Burned by the Truth, they hide behind the Giants

For three days the small boys at the Weekly Standard have ignored the giants of an earlier era, among these Henry Kissinger and George Shultz … and have pushed forward their own arguments with regard to the hot topic of the day: the nuclear deal with Iran.

It is that the boys at the Weekly Standard thought they represented the debating gold standard of the Neocon era; the one they spawned not long ago, only to see it die under the weight of its own irrelevance shortly thereafter. And when the glare of reality proved too hot for them to withstand this time around, the boys of the Weekly Standard ran to seek relief in the shadow of the old giants.

One after the other, William Kristol, Michael Makovsky and now Lee Smith, have acknowledged that the Kissinger-Shultz article which came under the title: “The Iran Deal and its Consequences” is a far superior way to present one's views than the rubbish they have been inflicting on their readers for a time now. This time, Lee Smith wrote “War with Iran” and published it on April 11, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

The Kissinger-Shultz article was published in the Wall Street Journal on April 8, 2015. I wrote about it and posted my article on this website on the same day under the title: “The Correct Diagnosis but the wrong Cure” in which I said that the Kissinger-Shultz piece was “a refreshing development given what has poured out the pens of other writers lately.” Like the title of the article indicates, I agreed with the diagnosis of those two gentlemen but disagreed with the cure they proposed.

And so, we see that in his latest article, Lee Smith uses a typically made-up Neocon excuse to run away from the Neocon mentality and hide behind Henry Kissinger and George Shultz. Here is the excuse: “The White House is using 'science' as a smokescreen to obscure its failure in Lausanne.” And here is the flight to the shadow of the giants: “As the deans of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz wrote last week in an important Wall Street Journal article...”

For a few paragraphs, Lee Smith hitches a ride on the coattails of Kissinger and Shultz by quoting them directly, and then adding his own commentary to emphasize a point; one that the giants might not necessarily approve of. Where he deviates substantially from them is in the fact that they did not predict the future whereas he retained this Neocon habit and used it in the article. Here is how he does that: “An Iranian bomb will push Riyadh to acquire one as well, setting off a nuclear arms race that may include the UAE, Algeria, Egypt, and Jordan … Accordingly, the regional Sunni-Shia conflagration will be fought by two or more nuclear powers.”

He then does the very Jewish thing of arguing against himself as he tries to have it both ways. Unable to decide whether Iran makes friends (Tehran has already seeded assets in Africa, Asia, and Latin America) or subjugates nations (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen) … also unable to decide whether Iran manages to do that now or will manage when it will have the bomb, he contradicts his earlier assertions and says that “as a nuclear power, Iran will find new friends eager to sign on to its project of challenging the established order – an order underwritten by American power.”

And this is what tells you what the Smith article is all about. Given that when the Neocons say American power, they mean Jewish power, what these people fear the most is competition to Israel coming from Iran.

And in the same way that Israel teamed up with World Jewry to have the big powers stand in the way of the Arabs and the Muslims making progress (the Aswan Dam), or have the powers destroy those nations if they achieve a measure of progress, Israel is now teaming up with the Neocons to have America destroy an Iran that is progressing at a rapid pace. They want Iran destroyed under the pretext that: “An Iranian bomb will engender another empire in thrall to evil” when the only evil in the Middle East is an Israel that pretends to have the bomb.

The Smith conclusion is that it is better to attack Iran now than wait till it has the bomb because it will use it for certain, not only because he knows it but also because: “Kissinger and Shultz know [it] only too well.”

Well, Lee Smith has just slandered those two good men. He should retract what he wrote or be scolded for his reckless behavior, and sent to stand in the corner facing the wall for an hour.

First Kristol, now Makovsky talking Bunk

The argument goes something like this: We don't know what we don't know, and this is why we must bomb them. It is that it may turn out we should have known something we didn't know but had we known, we would have bombed. So let's do that now and be on the safe side … just in case.

The bunk does not stop here. It goes on to add something to this effect: And by the way, we know they have been cheating because if we don't know what we don't know, it is that they are hiding something. And they would not be hiding something unless they did not want us to see it. Which is all the more reason why we must bomb them now and get it over with.

