America.
From this, you determine that Dennis Ross,
Dana Stroul and all those like them are not your friends. They are the
deadliest enemies that you or anyone can have.