Imagine a teacher giving a baking lesson to a class of students who came to learn how to make cookies.
The students had come into the classroom before the
teacher’s arrival whereupon they saw 3 bowls filled with cookies on a table
that’s labeled “How not to make cookies.” And when the students tasted the
cookies, they found them to be inedible.
Finally, the professor comes into the classroom and shows
the students how to make chewable cookies, which he says are good for small
children. He goes on to assure the students that this is the best tasting
cookies they’ll ever make as proven by the success they are having in the
marketplace where they are feverishly snapped by eager parents who want to
please their children. He does not put the cookies in the oven but leaves them
on the side.
Next, the professor shows the students how to make hard
cookies for those who like to munch on crunchy foods. Again, he praises the
cookies, and assures the students they are the best tasting cookies in this
category they’ll ever make. And again, he does not put the cookies in the oven
but leaves them on the side. Next, the professor shows the students how to make
sugarless cookies for diabetics who love to eat cookies but must avoid
consuming sugar. Again, the professor praises the cookies as being the best in
that category, and does not put them in the oven but leaves them on the side.
A student stands up and asks the professor if, when his
cookies are baked, they’ll turn out to be the same as those on the table nearby.
Yes, says the professor. But these are inedible, says the student who is
seconded by the rest of the class. Of course these are inedible, says the
professor; it’s because they have been here for many days, and they are stale. He
promises the students that when his cookies are baked, they’ll taste heavenly.
Upon this, the professor puts his cookies in the oven.
The students go out for a break and return to the classroom two hours later.
They find that the cookies were baked, and had the time to cool off. They were
ready to be eaten, which is what the students did. But the students were appalled
to discover that the cookies tasted as horribly as those that were on the table
nearby, described as stale by the professor.
And so you ask if this is an analogy for something that
happens in real life? The answer is yes, and you can find out for yourself by
reading the article that came under the title: “Lifting Human Rights Sanctions
on Iran Would Be a Mistake,” and the subtitle: “Lifting
pressure on human rights abusers is not necessary to negotiate effective arms
control agreements.” It was written by Orde F. Kittrie whose daytime job is
being a professor of some kind but moonlights, perhaps as a stand-up comedian,
for the burlesque-like outfit that goes by the laughable name Foundation for Defense
of Democracies.
What Orde Kittrie is trying to do is convince Washington
that it can pressure Tehran on its Human Rights stance by maintaining the
sanctions that pertain to human rights while negotiating the Nuclear Deal,
without fearing the Iranians getting upset and breaking off the nuclear talks.
The way that Kittrie is selling his idea to Washington, is by saying this has
been the history of negotiations between America and the Soviet Union
throughout the Cold War. In fact, he has shown that America pressured the
Soviet Union on its Human Rights stance while negotiating arms control. As to
the Soviet reaction—while upset at America’s
intransigence—the Soviets continued to negotiate
arms reduction, says Kittrie.
Here is a sample, presented in condensed form, of how
Kittrie went about making his presentation:
“The Biden administration is poised
to lift sanctions on Iran’s human rights abusers in exchange for nuclear
concessions. History has shown that sacrificing human rights to achieve arms
control is unnecessary. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan maintained
strong human rights pressure on the Soviet Union while negotiating arms
control. Washington is sending a counterproductive message in the wake of
reports that Tehran is actively working to assassinate John Bolton.
Lifting sanctions on Iranian human rights abusers would also send a dangerous
message to Vladimir Putin at a time when he is committing crimes in Ukraine and
abuses in Russia. Neither Carter nor Reagan made concessions on human rights to
achieve progress on arms control. Instead, both Carter and Reagan made clear to
the Soviets that progress on human rights was key to increasing trust on arms
control. Much as it did with Carter and Reagan, Congress should act to ensure
that the US pursues an end to Iran’s nuclear program and to its human rights
abuses”.
But looking at the accusations of cheating on the nuclear
agreements that were leveled by both sides throughout the Cold War, and looking
at the threats made today regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the
war for Ukraine, would it not be accurate to say that the cookies baked by
Carter and Reagan, taste not heavenly after baking, but as horribly as those of
the professor?
Orde Kittrie and all the warmongers like him who are out
suggesting the never-ending ways by which to bake the doom-Iran cookie, should know
that while their hunger to destroy Iran is limitless, humanity’s patience for their
tricks has come to an end.