Author: admin

Chuck Hagel: Thinking again.

On August 21st, I (Scott) posted a jwn commentary on Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) and his rather lonely, if compelling complaints against the Bush Administration approach to the Middle East, and Israel/Lebanon in particular. Back in August, Hagel was quite prescient in anticipating that his Republican party “had lost its way” and was vulnerable to being, “held accountable.”
Alas, I was disappointed when Senator Hagel “rushed off a cliff” with the herd in voting for the recent “detainee treatment bill” – and even against an amendment what would have restored habeas corpus rights for any non-citizen human beings scooped up in the US g.w.t. dragnet. I’ve yet to come across explanations for Senator Hagel’s vote, though one curious WaPo report suggestes that he, along with other moderate Republicans, might have supported Senator Specter’s original proposal to permit habeas corpus for “detainees” after a year of detention. (I hope one day soon Senator Hagel will have the courage to explain and/or recant his vote and then support corrective legislation.)
As it stands though, Hagel’s votes on our shameful modern day echo of the Alien & Sedition Acts reminded me of what Kyle Michaelis, a Nebraska-based blogger, wrote about the Senator:

“He’s Chuck Hagel, folks – the thinking man’s unthinking Republican. And, you almost have to like him; you just can’t count on him.”

Yet I am happy to note that Hagel is still “thinking,” and rather far “off the neocon reservation,” – as evident in his oped in today’s Washington Post. The Senator opens by declaring,

“There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.” Neither is Iraq “a prize to be won or lost,” nor is there a “military solution.”

So glad we cleared that up.
Imagine President Bush being so candid with loved ones of those who have fallen in Iraq. At least Senator Hagel isn’t cluelessly telling us “we’ll win unless we quit.”
Yet unlike Helena, Senator Hagel is better on diagnosis and prognosis than on prescription — other than a reference to a “phased troop withdrawal.”
As for how we got into the Iraq mess:

Continue reading “Chuck Hagel: Thinking again.”

Understanding Iran’s Nuclear Policy (Ramazani)

Our local paper today features another of Professor R.K. Ramazani’s opinion essays, this time focusing on Washington’s chronic misreading of Iran’s negotiating nuclear strategy, its decision-making process, the urgent need for direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran, and the high mutual gains that could be had from such a process.
Now an Emeritus Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Ramazani has for over fifty years – a half century – written extensively on Iranian foreign policy. As the blurb at the essay notes, his major book credits include The United States and Iran, The Foreign Policy of Iran, 1500-1941, Iran¹s Foreign Policy, 1941-1975, and Revolutionary Iran: Challenge and Response in the Middle East.
As such, he’s been called the Dean of Iranian Foreign Policy Studies, and I (Scott) happen to be fortunate to refer to him as my longstanding mentor. I published a biographical sketch of Ramazani several years ago, yet it’s already out-of-date, as the Professor remains a very active scholar. Today’s essay draws in part from his own interviews with Iranian decision-makers. May its reach be far.
Here’s my quick take of the essay’s main points:

Continue reading “Understanding Iran’s Nuclear Policy (Ramazani)”

Mutiny at the Military Times?

What would Hawkeye think of this!? Independent thinking at the Army Times?
The Military Times Media – the publisher of the papers avidly read by millions of American military service men and women and their families – has summoned up its collective courage and editorialized upon the man at the top of the Pentagon. First reported by NBC, the Army Times and its partner military weeklies have released the full text of their Monday editorials calling for….

the removal of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

No kidding.
Here’s the direct Army Times link

… all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. (e.g., They drank the Kool-aid too. — w.s.h.) They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.

Amazing…. So far, no comment from the Pentagon or the man himself.
No doubt Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, et.al. will be demanding the government cut off ties to the Military Times Media (owned since 1997 by Gannett) – or “embed” it back directly under the Pentagon. (say, under the “Office of Special Propaganda”) Or they will interview indignant gung-ho spouses saying the papers have “betrayed” their loved ones – that they’re “not supporting the troops.”
To the contrary, I am rather impressed that the editorial begins with a half century old quote from correspondent Marguerite Higgins:

“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion … it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”

Scary Politics: “What happens if we lose?”

We survived Halloween. No October Surprises; No Gulf of Tonkin incidents manufactured to start another war in the Persian Gulf – yet.
Meanwhile, the political air here in America has been especially “thick.” I presently anticipate a significant defeat for Republicans in Congress. Like so many others who once thought themselves conservative, my political loyalties have been increasingly “independent.” Taken over by neoconservative transplants from the Democrats, today’s Republican leadership is as recognizable to me now as Dick Cheney is to Brent Scowcroft.
My favorite US Presidential pick for 2008 might still be Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) – though he disappointed me with his recent vote on on the detainee “treatment” bill – the one that tossed away Habeas Corpus. But this year here in Virginia, I’m more impressed with the major Democratic candidates.
One of my Jefferson Fellow colleagues, a sharp young English chap with a Ph.D. from Oxford, thinks quite the opposite – anticipating a November surprise wherein the Republicans will retain control of both Houses. He thinks the President’s “simple strategy” of painting the Democrats as “soft on terror” will remain the “brilliant” winning ticket.
Maybe I’m guilty of letting my hopes – for a return to a government of checks and balances, one that gives a hoot about the Constitution – get in the way of my analysis. Perhaps. We’ll see who gets humbled more next Tuesday; which one of us gets to feel like Charlie Brown trusting Lucy with the (political) football.
In my corner, I take some support from a Sunday essay written by a top former Republican Congressional Leader, Dick Army – of the “Contract with/on America” fame – which I think could be a first cut for his party’s obituary. Notice though that Army focuses on his party having strayed from first principles of smaller government. Little mention is made of it losing its way abroad – my most severe gripe with the party.
I chatted Tuesday with Mitch Van Yahres, a local Democrat icon in Charlottesville, the “conscience of the House” who recently retired from long service as a Virginia Delegate. Van Yahres shared my sense that a political ‘tsunami is in the works, even as he counted ways something might go awry.
Yet he stopped me in my tracks with a cheerfully presented, yet chilling Halloween thought:
“What happens if we lose? — What if the Republicans retain control of everything?”

Continue reading “Scary Politics: “What happens if we lose?””

Why are we in Iraq? (DeWine quotable)

NBC’s Meet the (de)Press(ed) today included conservative host Tim Russert interviewing the two candidates for a US Senate Seat in Ohio – a slot until recently thought to be an easy repeat for current Republican Senator Mike DeWine. The interview sections on foreign policy were awful – in terms of substance – with DeWine and challenger Democrat Congressman Sherrod Brown constantly berating each other with half-sentence short hand barbs and sounding frankly like little brats throwing sand at each other: “I can’t believe you said that; no I didn’t; yes you did; no, you’re wrong; yada, yada, yada.”
I miss the days when Meet the Press would have one political figure or expert guest interviewed by multiple, different journalists and the whole affair was conducted respectfully in civil tones. Alas, call it the CNN “cross-fire effect,” where the TV “news” media feeds us more vapid cock-fights than substance.
I woke up from my disgust with the MTP format when Russert asked about the growing majority Iraqi sentiment in favor of prompt US military withdrawal from Iraq. Read carefully Senator DeWine’s reply: (this is from the NBC transcript)

MR. RUSSERT: Here’s two poll questions that I think caught the attention of a lot of Americans. Let me start with Senator DeWine.
“Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout.” “Most Iraqis.” “A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.”
And then this poll. “Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops. About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces … [according to] the poll done for University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes.”
Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they’re in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?

SEN. DeWINE: Tim, I was shocked by that as well. But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There’s a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us. We’re–have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals–three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That’s why we’re there.

Come again? Its “their country” – but, if they don’t want us there, then oh never mind, “we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us.”
Let’s see now, whatever happened to promoting democracy? Was that just for us?

Continue reading “Why are we in Iraq? (DeWine quotable)”

WP Ahmadinejad Interview & the Stealth Dialogue

Today’s Washington Post includes a remarkable interview with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, conducted by senior WaPo editor Lally Weymouth.
Ahmadinejad’s visit to the US, to speak at the UN, was intensely controversial in the US media, given the Iranian President’s harmful hard-line comments regarding the existence of Israel and the Holocaust. Columbia University felt compelled to withdraw an invitation to Ahmadinejad to speak (blaming “logistics”), and the Council on Foreign Relations downgraded a “sparring” session they hosted with him.
By the way, I urge CFR to post a full transcript of Ahmadinejad’s actual comments at their session, instead of their current report with its characterizations by critics of what was said. Whose sensitivities are being protected?
Ahmadinejad is quite the controversial figure inside Iran as well. A major Iranian reformist paper, Shargh, was suspended recently, ostensibly for running a cartoon that satirically alluded to reports of Ahmadinejad’s own mystical take on his visit to the UN last year.
All that said, I have a hunch the recent and important re-organizationof Iran’s foreign policy advisory system, authorized by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenehi, has resulted in an upgrading of the Iranian President’s understanding of international realities – and of the need for more diplomatic rhetoric.
Ahmadinejad certainly hasn’t been shy. In recent weeks, he’s given several long interviews with western media sources, including Anderson Cooper on CNN and Mike Wallace of 60 minutes. You know he did “well” by the magnitude of the vituperation being aimed in neocon circles at Mike Wallace. Just as Iranian reformists underestimated Ahmadinejad last year, so too have recent interviewers.
Ahmadinejad apparently was so emboldened by his perceived media success that he challenged Bush to a public debate – one that Bush understandably declined. (As perhaps his advisors recognized, he’d likely get “gored” – pardon the seven-year-old pun.)
Yet Ahmadinejad’s fiercest critics persist in the cardboard characterizations of Ahmadinejad as another “Hitler” – a madman with whom we cannot do any business. Robert Blackwill, a former Bush II national security official, characterized his encounter with Ahmadinejad at CFR rather bluntly, “If this man represents the prevailing government opinion in Tehran, we are headed for a massive confrontation with Iran.”
Similarly, Richard Hollbrooke, a former Clinton Administration Ambassador to the UN, today on CNN characterized Ahmadinejad’s recent statements and interviews as expressing “nothing new.”
I disagre. I think its worth examining just what Ahmadinejad has been saying – carefully – before throwing out the standard “devil” or “Hitler” hand grenades or summarilydismissing them as Hollbrooke and others have done.

Continue reading “WP Ahmadinejad Interview & the Stealth Dialogue”

Nasrallah full text “we won”

    Preface note: For the past several decades, the British and US governments, via the BBC and the former US Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) – now re-organized as the “open source center” (OSC) – have quietly collaborated in producing very valuable translations of speeches, articles, and key documents from the Middle East. Identical translations of materials, such as the following full text of Nasrallah’s speech on Friday, are usually released simultaneously. BBC versions often have helpful summaries and sub-headings inserted editorially (as below). I have reason though to suspect the US OSC side of the arrangement is being increasingly politicized, an old chronic problem, but perhaps worse lately. (The following Nasrallah translation is still not in the WNC data base — what the public can view via “depository” and subscribing libraries) As such, here’s the BBC version. In the comments, I’ll append additional reactions to the speech from Lebanon, Israel, etc.
    On substance, Nasrallah’s isn’t here giving any “red meat” to neocons about presumed “mistakes.” (e.g., “if he had known how Israel would respond, he would not have so and so….”) Instead, Nasrallah’s emphasis here is on characterizing Hizbullah’s “victory” as a triumph for all of Lebanon – one that defended Lebanon against threats from abroad and within. (comments aimed at “divide and conquer” analysis.) Note the reference to Hizbullah’s resistance as a “model” for Iraq. Consider also what is not said – esp. re. Iran. Nasrallah is no “dummy.” — Scott


—————————–
I seek God’s protection against the cursed Satan; in the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate; praise be to almighty God; blessings and peace be upon our master and prophet, the last of the prophets, Muhammad; his good, righteous, infallible family members; his noble companions; and upon all the prophets and messengers;
O beloved and honourable ones; O most honourable, pure, and generous people, may God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you; [applause].
Praise be to God, who fulfilled His promise to us and who granted us, Lebanon, and the people of Lebanon victory over the enemy of Lebanon. Praise be to God who made us proud, enabled us to hold fast, and gave us security. Praise be to God, on whom we relied and to whom we turned repentantly. As He promised, He has always been the best protector. Praise be to God for His victory, assistance, and support.
Brothers and sisters, Ladies and Gentlemen.
On 22 September, you once again surprised the world and truly proved that you are a great, proud, loyal, and courageous people. [Applause]
Rally involves risks
For some days now, many people have been waging a psychological war on this rally, just as they waged a psychological war on the Resistance. [Boos] They said that this square would be bombed and that this podium would be destroyed in order to scare people and keep them from coming. On 22 September, you prove, by crowning the victory rally, that you are more courageous than [you were on] 12 July and 14 August. [Applause]
Standing before you and amongst you involves risk for you and me. There were other choices, up until just half an hour ago, we were discussing [my participation]. However, my heart, mind, and soul did not allow me to address you from afar nor through a screen. [Applause]
The utmost one expects is for the enemy to make a mistake or commit a crime. However, does this enemy not know who we are? We are the sons of that imam, who said: Are you threatening me with death? We are used to death and our dignity is derived from the martyrdom God grants us. [Applause]
You are all welcome – from the fighting and resisting south, to the steadfast Al-Biqa, to the loyal north, to the proud mountain, to the Beirut of Arabism, to the [southern] suburb of loftiness and dignity. You are all welcome – from the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon; you are all welcome – from Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, and every country that came to us to celebrate and rejoice.
God’s peace, mercy, and blessings be upon you; peace be upon your martyrs and the families of your martyrs; peace be upon your wounded people and their bleeding wounds; peace be upon your prisoners; peace be upon your blood and tears; peace be upon your orphans and widows; peace be upon your demolished houses; peace be upon your burnt property; peace be upon your souls and strong will, which is stronger than the mountains of Lebanon.
“Strategic, historic, divine victory”
Brothers and sisters,
We are today celebrating a big strategic, historic, and divine victory.

Continue reading “Nasrallah full text “we won””

Patrick Lang: “The Best Defense…”

