On one side you have a Totalitarian Islamist Regime bent on, at any cost, establishing its preeminence in the Middle-East and on the other a political mutation with barely a first-grade education in history and standing on the back of a military machine and economic matrix smothered and shredded in cross-purposes. The U.S. appears to be taking its theme form the Nixon-Kissinger China diaries believing that their strategy “turned” Deng Xiaoping; nothing could be further from the truth as the fact remains that Kissinger openly admitted that both he and Nixon were puzzled and frustrated by internal Chinese politics.
It is a fact that the former President & Secretary of State succeeded only in identifying a common interest: Caging the former Soviet Union. Given the nature of the omniscient U.S. President it’s quite easy to grasp the root of his thinking after all 300 plus million Americans endorse or lay silent to his actions so why shouldn’t the Mullahs of Iran? There is a serious flaw in the logic of arrogance and Iranians are well down the road in the Neo-Nuclear Arms race to turn and run toward the side of the U.S. President or to John Kerry.
The only way Iran will be compliant is not thru common-interests with the U.S. but by the U.S. being able to persuade Russia, India, Pakistan, China and N. Korea there’s a common-interest in preventing it from occurring and, at the same time, forcing Israel into confinement. Any guess as to the chances of Obama-Kerry pulling this off?
The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: Your comment hi-lights the core issue which lies behind my “endorse” and “silent” reference of the original post. Do you suggest that the solution rests solely in adjunct notion of doing nothing? Is the concept of raising an objection only relevant if it suits a political ambition or even worse the case which suspends action until such time as someone else is willing to make a salient case? Do we simply suspend action until after a nuclear exchange and the passive-conscientious query why nothing was done to prevent it? Why is it that the U.S., acknowledging as I do its culpability as to collateral issues and your (MP’s) inference, is placed in this most unenviable position? Seems to me that silent-endorsement has become a global phenomenon.
#2: No MP, if you’re speaking of the “Occupy” movement which was nothing more than a political stunt well-funded by operatives who have no interest in “the People”; their interest is in a permanent mutation of the democratic process and, as we can see by the eccentricities of the egomaniacal Obama, that’s precisely what your so-called “peaceful process” delivered. “The People” do not vote, they are bystanders; the electoral process has morphed into a selective breeding process for perpetual dysfunction and if you look at the “winning” electoral map you’ll discover how easily the game can be rigged with the lowest possible participation running circles around the “the People” who remain silent via their non-voting protest.
It is true, as you so conspicuously state, that the “genie is out of the bottle” however the statement itself holds firmly to a false premise which is one that suggests that once out it should remain perpetually so and I disagree. How then do we accomplish this? Simple: Iran must be ostracized into submission with the force of nations backing it up.
This was once the great strength of the high-ground; this was once the great stand-off force of the U.S. which is now, thanks to Mr. Obama, largely reviled and our once cherished standing squandered away by decades of selective-war mongering and most recently sealed to a near-state of permanency by the pathologically-vindictive mutations of the current occupant of 1600 Pa. Ave.
To be truly effective it will require a near-rabid and terminally incensed component of “the People” applying asymmetrical force for any significant effect to be deemed measurable; without it any objection will be, as is always the case with government, ignored. Face it, the opposition in control has a multi-decade long advance and they’re not likely to surrender easily.
Americans have become accustomed to antiseptic warfare, the kind viewed from their TV or the portable electronic device; they aren’t, for the most part, the least bit interested in paying the price required to reverse the trend. Hell! A majority of congress leaps for joy over the President not only openly violating his oath and the Constitution, they champion his making them wholly irrelevant to the process! Iran is a massive problem and perhaps the single greatest threat external to the U.S.; it is our internal apathy that is a far greater problem and its existence fuels the external.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder