Why Did the Chicken or the Egg Cross the Road First?
Iranian Missle Tests: The Axis of Evil Comes to Call 40
As suggested in the title, it is occasionally difficult to determine whether certain phenomena are the cause of the effect. In some cases it seems straightforwrd enough, but in others no amount of careful thought seems to render any sort of reasonable decision at all.
Moving forward from that abstraction, we will consider the “phenomenon” of Iran’s sudden and intensely aggressive posture with respect to us. This most recent event isn’t really that mysterious. Our “Axis of Evil” talk a few State of the Union speeches ago, our undoubtedly disconcerting habit of “parking” nuclear aircraft carriers either a little closer or a little farther from Iran at various times, the provocative presence of the US army in the oil swamp of Iraq and the “entirely spontaneous” Isreali public position of its open retaliation are more than enough to inspire Iran’s actual government’s interest in being threatening in response. By “actual government” we mean, of course, the slightly medieval Islamic religionists who replaced the Shah, that is, our Shah Palavi.
Recent history sheds little light on this puzzle. About the time we decided to invade Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden, essentially this same Iranian government was quite cooperative. We were told that the Taleban, a group bearing an amazingly similar DNA profile with Al Queda, was a “blood enemy” of the Shi’ites in Iran. Given the prevailing competition between Sunnis and Shi’ites throughout the region, this media presentation was pretty palatable for our domestic consumption. We literally "gobbled" it down.
Yum.
However, not too much later, our “ally” during the Afghan incursion had converted itself to the “Axis of Evil.” The new media presentation is that these Iranians hate America and have done everything possible to make trouble everywhere they can in the Middle East.
A problem arises from all this. Of course, we can hardly wish to spend any more time considering the news reports. Their credibility has long ago been castrated by a terrified administration that fears and distrusts the American people more than the Iranians, or anyone else. This leaves us quietly speculating about what the actual situation might be, more or less isolated from any information that could possibly help in our considerations.
All that would be comfortably academic if a “certain somebody” weren’t still considering “nuking the hell” out of these people in our name then staggering out of the White House having accomplished the ingestion of a treasonous “poison pill” for our national security. The 9/11 attack, regardless of which conspiracy actually delivered it, has been this administration’s closest, and now, only, friend, but the burning World Trade Centers have become a bit road weary. Still, even though a dismally slow learner, Mr. Bush did notice that there was simply nothing more politically valuable than an insane enemy. After convincing half of the voting population that Sadam had bombed those buildings, a Texas style hanging in Baghdad has left the “cupboad bare” with respect to his next adversary.
Meet Iran.
The question: Does this disaster have anything to do with George Bush’s lies about it? There is the possibility that even in his twisted, self-serving statements, some kernel of fact has actually sneaked through and that these Iranians are, perhaps, as crazy and intractable as he proposes.
On the other hand, it is perhaps equally likely that the Iranians are responding to him. Now, now. Yes it stinks, but a proposition such as that one really must be an exaggeration! The enmity expressed toward us by Iran couldn’t possibly have been caused by a single American, not even one holding the Presidency with such calloused credentials. Even if this were a factor, the inertia of these events is still far greater than any possible Iranian response to a single man. George Bush could not possibly have precipitated this colosal disaster on the sole strength of his creepy character alone.
Well, perhaps not in a population like the one here in this country, but the government and the population of Iran simply don’t know him that well. It would be very nice to be able to tell them, “Although President Bush may be rather unsettling, please, he isn’t going to just attack someone out of mid air based on no more than his own secret (oil) reasons.” We might continue with, “The United States is a nation of laws. Sure, the President is very powerful, but something as egregious as this would simply be beyond even his most blood thirsty ambitions.”
But would that be honest on our part? He really might attack them based on the exact personality defects they fear the most. He seems to have purposely created the crisis to replace the lackluster memory of New York. He has certainly learned that his disasterous military adventures usually look pretty good to the American voters, at least until he starts losing again. And, finally, the time line is almost perfect. An attack on Iran might actually look fairly successful for the period between here and the election.
None of this is particularly calming to the Iranians. Darn, we were only trying to reassure them that we weren’t all as brutally selfish and ambitious as our alleged President. You know. Just like all Muslims aren't terrorists.