On 9/11, the Miller Center at the University of Virginia featured a talk by Colonel Patrick Lang – who returned here by reputation as a voice of reason, experience, “independence,” and wit regarding the Middle East. He did not disappoint.
Miller Center lectures are a rather unique phenomena here. First, they are popular. For this one, I arrived five minutes “early” (e.g. very late) – to be escorted to the fourth and last overflow room. Not bad for forums that ordinarily are simulcast on the net. Yet Miller audiences are hardly filled with bright-eyed students; the Miller Center is off the main “grounds” (campus) and students rarely comprise more than a handful amid the throngs. Instead, these sessions draw from the extraordinary community of retired policy professionals who seem to be flocking here to Hoo’ville.
Colonel Lang himself is “retired” from full-time government service, having served with distinction in the U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret) and then at the highest levels of U.S. Military Intelligence. His training includes a Masters Degree in Middle East studies from Utah, and he served in the mid-1970’s as the first Professor of Arabic at West Point. Today, he combines ongoing consulting and training projects with frequent media appearances, ranging from PBS to CBS to BBC. For more, see his bio and publications highlights, via this link on his blog.
Colonel Lang “sticks out” in Washington for his informed willingness to take on what passes for “received wisdom” regarding the Middle East. His publications include the memorable “Drinking the Koolaid” in Middle East Policy. It’s still an important, sobering read. Quite far afield from Graham Allison’s realist “rational choice” decision-making model, Lang attributes the disastrous decision to invade Iraq to a loss of nerve among policy makers and analysts. Instead of honorably sticking to their convictions, even if it meant “falling on their swords,” career-preserving senior policy makers were more inclined to drink from a Jonestown-like vat of poisonous illusions. “Succumbing to the prevailing group-think” drawn up by the small core of neoconservative “vulcans,” Lang’s former intelligence colleagues “drank the koolaid” and said nothing, leaving them henceforth among the “walking dead” in Washington.
Speaking here on 9/11, Lang’s comments were wide-ranging and stimulating; he didn’t stick narrowly to his talk title on Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah, but he had much to suggest related to all three. I offer a few highlights here:
On Military Options against Iran:
Here Lang summarized his now widely cited National Interest article from earlier this spring. (Issue #83 – no link available). Even though Lang and co-author Larry Johnson seem to accept standard worst-case assessments of Iran’s nuclear aspirations, their article makes a compelling case that there are no “realistic” military options to attack Iran, by land or air, conventional, or exotic. Air assaults, whether by Israel or the US, are a “mirage” – unlikely to succeed for long, while incurring the risks of severe retaliations by Iranian assets.
To Lang, these dangers are obvious. Yet spelling them out serves the purpose of going on record so that neoconservatives in the future cannot claim – as they did with Iraq – that the disaster could not have been foreseen. This time, we’ve been warned.
On the greatest source of conflict within Islam:
If I understood him correctly, Lang was not as concerned about a battle between extremists and political pietists, deeming the “pietists” overwhelmingly still in the ascendant. Instead, Lang’s “bigest concern” for the Muslim world was over the “revolution” in the Shia-Sunni equation. The old order of “Sunnis rule and Shias survive” is now in question. Lang depicted Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear option as the latest extension of a long-forming Shia effort to resist domination from the Sunni realm.
Yet Lang did emphasize that Muslims of all stripes come together in resentment towards Israel — as a direct affront to the well being of the faith. To accept the existence of Israel means having to admit that the Islamic world has been truncated, that part of the “realm of God” had been given back. Hizbullah thus has become widely popular among all Muslims, not just among Shia, for its demonstrated capacity to resist both Zionists and the modern day crusaders.
Iran’s support for Hizbullah:
Lang deems Iran’s support for Lebanon’s Hizbullah as “first and foremost” useful for Iran’s pursuit of respect and leadership within the Islamic world. Yet Iranian financial assistance for Lebanon has shrewdly earned friends among Arab Christians and Sunnis too. In this light, Iran’s low-key strategy has been quite successful; hardly a rat-hole, such “success” draws more support.
On Why Hizbullah beat Israel:

Continue reading “Patrick Lang: “The Best Defense…””

A Different Face on Iran

I admit to having been “busy” of late; perils of being a long term Iran watcher. Yet I, for one, am delighted at the prospect of the former Iranian President visiting Charlottesville and Thomas Jefferson’s legacy here this week – hopefully more than once.
Speaking of TJ, I have also been “busy” this past week starting my studies as a “Fellow” at the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies, at Monticello, where I will be researching and writing about just what Thomas Jefferson meant in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence by “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”
Imagine that…. a “decent respect” for the opinions of humanity. (!)
Much more on both subjects, TJ & Khatami, in upcoming posts, as well as on the (over)-loaded subjects of Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Iran’s not so simple relationship to Lebanon….
For the moment though, I begin my own Iran reflections by highlighting a compelling, if all too easily missed, essay found in yesterday’s Washington Post – in the Travel Section – written by Steven Knipp.
Knipp’s nicely written account of multiple ironies he encountered during a recent fist journey inside Iran mirrors my own experiences, travels that began fifteen and a half years ago. Never mind that he is an experienced international journalist, well accustomed to reporting from the most difficult venues, Knipp begins with the admission of “being slightly uneasy about going to Iran.”
I know that feeling well; I first went to Iran in late January 1991. Back then, the diplomatic hostage saga had “only” ended a decade before, Iran’s devastating war with Iraq had stopped just over two years previously – and the effects were still widely visible. Adding to my jitters, American bombs were falling – the first time – on Saddam’s Iraq. So even though I had long studied Iran, I too worried that I might face hostile treatment for being a citizen of “The Great Satan.” (Shatan-e Bozorg)
Yet like me, Knipp encounters just the opposite:

Everywhere I went — from the traffic-choked streets of Tehran in the north to the dusty desert town of Yazd in central Iran, to the elegant cultural centers of Isfahan and Shiraz — I was overwhelmed by the warmth and, dare I say it, pro-Americanism of the people I met.
Ponder the irony of that last statement for a moment. While much of the rest of the world seems to be holding their collective noses at us Americans, in Iran people were literally crossing the road to shake an American’s hand and say hello. Who knew?

Knipp then recounts how he was initially coy about where he was from – America. He marvels at how Iranians time and again would react warmly to discovering that he was from America, and observes, “For better or worse, Iranians are avid fans of America: its culture, films, food, music, its open, free-wheeling society.”
I too learned the same lesson on my first visit, while at the shrine to Ayatollah Khomeini. I had lost track of time as I stood very close to Khomeini’s remains – mesmerized by the ornate setting, the families on picnics, and by the many earnest pilgrims leaving donations and requests in the lattice structure surrounding the coffin.

Continue reading “A Different Face on Iran”

Bernard Lewis Watch

Bernard Lewis, where are ye when we need ye?
(Irony alert)
At a time when nattering bloggers, columnists, traditional conservatives, and even neoconservatives are openly questioning our rightly guided President’s mental and psychic faculties, we need you, oh wise and venerable Princeton high priest of neoconservative orthodoxy, to really show us the true straight path to enlightenment, to rally our troops around the “doctrine” that bears your name and directed us so brilliantly in liberating and controlling Iraq.
We cannot think of anyone who has been so astonishingly consistent in his prediction accuracy about what would happen after the US invaded Iraq. Even as you now counsel patience, we can see that your vision of secular democracy, imposed forcefully and creatively from without, is now flourishing everywhere in the Middle East. It is simply miraculous that with a track record like yours, you retain such a bipartisan following among US political leaders.
We are of course most grateful that two weeks ago, you capped off your distinguished career by giving us clarity for today – August 22nd. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, you drew from your vast experience to declare that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad – indeed all of Islamic Iran – was the real crazy threat to the world and must never be permitted to have nuclear anything. Islamic Iranians are, well, just too, too, too…. Islamic, to be permitted the luxury of a MAD nuclear capacity.
In your essay, you selectively invoked a 25 year-old quote from Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, to inform us that Islamic Iranians really can only think in terms of a cataclysmic choice between annihilating the rest of the world, or joining hands in martyrdom. Never mind that this quote came in the context of perceived global support for Iraq’ invasion of Iran, and no, you never mentioned that Khomeini himself interpreted his own model for Iran’s relations with the world, “neither East nor West,” as meaning ties between respectful equals, rather than the old “lion vs. lamb” patterns.
You instead keep it brilliantly simple for us – and especially for our much challenged President. Its either us, or them. Let’s not be confused with the quarter century of subsequent smokescreen meant to conceal Iran’s true intentions. So if they’re not with us, they must be against us.
From your ascended status, you specifically prophesied for us that today, August 22nd could “possibly” be the day the end of the world will be made manifest by Iran. You were suspicious that the Iranian President had chosen today for Iran’s response to the latest round of European proposals to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. Given that some Muslims commemorate this as the day of the Prophet Mohammad’s miraculous flight to Jerusalem, you warned that, “this might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world.”
You didn’t even need to cite any evidence of such actual thinking; your steadfast WSJ editors have such faith in your genius. Yahr!
So if you have not yet taken flight yourself, we beseech you now to help us mere mortals fathom how Iran’s announcements today simply comfirm your divinations of the end of the world. As such, how should we then live? How shall we respond in unison to any suggestions to the contrary? And which stocks of companies on the plains of Armageddon do you advise for us to sell short?