This is what you find at the core of the Michael Makovsky article which came under the title: “Iran's Cheating” and the subtitle: “Can't trust, can't verify.” It was published in the Weekly Standard, one day after the William Kristol article: “Unravel the Deal” in which he describes how to go about getting the mentally retarded of the Congress to bankrupt America and send its children to die for the glory of Israel.

He begins with the Jewish thing to do, which is to pluck from the air a statement that, if true, would confirm what he says, and presents said statement as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He then builds on that fallacy by constructing an “Alice in Wonderland” sort of Jewish fantasy which he tries to make the deficient in the Congress believe is the reality of what goes on in the world today.

The fallacy on which Makovsky chose to build his case this time is not only the Jewish thing to do; it is the VERY Jewish thing to do. It is to accuse someone of doing what the Jews normally do … that is, to accuse a gentile of acting like a Jew. Here is what he has plucked from the air this time: “The President [Obama] insisted on April 2, that 'Iran has met all of its obligations.' This is demonstrably false.” The trouble is that Makovsky demonstrates nothing because there is nothing he can demonstrate. All he can do, sitting in his Washington office, is to pluck from the air statements not worth the toilet paper that would wipe them. Here is an example of that: “In the past year alone Iran violated its international agreements at least three times.”

This done, he comes to the theme of “we don't know what we don't know, so let’s bomb them now” by quoting Obama as saying that “inspectors will have unprecedented access to the entire supply chain supporting Iran's nuclear program … With this deal [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)] Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world.” And so Makovsky comments that “heretofore the monitoring effort created after the 1990-91 Gulf war [UNSCOM] … could not verify that Saddam had completely disarmed.” Saying this much, he ignores the fact that a great deal has been learned since that time, which is why the new monitoring system will be “unprecedented” … like says the President.

To counter this, Makovsky relies once again on the Jewish thing to do, plucking from the air this statement: “The inspection regime contemplated in the JCPOA seems woeful in comparison.” Believing he has a Smart Aleck quip he can hide behind this time, he mentions the Additional Protocol (AP) whose application “would represent a major advance beyond the current measures.” But he goes on to say, there is a problem because “this provision … makes it impossible to know what measures Iran will end up being bound by.” In other words, we don't know what we don't know, so let's bomb them now.”

Here is how he builds up to the Smart Aleck quip. He tells that the AP provides for the conduct of “anytime, anywhere” sort of inspections that include Iran's uranium mines and centrifuge factories.” And here is how he drops his Smart Aleck bombshell: “If Iran decides to sprint to the nuke, however, it won't do so in a uranium mine; it will do it at one of its enrichment plants.”

With this, the man just shoved his foot in his mouth. Here is how and why: Sitting in his office in Washington or at home, he could only visualize inspectors (as in the late night TV shows) going to places looking for the bomb and discovering it in a warehouse. But this is not how things happen in real life.

What happens in this kind of inspections is that technicians rely on the fact that metals and minerals of the same mine have a signature they carry with them anywhere they are transported. Knowing the signature of every mine in Iran and that of the foreign mines that may supply it with additional feedstock, will tell the inspectors if Iran has brought in foreign supplies or has shipped out any of its own. When this is added to the knowledge of how uranium changes in weight and size as it moves through the process of being refined, it will tell the inspectors what exactly the Iranians have been doing.

Well, it looks like someone has tried in vain to explain all this to Makovsky who could not grasp it. It is why, perhaps, he wrote at the top of the article: “Some will assess the truth by crunching the centrifuges and uranium stockpile numbers. However vital such analysis will be, it is important not to lose sight of the nukes for the Centrifuges.”

Yes, Michael. It is also important that you let the big boys do the work that big boys do, and find something for you to play with till they are done with their work. You could then ask them to give you the results of their work since you cannot grasp the process by which they reach those results.

The Cart that never pulled a Horse

Almost since the beginning of time, and right after members of the human species (called people) began to domesticate the horse, did the people discover that the proper way to doing things, was to put the horse at the front and put the cart behind it. And so, they reasoned that this must be the natural way to doing things because the horse can pull the cart whereas the cart cannot pull the horse.

