I want to expand on the article posted yesterday in which I mentioned that a person I know had stated unequivocally that “Trump had to attack Iran” and then justified it by claiming that 40, 000 Iranians had been killed during the recent riots.
#1) Trump had to attack Iran. Had to. This implies that all other options had been exhausted and there was nothing left except war. Or, maybe it means that someone more powerful than Trump ordered him to do it and compliance and obedience was the only way. Who would that be? Or, perhaps his hairdresser, who holds hypnotic powers whispered in his ear and he operated under The Spell. At any rate, none of these build any confidence in the man. He may be the president, but acting under any of the scenarios listed do not build confidence in his ability to lead. He has no excuse for doing what he did.
“I’m the president. I do whatever I want.” Now, this is much closer to the truth. Trump made a choice, a decision, to take America into the war voluntarily (unless, of course, the second option above holds true), and since it was a voluntary choice, he has to be held accountable. This may very well be seen in November, a scant seven months away, when the voting populace has an opportunity to flip both the House and Senate, overturning Republican control and opening the path to impeachment proceedings against him again. If the war drags on for any lengthy amount of time, energy and food shortages, skyrocketing inflation, and the risk of all-out nuclear war becomes more prominent and possible. If the war is still raging in late September, the odds of a Democrat upset are raised significantly.
In hindsight (always accurate), Trump made a really serious mistake, banking his entire reputation and administration on a quick, in-and-out done deal, similar to the one where he went into Venezuela and kidnapped Nicolas Maduro. With Iran, this did not happen. Two, three days, we’re done was the attitude, but this conflict is now into its fourth week and there doesn’t appear to be any end in sight. My guess is that Trump is desperately looking for an off-ramp and will take any one which seems to hold promise, especially if he can declare (again) that he has achieved victory. However, even if this happens speedily, the repercussions and consequences will be with us for an extended period, perhaps even longer than the 47 years of vengeance which the Islamic Republic has visited on the US for its interference and attempt to control the Iranian government.
#2) 40, 000 citizens killed. Where did this number come from? How was it tabulated? Who did the counting? All these are important questions because the source of the figure will tell us more than the figure itself. There is no question that the mainstream media (MMM, Major Media Machine) seized on this figure and started repeating it, over and over and over, ad nauseum, until it became fixed in the minds of a large part of the population as a verifiable fact. Yet, there is no hard evidence that the number is accurate and true, and it is entirely plausible that it was made up out of whole cloth, solely to serve as propaganda. What was it that Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda said?
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
The only problem with making statements like this, 40, 000 dead, is that communications today give us the opportunity to call such claims into question almost instantly, unlike in Nazi Germany, where the only information came from official channels. The attempt is made in the hopes that it will take root in the minds of the people and much of the population falls victim to it, but it is so much easier today to discredit a lie than it has ever been. The Internet, a creation of the State, may very well be the tool used to destroy it.
At any rate, the question remains. Why should the US rush to war against Iran? Because 40, 000 people were killed? What if that number were 400, 000? Or 4, 000, 000? Would that make a difference? Why? Where is the line in the sand at which less than this number is acceptable, but more than that risks the Wrath of Don? Furthermore, since Israel has visibly killed at least 75, 000 Gazans, many of them women and children, why did America not attack Israel if the only condition was the number of innocent victims who died? Or, beyond this, where was America in 1994 when the Hutus in Rwanda slaughtered approximately a million Tutsis just a few decades ago? Didn’t Bill Clinton care? Or was he more concerned with the zipper on his pants? Doesn’t this whole thing with Iran seem to be a case of subjective selection in which political and religious bias play a huge part?
At any rate, here we are, and as Americans who elected Donald Trump to the position of king1, we have to deal with it. And we will, but the aftermath may very well not be as pleasant as so many hope. After three full weeks of what was expected to be a three day war, there is no telling how it will turn out, except that for the common person, it will probably not be good. We should be prepared for any eventuality, except for the one which so many are hoping for and have staked their lives on–Jesus is not coming back to rescue us out of self-imposed stupidity.
- See 1 Samuel chapter 8 for context, especially verse 18. ↩︎
Poor Roger's Almanac 