If there’s any news piece out there that’s getting a lot of attention that matters about as much as the dental hygiene of a subway rat, it’s the “Dreaded Iran Deal”. It’s there to put you in a war mindset, to get the war drum going, to make you think that Iranians are evil and that Israel is going to get nuked, so the politicians can spend more money building more weapons to make you feel more protected when the only reason you were ever in danger in the first place is because they never stop talking about war war war. So they should shut the hell up.
Logically, why the Iran deal doesn’t matter, is because if the Iranian government wants to build nuclear weapons, it will do that, whether there is a deal or not. The only purpose of the deal is to fill up the meaningless days of government officials who want to make themselves feel important, and you “cared for”.
Iranians, like all people, are just people. They want the same things you want. Maybe some of them hate Jews. Definitely some of them hate Jews. But not as much as they love better living standards through trade. And most Jews hate Muslims too. But that’s because of governments. I guarantee you that if a Jew offers to trade with a private Muslim Iranian, private Iranians will trade, because trade, economics, breaks down barriers of superficial hate.
Superficial hate becomes deep-seated suicidal hate only when government brainwashes people that the other side is suicidally hateful as well, and prevents all trade between the two sides. If you think Muslims are the only suicidal haters, just translate that into Western language when the Israel Defense Forces indoctrinates you into declaring you will “give your life” for the State of Israel. Sure, we see that as “noble”. But what do you think Muslims see dying for their cause as?
If you want to differentiate because Westerners only target soldiers and Muslims target civilians, I point you to every single war since World War I. The Western Statists target civilians just like Muslim statists do. Westerners just don’t say they target civilians for PR, to pretend they are “moral”. Anyone who denies that is lying to himself.
It’s a perfect set up that programs everyone to kill themselves in a worthless war that could easily be prevented by trade, which sanctions prevent.
I remember when I was in the army, some Russian guy, a funny guy named Ruslan, responded when one of our female commandants had explained that in the pledge after basic training, we were expected to declare that we will give our lives for the State. Ruslan raised his hand, and said, “Certainly not. I will not give my life for the State.”
The commandant didn’t know what to do, so she just said, “Well, just say it then.”
Simply logistically speaking, treaties between government caretakers don’t mean a thing. They can be broken by the next caretaker by a single vote.
If the Israeli government wants to take out the Iranian nuclear program, they should shut up and just do it already and accept the consequences, because they are incapable of talking like human beings. But if I were in charge, I would simply pick up the damn phone and demand to speak with the Ayatollah, and offer to meet with him in Switzerland, offering him bribes until he accepted and we could sit the hell down and talk about trade.
For those who think that trade between enemy States is impossible, I urge you to watch this. Andrew Zimmern is a Jew. He’s in Syria, doing a show. Is it staged? Yes, to a degree. Are the Arabs paid off? Of course. Trade. Is Zimmern eating Kosher food? No. But he’s doing something way more important than conducting a shiur in Yoreh Deah.
What I wouldn’t give to go to Damascus and trade, and end this Godforsaken stupid meaningless pointless war.
10 thoughts on “Why I don’t care about the stupid Iran deal, and why it’s a red herring”
“The western powers” did not “foment” a rebellion in Syria. Some western powers offered a trivial amount of resistance to opposition forces, far outweighed by that given to the government by Russia and Iran.
The blunt truth about Syria is that a sectarian kleptocracy with a (in the literal sense) fascist ideology finally lost control of the delicate balancing act in a country where they were loathed by the majority of the populous for a mixture of good and bad reasons. The upshot is that the the country is now split between Alawite national socialists allied with foreign Shiite forces, on the one hand, and Salafists on the other. There are a number of reasons why this is so, but not least among them is that both sides have worked to destroy any moderate groups, which received almost no backing from outside, unlike the government (Iran, Russia) and Isis ( a half of whose fighters are foreign).
But, of course, if you take a look at facts you can’t turn everything into a childish morality play. America tried, incompetently, to create a democracy in Iraq so they are evil imperialist warmongers. Iran backs sectarian regimes that barrel bomb kids and drive Sunnis into the arms of Isis, so …. So nothing. Everything is the fault of capitalist countries, nothing is the fault of socialist, fascist and theocratic countries. If Muslims kill westerners, it is America,’s fault, if Muslims kill Jews, it is America’s fault, if Muslims kill Muslims, it is America’s fault.
And, somehow, this counter-factual morality play is supposed to have something to do with libertarianism.
I know nothing about war and fight, but why would anyone want to hire suicidal soldiers? If a man can’t defend his own life is he really that good of a soldier? The whole trick of wars was when leaders convinced best defenders from the peasant to go attack so they don’t have to defend anymore. I am betting the first archetypal soldiers (that everyone tries to invoke or mimic) were just great defenders who would not give their life nor that of their families. Just sayin’.
Could you try, just once, applying the same standards of criticism you apply to the US and Israeli governments to other governments, like, say, that of Iran?
Rafi, great article. I was just about to write you an e-mail to ask your take on the Iran deal, but I see you beat me to the punch,
The political posturing going on here in the States is disturbing. Hardly anybody has read the deal, yet everyone has an opinion of it. The conservatives are calling it complete capitulation, the liberals are calling it peace in our time. They cherry pick a few clauses, then pick a side. The Deal has become a polarizing point, and I suspect it will settle nothing.
Good to see you are still writing this blog. I’ll try to visit more often.
In total agreement. I’ve had arguments with people about this. Military experts, real experts, not the ones they trot out on TV to parrot Bibi’s line of what a catastrophe it would be, even ones who live in Israel, will tell you a nuclear Iran is no danger to Israel. Why does Iran want nukes? Sheesh, are people so clueless as to not understand what the West in general, and the US in particular do to countries (and leaders) of nuke-less countries who get on the wrong side of policy? Libya is just about the #1 example, especially since they had a nuclear program that they willingly gave up. Iraq is another example. Pakistan (a Muslim country) has nukes. So does North Korea, who everyone insisted would lob the first one they made to [name any large West Coast US city], hasn’t done any such thing.
My guess is that a nuke-less Iran wasn’t attacked was because even the warmongering US military brass considered an invasion to be somewhat less than the “cakewalk” they expected in Iraq.
Nukes are the great equalizer. Without them, you can be sure Israel would not exist today. They are totally defensive in nature because no one wants to be the first (since the US) to actually use one in war. Even those Shiite crazies (alleged) in Iran. The more the merrier. More nukes means more peace.
It’s good to hear someone make sense.
Syria doesn’t have nukes. And the US is bombing Pakistan all the time.
Pakistani civilians are being bombed. The government is not being attacked.
Syria doesn’t have nukes…and the Western powers fomented a rebellion there against the government. The whole mess is very confusing, but my understanding is that at least one justification was because Syria is an ally of Iran. Topple Syria to get at Iran.