Yet, once in a while, there came someone who tried to do things the other way around. That is, they put the cart before the horse expecting to see it pull the horse. But this never happened, and the people who tried the trick ultimately failed at whatever they were seeking to accomplish. For a reason that remains unresolved to this day, we find that members of a certain ideology calling itself Judaism are more prone at putting the cart before the horse than any other group. These people are referred to by the collective name: Jews.

Their habit became a metaphor, often used in the English language, to describe the people – Jews or gentiles – who try to do things in violation of the principle of causality. That is, instead of accepting that the cause spawns the effect, they insist on seeing the effect as spawning the cause. And they plan much of what they do on this false principle. As individuals, they suffer in life because normal people maintain their distance from them. As for the collective Jew, humanity has avoided it, even punished it since the beginning of time.

Some individuals (even if they do not fit the full definition of being a Jew,) take up the Jewish causes and defend them based on the fallacy that the effect causes the cause. Needless to say that the novelty of their presentation first intrigues those who never heard of such a thing previously, a situation that allows the Jews to score a few initial successes. But in time, even the naïve begin to see that it is unsafe to forge a close relationship with the Jew who says and does strange things – even if fascinating – day after day.

William Kristol who may not fit the definition of a full-fledged Jew has tried for years to explain the world through the principle of the effect spawning the cause. He is doing it again in an article that came under the title: “Unravel the Deal,” published in the Weekly Standard on April 10, 2015. To be sure, this title refers to the conclusion of arguments he makes about a framework between Iran and the “West” for an agreement that is yet to be finalized. In fact, that conclusion was made even before the framework had come out. In short, Kristol and those like him, put the cart before the horse, having seen or identified neither the horse nor the cart.

When the Jews began to unveil their approach to logic half a century ago in America, they fascinated the existing chattering classes so much, the naïve among them thought that the Jews were the smartest thing to grace Planet Earth since before there even was an Earth to grace or to defile. The most naïve among these people being those who run for office by repeating what their handlers stuff in their mouths, the Congress of the United States became a massive repository for the twisted logic of the Jews. And then, that same Congress was transformed into the instrument that the Jews have been employing to coerce the world into doing things the Jewish way, an approach that has eroded America's importance in World affairs.

You can see how the Jews and their supporters do it when you read this passage: “It might be possible to put pressure on Obama and Kerry that they would have to clarify aspects of the deal in ways that might cause Iran's supreme leader to decide it's not worth it. We can find devilish details to highlight, exacerbate the tensions, make unacceptable the ambiguities, and thus tempt the Iranians to decide to walk away.”

In fact, that has been the classic Jewish method to making the world powers – big and small – walk away from an America that is increasingly becoming radio-active in their eyes. In the Middle East, for example, the Jewish propaganda machine would predict that the Jews will make America do something unacceptable to the locals, then stuff the kind of words in the mouth of an American official that confirm the prediction. And the locals would conclude that America had become too much of a Jewish toilet to stick around and smell the stink.

With this success under its belt, World Jewry employed a similar method to drive the Asians and the Europeans – East and West – away from America.

The Jews used to be subtle playing this game but no more. They are so brash now, they no longer show fear or shame standing on the dome of Capitol Hill from where they piss on the American people below. It is that they know the Jews in the Congress, and the Jewish propaganda machine in the field will protect them.

Sensationalism by the Weekly Standard

It is no secret that the editors of the Weekly Standard as well as its contributors do not like Iran or its ultimate decision maker, the Ayatollah Khamenei. And so, when you see these people quote the Ayatollah, and use his sayings to denigrate their own President, Barack Obama, you know they hate the President more than they dislike Iran or the Ayatollah.

All this becomes evident when you read the piece that Thomas Joscelyin wrote under the title: “Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of 'lying,' Being 'Deceptive,' and Having 'Devilish' Intentions,” published on April 9, 2015 in the Standard. What is even more amazing is that Joscelyin did more than quote the Ayatollah; he sensationalized what the Iranian leader has said. The author did this by throwing into the text adjectives, characterizations and remarks that were clearly uncalled for.