Iranian Missle Tests: The Axis of Evil Comes to Call 40
As suggested in the title, it is occasionally difficult to determine whether certain phenomena are the cause of the effect. In some cases it seems straightforwrd enough, but in others no amount of careful thought seems to render any sort of reasonable decision at all.
Moving forward from that abstraction, we will consider the “phenomenon” of Iran’s sudden and intensely aggressive posture with respect to us. This most recent event isn’t really that mysterious. Our “Axis of Evil” talk a few State of the Union speeches ago, our undoubtedly disconcerting habit of “parking” nuclear aircraft carriers either a little closer or a little farther from Iran at various times, the provocative presence of the US army in the oil swamp of Iraq and the “entirely spontaneous” Isreali public position of its open retaliation are more than enough to inspire Iran’s actual government’s interest in being threatening in response. By “actual government” we mean, of course, the slightly medieval Islamic religionists who replaced the Shah, that is, our Shah Palavi.
Recent history sheds little light on this puzzle. About the time we decided to invade Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden, essentially this same Iranian government was quite cooperative. We were told that the Taleban, a group bearing an amazingly similar DNA profile with Al Queda, was a “blood enemy” of the Shi’ites in Iran. Given the prevailing competition between Sunnis and Shi’ites throughout the region, this media presentation was pretty palatable for our domestic consumption. We literally "gobbled" it down.
Yum.
However, not too much later, our “ally” during the Afghan incursion had converted itself to the “Axis of Evil.” The new media presentation is that these Iranians hate America and have done everything possible to make trouble everywhere they can in the Middle East.
A problem arises from all this. Of course, we can hardly wish to spend any more time considering the news reports. Their credibility has long ago been castrated by a terrified administration that fears and distrusts the American people more than the Iranians, or anyone else. This leaves us quietly speculating about what the actual situation might be, more or less isolated from any information that could possibly help in our considerations.
All that would be comfortably academic if a “certain somebody” weren’t still considering “nuking the hell” out of these people in our name then staggering out of the White House having accomplished the ingestion of a treasonous “poison pill” for our national security. The 9/11 attack, regardless of which conspiracy actually delivered it, has been this administration’s closest, and now, only, friend, but the burning World Trade Centers have become a bit road weary. Still, even though a dismally slow learner, Mr. Bush did notice that there was simply nothing more politically valuable than an insane enemy. After convincing half of the voting population that Sadam had bombed those buildings, a Texas style hanging in Baghdad has left the “cupboad bare” with respect to his next adversary.
Meet Iran.
The question: Does this disaster have anything to do with George Bush’s lies about it? There is the possibility that even in his twisted, self-serving statements, some kernel of fact has actually sneaked through and that these Iranians are, perhaps, as crazy and intractable as he proposes.
On the other hand, it is perhaps equally likely that the Iranians are responding to him. Now, now. Yes it stinks, but a proposition such as that one really must be an exaggeration! The enmity expressed toward us by Iran couldn’t possibly have been caused by a single American, not even one holding the Presidency with such calloused credentials. Even if this were a factor, the inertia of these events is still far greater than any possible Iranian response to a single man. George Bush could not possibly have precipitated this colosal disaster on the sole strength of his creepy character alone.
Well, perhaps not in a population like the one here in this country, but the government and the population of Iran simply don’t know him that well. It would be very nice to be able to tell them, “Although President Bush may be rather unsettling, please, he isn’t going to just attack someone out of mid air based on no more than his own secret (oil) reasons.” We might continue with, “The United States is a nation of laws. Sure, the President is very powerful, but something as egregious as this would simply be beyond even his most blood thirsty ambitions.”
But would that be honest on our part? He really might attack them based on the exact personality defects they fear the most. He seems to have purposely created the crisis to replace the lackluster memory of New York. He has certainly learned that his disasterous military adventures usually look pretty good to the American voters, at least until he starts losing again. And, finally, the time line is almost perfect. An attack on Iran might actually look fairly successful for the period between here and the election.
None of this is particularly calming to the Iranians. Darn, we were only trying to reassure them that we weren’t all as brutally selfish and ambitious as our alleged President. You know. Just like all Muslims aren't terrorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment