In theory, there are many ways to run a country. In practice, the constraints on a country allows it only a handful of viable choices. When it comes to a specific action, the choice is further reduced to one of two possibilities: act and live with the consequences you have caused, or refrain from acting and live with consequences you had nothing to do with.
You
can follow the thread of history from the First World War to the Iran Nuclear
Deal of 2015, and see that it was a century of actions that led to consequences
that led to new actions and new consequences, and so on. You might start your
investigation with the treaty of Versailles that was meant to humiliate Germany
and cripple its economy to make sure that it will never be in a position to
challenge the two colonial powers of the day, France and Britain.
Instead
of getting their wish, what France and Britain got as a consequence, was the
rise of Nazism in Germany. This brought Hitler to power, a man determined to do
the opposite of what the Versailles Treaty intended to accomplish. He turned
Germany into a first rate economic and military power by encouraging the
ingenuity, discipline and industry of the German people.
In
addition, Hitler was on the verge of producing the atom bomb when the Americans
got wind that this kind of work was done in Germany. It prompted America to
rush and produce the bomb before Germany, but used it eventually against Japan.
Shortly after the war, when Churchill convinced America to antagonize the
Soviet Union, the latter had no choice but to counter America by producing its
own bomb. This convinced China it must have its bomb to deter the Soviets who
might have aggressive ideas concerning China. This, in turn, convinced India
that it must have the bomb to deter China. And this is what prompted Pakistan
to produce the bomb, supposedly to deter India.
And
then, motivated by the weirdest kind of logic the human brain has ever devised,
the Jews of Israel started dilly dallying with two ideas they plucked from the
cesspool where rotten ideas go to die and be buried. One idea was to propagate
the notion that Israel may or may not have the bomb, which it may or may not
use as a first strike, or use only if bombed by someone, or maybe not use at
all even if Israel were reduced to a heap of smoldering ash.
The
other idea has it that Shiite Iran, may or may not want to deter Sunni
Pakistan, thus may decide or may not to produce the atom bomb that Iraq was
proven not to have after America bombed it to the Stone Age with exploding
devices that were not atomic. And because Iran may someday have the bomb, it
will want to bomb Israel, not with an atomic device, but with regular bombs
like those delivered by aircraft or by rocket launchers.
If
you, my friend, think this is weird, you’ll get an even weirder feeling reading
what Abraham H. Miller has to say on that subject. He is what they call a
distinguished fellow at the Haym Salomon Center, and he wrote an article that
came under the title: “An Iran deal, again, with equally bad consequences,”
published on July 19, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.
Here,
in condensed form, is what Abraham Miller has said:
“When
it came to the Middle East, President Obama concluded that it was a quagmire
into which American blood and treasure would flow. His solution was to create a
power that would provide stability to the region and remove the need for
American intervention. He chose Iran. The Iran nuclear deal was about releasing
sanctions funds that would rebuild Iran and facilitate its quest for a Shia
crescent from the Tigris Euphrates Valley to the Mediterranean. Obama knew
that the American people have little interest in events that take place across
the oceans. While the international inspectors found that Iran had followed the
deal, it was not in compliance with limitations on missile development. But
Iran was always going to have a bomb. The issue was never if, but when.
The reality is that an Iranian bomb is inevitable. It is designed for one
country, Israel. As well, to many in Europe and the United States, the
elimination of the Jewish state would solve a series of problems. So why does
Iran want a bomb? Iran seeks to overrun Israel by conventional warfare and
checkmate Israel's use of nuclear weapons”.
So,
there you have it. Speaking in the name of Jewish Central, Abraham Miller is
saying that the talks concerning the Iran nuclear deal did not come about
because there was fear that Iran may produce the bomb, but because former
President Barack Obama wanted Iran to get back its own money so that it can
grow its economy and become a force for good in the Middle East, a role that
America failed to play despite all the blood and money that were sacrificed
toward that end.
Personally,
however, Miller always believed that Iran wanted the bomb, and will have it one
way or the other, come hell or high water. He says he knows why Iran wants the
bomb. He explains, it is not to use against Israel, but to fulfill the wish of
the Europeans and the Americans who wish to solve all of their problems by
seeing to it that Israel is eliminated.
But
how will this be done without exploding a bomb over Israel like the Americans
did to Hiroshima? Miller responds that Iran and its proxies will overwhelm
Israel using conventional weapons while deterring Israel from using its imaginary
Jewish nuclear bomb by threatening it with its own Shiite nuclear bomb.
Weird, isn’t it?