The use of these tricks by the author changes the significance of what has transpired with regard to the nuclear deal over the past few days. If you followed the events as they unfolded, or if you plan to research the subject matter, you will come to the conclusion that the on-air give-and-take between the American President and the Iranian leader has not been different from the exchanges that took place between any two leaders since the discovery of the electromagnetic wave and the invention of the audio-visual equipments.

It must be understood that each leader has a number of constituencies they seek to reassure, cajole and win to their side. For this reason, leaders of all stripes do not always make perfect sense; but this is never as wicked a case as Joscelyin makes it sound. On the other hand, what gives the narrative a meaning that was never intended by the President or the Ayatollah … is the mutilation to which the narrative was subjected by virtue of the fact it was sprinkled with statements such as those that follow.

One: Khamenei’s speech pulled the rug out from underneath the administration.

Two: Khamenei does not agree.

Three: It gets much worse.

Four: Khamenei would beg to differ.

Five: The Ayatollah calls into question the Obama administration's integrity.

Six: Khamenei is having none of it.

All of which are subjective interpretations advanced by an American writer ... based on the translation of sayings that were uttered by a foreigner; one that is as enigmatic to an American writer as the Ayatollah can be. And these interpretations were used liberally in the article with the clear intent to distort the reality of the situation rather than to clarify it.

Once you become aware of this, my friend, and you reject the artificial coloring that the writer has added to the narrative, you are left with only one bone of contention separating the two parties. It has to do with the time that the sanctions – now in force against Iran – will be lifted.

Even if you go by what Joscelyin is reporting, you will still wonder what the difference could be between what President Obama has said, and what Ayatollah Khamenei has said. Here is the position of the first: “economic sanctions will only be eased after Iran's compliance with the terms of the deal has been verified by international inspectors.” And here is the position of the second: “the sanctions should be lifted all together on the same day of the agreement, not six months or one year later.”

Now ask yourself this question: Why did the Ayatollah say 'six months or one year later' rather than say 'one month or one year later'? Well, that's because immediately after the signing of the agreement, Iran intends to take the necessary steps to comply with its terms.

The work can be completed in a month or less, at which time the condition that President Obama has insisted on, will have been fulfilled. And this is when the Iranians expect to see all the sanctions lifted.

The fear is that the warmongers in the Congress – who hate their President as much as the folks at the Weekly Standard do – manage to torpedo the deal and hurt their country and the world in the process. Otherwise we should enter a new era of peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

Inheriting the executive Suite before the Earth

Normally, I would not have reacted to this kind of article, but something happened that created a coincidence I could not ignore. On the day that an American policeman was caught on camera shooting an unarmed middle aged man in the back eight times, Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal published an article decrying the Obama administration for not adopting a coercive approach in its dealings with the world.

In other words, Henninger wants America to resume declaring itself policeman of the world, and to behave on the world stage the way that trigger-happy policemen behave on the streets of America. He explains all that in the article he wrote under the title: “The Incredible Obama Doctrine” and the subtitle: “Speak softly and claim to carry a big stick, which you have no intention of ever using,” published on April 9, 2015 in the Journal.

The image of the policeman with extended arms pulling on the trigger was the sort that became a metaphor during the decade of the 1960s. The gun came to represent the erect penis, and the posture of the policeman came to represent the earth-shaking sexual performance of a would-be he-man.

Those years were also the time that America was taking a beating in Vietnam, and the debate was raging as to whether or not the country should continue to view itself as the policeman of the world. Some debaters began to see that the swaggering American policeman – living on bases in every continent and on navy ships in every ocean – was a kind of anachronism whose usefulness had ended with the end of the Second World War. Other debaters thought that more than ever, America had the duty to enforce law-and-order in the world to keep things from getting out of hand.

After the assassination of a number of prominent figures, some debaters began to speak of the need to institute a regime of gun control while others made the connection between the mentality of the men who became infatuated with the gun and their psychological state. They painted these men as insecure individuals who carried the gun because it substituted for their physical deficiency, their sexual inadequacy or both.

In time, that view evolved a step further to encompass the people who advocated that America project its military prowess everywhere in the world, and force the nations to get in line behind its policies. Such people were said to be of the kind that craved being a somebody but lacked the ability to be one. Seeing mighty men and women all around them running large institutions and powerful corporations, they envied them but could not be like them because they lacked the wherewithal to make it up there. However, knowing that they could influence the mighty because everyone in a democracy had a voice that was heard, the powerless devised a way to derive personal satisfaction from the might of others.

