Monday, April 13, 2020

Between the Dread of Realism and the Fantasy

Will a big event such as COVID-19 be responsible for causing a major shift in the course of a nation? The short and quick answer is no, it will not cause a major shift. But there will be small changes here and there.

It is true that after something big has happened and the dust that was raised has settled, the various players descend onto the field and start jockeying in an attempt to find the highest position on which to stand, from which to describe what they reckon has happened, and from where to sell their vision of what should be done next. In fact, we can see that the jockeying began to happen already.

Two authors have recently published their views on the subject, and they show how far apart they are. The first author is Richard Haass who wrote: “The Pandemic Will Accelerate History Rather Than Reshape it,” the title of an article that also came under the subtitle: “Not Every Crisis Is a Turning Point.” It was published on April 7, 2020 in Foreign Affairs. The second author is Michael Rubin who wrote: “Iran's Military Likely Can't Fight Thanks to Coronavirus,” an article that was published on April 10, 2020 in The National Interest.

Michael Rubin is known for being solely driven by the maniacal obsession of exploiting everything he can lay his hands on to maximize the effort of serving the interests of Israel. The destruction of Iran being the fantasy that preoccupies him the most at this time; it is the subject he chose to write about. Knowing that Israel will be crushed like an eggshell under the boots of Iran if it tried something funny, Rubin wants to motivate America, and have it “soften” Iran so that Israel may move in, stand on the dead bodies of American soldiers and declare that it destroyed Iran without American help, then walk in and claim the spoils.

But be careful now! Rubin and all those like him in the Jewish establishment are well aware that the American people have had it up to here sending their young men and women to die on foreign soil for the depraved reason of serving the interests of Israel as well as serve the treasonous American politicians who get quid-pro-quoed by the wealthy Jews who grease their palms for being loyal to Israel by being disloyal to America, and being nonchalant toward American lives.

And so, Rubin and all those like him in the Jewish establishment no longer speak of the glory in sending American boys and girls to fight evil forces that hide in foreign lands, or of the glory in seeing the triumphant boys and girls return home to bask in the glory of standing in a rolling convertible that moves through the streets of New York being doused by a shower of ticker-tape.

No, that's not what the Jews are saying now. Rather, they sing a different tune. What they sing to America is this: “send your boys and girls to do useful field training by fighting Iranians who are so weak, they will not fight back.” And the Jews expect that the American public will take this insult and not recognize it for what it is. See for yourself, my friend. Here is a condensed version of what Rubin is saying:

“If the Revolutionary Guards fight against COVID-19, they will not retain combat readiness. Even if the Iranian leaders adopt best-practices, it is too late to control the virus's continued spread. It is likely that the Guard Corps and their families have suffered when Iranian authorities put them in charge of the domestic response. Any outbreak among the Guard Corps will have ramifications beyond military readiness. Those who served to fight the pandemic and suffer long-term health complications will breed resentment toward the government. The Revolutionary Guards will also likely suffer future recruitment woes. Beyond eroding Iran's military readiness, the impact of the virus on public perception will be huge”.

Unlike Michael Rubin who based his analysis on what his imagination, his childlike desires and his wild fantasy have shown him, Richard Haass based his analysis on what he observed in real life. Here is a condensed version of what he included in the preamble of his article:

“The world following the pandemic is unlikely to be radically different from the one that preceded it. COVID-19 will not so much change the basic direction of world history as accelerate it. The world that will emerge from the crisis will be recognizable. Waning American leadership, faltering global cooperation, great-power discord: They are likely to be even more prominent features of the world that follows”.

It is between the realism that's dreaded by some people and the fantasy that's rejected by most people that the battle of words will be fought in the coming months.

Still, considering that even those in the camp of Richard Haass will not want to see America withdraw completely from the world stage, expect to see subtle calls for America to stay involved.

You can see an example of that in the epilogue of Richard Haass's article. It went like this: “The more relevant precedent to consider may be the period following World War I––an era of declining American involvement and mounting international upheaval”.

Haass’s point is clear, but the people of America and the world still ask: And what has American involvement brought but disastrous wars named: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and a few other smaller but equally disastrous American involvements?