Residing in Europe implies a culinary loss. Here the good old common Jell-O is exotic food. Loving the product or the youth associated with it rekindled an old appetite. Attribute that to a package received as a gift. It stands now at an exposed place and irrespective of the craving the conversion of the powder into a dish is not imminent. Needing to choose between having it or eating it explains the restraint.
All the benefit gained from my Jell-O is its political application. Jell-O as substance helps to illustrate something that is as general as it is prevalent in the western world. The difference is that Jell-O is good when you cannot have it while the condition mentioned is bad once you have to put up with it.
All hell broke loose after America showed cheek by responding to terrorism by eliminating Soleimani. Even if hardened by experience to expect the worse retort to threats the blame of the victim and the exoneration of a notorious perpetrator the degree of censure of Trump still came as a surprise. (Do you wonder where is the Jell-O?" Rest assured that it re-appears as we proceed.)
It is the surprise on account of the surprise that astounds. Your correspondent likes to claim that the weakness of advanced societies is not the strength of their foe but that it resides internally. Yes some self-doubt and being attentive to all points of view are preconditions of rational appraisal which is by implication also a fair judgment. At the same time this virtue can be inflated to where it becomes harmful. It can happen that the examination of contradictory claims leads not to a decision but to a stillstand that understanding for the other side causes stupor and that to be fair more sympathy is generated for the enemy than for ones own side. If so then we get weakness posing as objectivity and conflict avoidance masquerades as wise restraint. Properly practiced rational policy begins with a careful consideration of the facts. The goal is a clear and reasoned position to be acted upon with vigor.
It is a matter of taste how one views the US hither policies regarding Iran. As for the current crisis -embedded in protracted tension- a judgment is unavoidable. It must be felled by considering the national interest available means self-drawn red lines and the moves consequences. What is improper is to quake like a Jell-O pudding on a plate because of the need to act in a way that might displease global Islamisms Iranian base. The point: As argued Jell-O is good to eat. It fails as a foundation of rational action and as an expression of commitment to anything.
The European and American reception of Soleimanis liquidation has been when condemnatory pure Jell-O. Americas usual enemies joined the howl. Properly so given their interests. Regarding the latter it is often mentioned that not the actions propriety but the search for an election issue is decisive. Does running as an anti-American suffice to get elected?
What is the background of this collapse of will and self-esteem? Start with a rogue country that has from the outset committed an act of war (violating the exterritoriality of an embassy). Since then its semi-official army (the Quds Force) wages war with emphasis on the Great Satan. Destruction is promised a threat that only the nave ignore as is an expression of intent if not of current means. Irans fanatical rulers are while not entire sane certainly serious. The discrepancy between the ambition and its instruments makes the system pursue a nuclear program. Do not doubt that even if they negotiate about it the Mullahs are intent to get the bomb. Once they have it and it fails as an instrument of extortion it will be used as a weapon.
Soleimani might have been a General (since when does that confer immunity?) who waged a low-level war abroad to bolster the systems reach. The correct assumption has been that the thin disguise used will prevent the targets" from responding in kind. The fear of the charge of imperialism" the dread to be an enemy of Islam" latent anti-Americanism collective Western guilt and not wanting to radicalize" extremists prevented a hearty response to a strategy of provocation.
Trumps administration thinks that tolerated terrorist extremism causes greater damage than the curses of the Left and the professionally meek. To be cast as a target at a rifle-range is uncomfortable. There is no moral imperative to accept it. Being fired at made Washington to fire back. From Death to America" we went to Death from America". In doing so she acted successfully against Soleimani when he was abroad planning to harm US personnel. To attribute that goal does not require phantasy. Killing Americans in Iraq has a tradition.
The reactions confirmed the thesis that some Western positions are determined by clans with a spine of Jell-O. That affirms the opening allegation. Advanced countries are not primarily threatened by their foes muscle but by the self-imposed limitation of their punch. Feeling shame for the proud exploits that gives Western Civilization a global leading role amounts to capitulation even before the extortionists can say hands up". This is not morality in action but stupidity on the loose.
Let us scroll down on the long list of outlandish hallucinations. A good one is that the killing of an active master-mind of terrorism will radicalize Iran. Adding a gallon of water to the Niagara will hardly add to its magnificence. Theocratic Iran is an extremist entity; it cannot augment its fanaticism. Also cause and effect are reversed. Extremism came first the counter punch much later.
Equally entertaining is that the action could lead to a world war. Granted WW1 followed a terrorist attack. Unless one is hysterical that is where the analogy ends. Trump -the main target - is credited with the guilt for everything bad that will follow during the century. Supposedly the liquidation of Soleimani upset the international order. If undermining the foundations upon which the international system rests is brought up the informed must think of the attacks on embassies. Even the Nazis and the Communists were wise or decent enough to respect diplomatic immunity. If diplomats become targets then conflicts become uncontrollable because the instrument of the political solution of disputes is undermined.
Rather entertaining because of the madness on which they float are the tales that surround the recent shooting-down of the Ukrainian airliner at Tehrans airport. Let us overlook Irans attempt to lie about its responsibility -what else could be expected. For a system that threatens a superpower with destruction it must be sobering to draw inferences regarding its ability to compete outside of the bush-league. Those that confuse an outgoing plane with an incoming missile are in bad shape. Or did the mishap happen because the adults were on leave that day? If you opt for that answer then you did not pick the best politically correct retort which is: Trump did it".
Those with Jell-O spines who assume that the public has Jell-O brains claim that Trump has made Irans confused nervous soldiers trigger happy. So curse Trump who is the real devil in the fantasy-filled way this story is being told.
Instinctively the first reaction to the irrational assessment of the worlds business is an ironic smile. Silly as the voiced delusions might be the effect of self-blame and the instinctive excuse of hostility toward our civilization are alarming. To the extent that the message conveyed by the ritual self-flagellation spreads it tells a plausible tale to aggressors. It is that the elites that stand firmly on a base of Jell-O will condone anything as long as it is leftist inspired and anti-western.
The assumption behind this stance is that good will and endless patience will civilize the foe and moderate extremism by the prospect of a dialogue" -a term appeasers love to use. Predictably the result and the desired upshot differ totally.
Attribute this to the political culture aggressors share. To them concessions do not suggest that limited goals can be reached by political means and that agreements can guarantee security in a pluralistic world. For leaders that assume invincibility and that global rule is their destiny compromises confirm the enemys physical and moral weakness. Certain tyrannies pursue unlimited goals and therefore a negotiated gain triggers new claims. Ultimately they do not seek the limited security to be had in a world of coexisting diverse systems but dominations total security. Hegemony and not the assured survival of the system based on mutual guarantees is pursued. Realistically elites that pursue unlimited ends are cognizant that this cannot be achieved through talks. This reduces agreements to steps on a ladder that bring oneone closer to the top; negotiations are a form of war with other means. They serve to tilt the play-ground for the final struggle that their ideology assumes to be unavoidable.
As we deal with totalitarians such as Nazis Communists and Islamists we can ignore their world-view and its implications. The West its logic being embedded in its culture likes to do so. That comes easy because as democrats we trust a balance of power secured by bargains in the mutual interest. Furthermore we assume that man is rational. In the context of that wanting to wage an avoidable war appears to be irrational. However even the thickest parapets of Jell-O will not protect our way of life from the systemic challenge we overlook because we think that whatever is irrational is unlikely to move people. Sadly the other side" is committed to an irrational ideology whose goals are pursued unreasonable means. Handling foolish foes as though they would be sensible in the pursuit of realistic interests is bound to lead to disappointment.