Given that foreign policy is usually an area in which the powerless can have the most influence on the powerful, these people developed arguments in all the realms that pertain to foreign policy. They made the arguments harsher sounding and more complicated with the passage of time, and they kept hounding the mighty with them. In effect, they managed to turn the mighty executives in both business and government into their alter egos and their surrogates. They were the mighty that moved the world in directions dictated to them by the meek. And this is how the meek inherited the executive suite before they could inherit the Earth.

Daniel Henninger is one of those who wish he had the power of the presidency to run the world as he sees fit. But knowing that he will never make it up there into the oval office, he nourishes his dream by lashing out at the existing president. He does that in the hope that his nagging will force the administration to move all matters of foreign policy in the direction that he chooses for them.

In his view, America must adopt a method that can only be coercive because everyone out there is so evil, they must be forced to line-up behind America for fear of being punished by the full force of America's military might.

In adopting this approach as they express themselves, Henninger and all those like him, turn every ship, every aircraft and every gun that is owned by the American military into their erect penis. And they fantasize going out there and raping the world to show the foreigners who owns Planet Earth … who is boss around here.

The correct Diagnosis but the wrong Cure

Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz describe the framework concluded between the (P5+1) and Iran as dispassionately as they can … which is a refreshing development given what has poured out the pens of other writers lately. Our two authors discuss their findings in the article they wrote jointly under the title: “The Iran Deal and Its Consequences,” and the subtitle: “Mixing shrewd diplomacy with defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has turned the negotiations on its head.” It was published on April 8, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

It can be said that despite a few exceptions, the analysis is even-handed in the way that it treats all sides in this undertaking. For this reason, the diagnosis that Kissinger and Shultz made of the realities they chose to look at, comes close to being correct. The cautious note to insert at this point, however, is that they neglected to mention other realities ... such as the reaction of America's partners in the (P5+1) group, and the possible consequences of such reactions.

Where Kissinger and Shultz make a serious mistake, is in the cure they prescribe. Ignoring the fact that it was America's meddling in Iran's political process in the middle of the last century that created the animosity between the two nations, the authors now suggest that more American involvement rather than less is needed to stabilize the region. And they seem to brush aside the notion that America's support for Saddam Hussein who launched an unprovoked murderous war against them, is what motivated the Iranians to develop the formidable military industrial complex they now possess.

The Kissinger-Shultz article clearly shows that Iran is too big and too capable to treat like the enemy you cannot trust, therefore must restrain the way that Lilliputians would restrain a Gulliver. Despite the fact that “the significance of the framework will depend on its verifiability and enforceability” they admit that “the physical magnitude of the effort is daunting.” And they explain: “Iran is in a position to violate the agreement by executive decision. Restoring the sanctions will require coordinated international action.”

With these difficulties in mind, the two authors take up the argument advanced by others, saying that: “Unless political restraint is linked to nuclear restraint, freeing Iran from sanctions risks empowering its hegemonic effort.” They counter it with the argument which says that the nuclear deal will help the “domestic transformation of Iran.” And so, they advance their own view, which is to ask the question: “What gives us the confidence that we [can] predict Iran's domestic course [better] than Vietnam's, Afghanistan's, Iraq's, Syria's, Egypt's or Libya's?”

In the face of these difficulties and the possibility that “for Iran's neighbors, the agreement is a dangerous prelude,“ Kissinger and Shultz mention that “some have suggested the U.S. can dissuade Iran's neighbors from developing capabilities by extending an American nuclear umbrella to them.” And so, they put forth their own argument in the form of a series of questions, showing the difficulties that come with that suggestion.

One such question has tipped their hand as to what they were thinking about when they wrote that passage. Here is the question: “What if nuclear weapons are employed as psychological blackmail?” They could only have been thinking about the dirty game that the Israelis have been playing – under America's protection – for a number of decades with their policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” despite the fact that the American umbrella was extended to them … as it became evident during the 1973 Egyptian offensive to kick Israel out of the Sinai.

