Wednesday, January 20, 2021

The Way to fail is to see Failure as Success

 Charles Sam Faddis wrote a book under the title: “Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA” but never told the real reason why the CIA declined before today. He did so now by writing an article that shows why the CIA declined. It is that the institution was employing characters of Sam Faddis’s low caliber.

 

Faddis's new article came under the title: “Tired of winning, Biden opts for failure in the Middle East,” and the subtitle: “The president-elect walks away from a string of American foreign policy successes in the region.” It was published on January 18, 2021 in The Washington Times.

 

Sam Faddis begins the discussion by lamenting what he calls Joe Biden declared intention to steer a course in the Middle East that will be different from the one pursued by Donald Trump. He explains his displeasure as follows: “He [Biden] intends to walk away from what may be the longest string of foreign policy successes in American history and return to the abject failures of Barack Obama's tenure.” And this, my friend, is a very neoconish point of view.

 

Not only has Sam Faddis swallowed the neocon agenda hook, line and sinker, he also swallowed a Trump-size cup of delusional fantasy. Here is one that is easy to detect: “Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and the United Arab Emirate have all exchanged embassies with Israel.” No such thing has happened yet because the Arab Initiative stipulates an equitable resolution concerning the rights of Palestinian before full recognition is granted to Israel. The Arabs are waiting, and the Jews in both Israel and New York are dragging their feet, hoping that by some freakish lining of the stars, they will have it both ways.

 

Not realizing the extent of his delusion, Sam Faddis asserts that the good things he envisions for the Middle East, will vanish when America, under Joe Biden, will lift the sanctions on Iran and return to the Barack Obama nuclear deal. Of course, the intellectually dishonest author does not mention that the Obama deal is the one negotiated with Iran by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, a feat they accomplished on behalf of the entire human race.

 

That would be the multitudes composed of seven and a half billion people, all striving to develop Civilization in a manner that will serve every one of us. This being the opposite of the neocon desire to get bogged down in a futile Pax Americana attempt to eternally subjugate the human race, bending it if you will, to the whims of the control-freaks who populate the ranks of the Jews.

 

Seeing that the neocons' dream is fading, Sam Faddis lashed out at those he reckoned will make it disappear eventually. They are the team that was around Barack Obama when the nuclear deal was negotiated. Faddis found something he can attack in each member of the team, and did just that. The following is a compilation of such attacks. Please note that except for one occasion, every time that the pronoun “he” is used, it refers to a different person:

 

“In the runup to the signing of the Iran nuclear deal, he and a retired Iranian diplomat made 33 trips to the Obama White House to assist in drafting the document. He was a lead negotiator in the talks that led to the Iran nuclear deal. He was also a key architect of Mr. Obama's strategy under which the US surrendered the South China Sea to Beijing. He completely believes in the idea of negotiating with the ayatollahs and returning to the terms of the nuclear deal. He was the leader of an American team that began talking with the Iranians in March of 2013”.

 

Sam Faddis thought he was shocking the audience by revealing that an Iranian diplomat visited the White House during the nuclear negotiations. What he did not realize is that whether it is of the direct or indirect kind, a negotiation has to take place somewhere. And so, this raises the question: Would Faddis have preferred it took place in Tehran instead of Washington? If that’s how he feels, let him say so.

 

As to the accusation of the South China Sea being surrendered to the Chinese, Faddis will have a hard time telling on what Chinese destroyer, a defeated American General was summoned to sign the surrender of that watery piece of real estate. What kind of surrender is he talking about, anyway?

 

As to talking with the Iranians in March of 2013, two years before the formal negotiations began, Sam Faddis should be reminded of Winston Churchill's words that went something like this: It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.

 

To end the article on what he mistakenly believes has been a strong presentation, Sam Faddis lamented the content of a bill that was recently introduced in the Iranian parliament, instructing the government what it must do next. Here is what Faddis has whined about:

 

Retaliate against the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Push back against US encroachment in the Middle East. Continue to oppose Israel's expansionist policy. Stand up to economic sanctions. Stand tall when conducting the nation's foreign policy.

 

To tell Iran to cease doing these things is to tell it to cease being a sovereign nation. No wonder the Iranians did not think that Sam Faddis was worth as much as a raised middle finger. They just ignored the little cipher.