'A lie gets half way round the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on'.
'The truth is inconvertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.' (Winston Churchill).
Yet timeless truth appears to be a luxury today. The image of conviviality shared between Europe's uninspired choice of representative of Foreign Affairs and her homologue Mohammad Javad Zarif, speaks for itself. It suggests that brains, or at least memories, are sadly deficient.
In consideration of the recent public declaration of the ayatollah Khamenei, one would have thought it only right to scrap the Geneva negotiations altogether, or at least demand Iran to make a formal apology towards Israel as a condition to permit the negotiations to proceed.
Unfortunately there are no Churchills in today's world to insist upon such normal conditions. Blind goodwill and conviviality seem to reign instead. They seem to be used by those who badly represent us, to try to turn the page in the hope of giving priority to more serious economic affairs, crisis oblige.
The ayatollah's public declarations 'Les ennemies, notamment par la bouche sale et malveillante du chien enragé de la region, le régime sioniste...' (The enemies, mainly represented by the dirty mouthed rabid dog of the region, the Zionist regime..') were not made casually or by chance. No Iranian public statement is ever made casually or by chance.
Iran has already decided to go ahead with its nuclear program, come what may from the Geneva negotiations. This unacceptable insult was made simply to test the reaction of 'the powers that be'. Logic would determine that if Europe and the USA swallow this, then they will swallow anything. In other words, if the negotiations go ahead, in spite of the despicable insults deliberately aimed towards a respected democracy, then it stands to reason that Iran will gain what it wants and needs to become the principle power of the Gulf region.
The ayatollah completes his diatribe by adding 'Les fondements du régime sioniste ont été affaiblis très fortement et il est voué à la disparition'. (The foundations of the Zionist regime have been weakened and it is condemned to disappear).
But Israel certainly won't disappear. One only needs to refer to history to appreciate that. Ancient and modern history. A State that is able to defend itself alone against five Arab nations militarily supported by four others (the War of Israeli independence, 1948) will never 'disappear'.
Only tyrannic regimes that have no respect for democracy are condemned to disappear. History, ancient and modern, also clearly corroborates that.
'If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile-driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack'.
'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last'.
Churchill again, of course. But even without such as he, the truth will eventually prevail, in spite of any ephemeral naivety and indecision.
__
Text and illustration (from the Hare and the Tortoise, Hutchinson) © Mirino. November, 2013
Posts
1 comment:
Dans un élan de détermination pour établir un accord, on a toujours une tendance à trop céder. Le ministre des Affaires Étrangères iranien avait l'air bien plus ravi que Monsieur Fabius.
Si Israel pense que c'est un mauvais accord, il doit y avoir une bonne raison. Serait-on en train d'assister à une répétition de l'histoire?
Pourquoi dans cet accord on ne fait aucune mention du soutien iranien des mouvements terroristes tels que le Hamas et le Hezbollah, et l'objectif assez catégorique et inchangé de faire disparaître Israël?
L'Iran considère l'Occident comme l'Europe des ennemies. Il a néanmoins participé aux négociations pour une seule cause, pour pouvoir en finir autant que possible avec le blocus commercial. Il a obtenu gain de cause. Pour le reste ça ne changera rien.
Pour le nucléaire, l'Iran a investi tellement que seulement des naïfs croiraient que le régime a l'intention de ne pas continuer pour atteindre son objectif ainsi respectant pleinement l'accord et faisant plaisir aux occidentaux.
Comme affirmé auparavant, dès que l'Iran a insulté un des rares pays véritablement démocratiques au Moyen Orient, aussi au mépris des négociations, on aurait dû les annuler sur le champ. Le fait que l'on a accepté qu'un allié respecté soit grossièrement insulté, a aussi signifié (aussi pour l'Iran ainsi que pour l'Israël) que c'est Israël, une fois de plus, qui risque de payer les frais pour cet accord plutôt favorable à Iran.
Avec une situation déjà extrêmement volatile au Moyen Orient, si Obama et Ashton croient eux aussi d'avoir signé un accord de "Peace in our Time", c'est l'histoire qui les jugera.
Post a Comment