Thus, the two authors conclude that the agreement has the potential to end Iran's hostility to the West, and to enlist it in the effort to stabilize the Middle East. But they see great difficulties in such effort because “there exists no current evidence that Iran and the U.S. are near such an understanding.” Perhaps this is true. But if so, there is a way out of these difficulties. It is for America to publicly call on Israel to come clean with its nuclear program if, indeed, it has one. Accompanying such call would be the start of an effort to render the Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

The problems of the region can be solved as simply as that. What stands in the way is Israel's desire to look bigger and more important than it is, and America's willingness to sacrifice its economic and military superpower status as well as the lives of its young men and women to protect that Israeli desire. What a tradeoff!

This is what the debate should be about during the coming election cycle in America.

He says bomb Iran because we're all stupid

Every one of those who called for the bombing of Iran had a reason why they wanted to see this done. Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal is no exception but for the fact that the reasons he cites are the most unusual of all. He explains his position in the column he wrote under the title: “Obama and the 'Inevitable Critics,'” also under the subtitle: “We are dealing with a case of Mutually Assured Obfuscation.” It was published on April 7, 2015 in the Journal.

The column is the Stephens response to President Obama's open question: “Do you think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world's major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?” Ignoring for now the caveat: “if fully implemented,” the columnist answers with a “yes,” and accuses the major powers that when the time comes, they will fail to do the necessary due diligence to prevent Iran from cheating. It is worth noting at this point, that Stephens and those of his ilk were the people that called for the bombing of Iran even before the framework was negotiated, much as they are doing now.

And right now, Stephens says that the deal fails the test of verification because of two reasons: (1) lack of clarity as to what is in the deal; and (2) the deal cannot be verified even if it is clarified.

Having these two conditions back to back reinforces the image of the Jew as judging something negatively because he does not understand it … and predicting that he will continue to see it negatively even if he is made to understand it. In fact, this image was first projected to the world long ago … at a time when America was free of the Jewish bondage that now keeps the mouth of its politicians shut.

Americans used to speak freely in the old days. But then, they began to be slapped with Jewish demands for “clarification.” This prompted the floating of a saying to the effect that you cannot keep clarifying to someone why two plus two make four. And this proved to be what the Jews were waiting for. They accused innocent Americans of being antisemitic, causing them to shut up and let the Jews have it their way. Well, the fact that Stephens is reviving this trick, says these people are getting desperate.

For example, even when ironclad agreements are made between nations, disputes arise as to what some of the provisions in them mean. This is why international tribunals are set up to interpret such provisions. And here, you have a case that is described by both sides as being only a framework (not yet an ironclad agreement), and you see the Jews jump on the different interpretations given by America and Iran to ask: Who is lying? These Jews are truly desperate.

As it always happens with Jews when they begin to sense they are losing the argument, Bret Stephens pulls the wild card from his sleeve at this point in the discussion. He accuses the Iranians of all sorts of bad things, which automatically paints them as the bad guys while painting “our side” as the good guys. This relieves him from having to explain the unexplainable; and so he says anything he needs to, justifying his stance by the fact that we are good and they are bad.

In fact, Stephens does not even bother painting the Iranians as the bad guys; he quotes a card carrying clown from the comical troop Foundation for Defense of Democracies, to make the point. As to our side, he adds that in addition to being good, we are also stupid. He does not use this word, but uses a long explanation to make the point. This is how he put it: The deal is beholden to the world's major powers which include the Europeans, the Chinese and the Russians, all of whom are eager to re-enter the Iranian market, having invested much in that country already. Worse, the deal subordinates the U.S. to the U.N. – a move he calls fatal flaw.

In case this is not enough to convince his readers, Stephens pulls another Jewish trick from his sleeve. He attacks Barack Obama and John Kerry; accusing the first of hypocrisy, and the second of incompetence. Well, slandering people is as Jewish as matzoh bread … what did you expect?

All of that leads Stephens to foresee: “a grim future of a nuclear Iran, threatening its neighbors, and a proliferated Middle East, threatening the world.” This is why he suggests – in a very subtle way – bombing Iran now even if this means creating a situation that is infinitely worse than Iraq, Syria and Libya combined.