Bibi's Completely Innocent and Reasonable Speech before Congress about the evils of Gargamel

If it weren't for that insane 'Axis of Evil' bullshit from the Bush administration (Thanks David Frum !), we might have had a peace deal with Iran over a decade ago.  Now, fresh after starting to normalise relations with Cuba (MANY decades overdue), Obama is working on a deal with Iran.  And inevitably, as with any of the president's initiatives, the Republicans are doing their damnest to blow things up, their latest effort involving bringing Binyamin Netanyahu, a man who has spent the last decade or more trying to trick the US into waging war against Iran on Likud's Israel's behalf to speak before Congress, behind the White House's back, and on the verge of Israeli elections.  Because, domestic issues, schmostestic issues, look look EXISTENTIAL THREAT, NUCLEAR TERROR, EVIL, RADICAL, MUST DESTROY NOW, and WIMPY PACIFICST, MUSLIM TRAITOR, SECRET ISLAMIST, NEW WORLD ORDER, NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, BLACKITY BLACK BLACK BLACK....no, no wait, forget we said that last bit.

Now, the manner of Netanyahu's appearance does suggest a certain desparation, and one might wonder what is behind the same.  Could it be that Bibi is sincere in the suggestion that we are in a once-in-a-lifetime last-minute existential crisis with Iran, completely unlike the dozens of other times he has suggested exactly the same over the decades ?  Well, maybe.

And Iran, they're the bad guys, aren't they ?  I mean ask anyone...like er, Saddam, er...I know, I know...like the leader of that country in southern America called, what is it again...Las Malvinas...no, no....ah, yeah, Argentina, but...no, she doesn't want to talk about that for some reason.  Damn Iranians, starting wars all the time, except all the times they're...er, not starting wars, and giving money to terrorists, like...er our bestest ever buddies in <dynasty-name-redacted> Arabia...

So what does Iran really want ?  To nuke Israel and ensure its own immediate annihilation, including that of all its ruling classes ?  Well, er...maybe...  To have, but not necessarily use, a nuclear weapon, and possibly still invite...its own immediate annihilation, including that of all its ruling classes ?  Well, er...maybe...  To have the plausible threat of one day in the not unforsee-able future being able to, in response to an external threat rapidly develop a nuclear weapon as a deterrent against a country (by which I mean the US, duh) that has treated it as if it were an existential enemy for decades ?  Ding-ding-ding, I think we have a winner.  And prizes go to those of you who guessed the bleeding fucking obvious.  One might reasonably assume that Iran wants peace and prosperity, both of which are threatened by the ongoing sanctions.  It also, as the inheritor of a once-great empire, presumably wants a certain degree of respect and authority in its own backyard, a want that is completely unreasonable from the point of view of the country that promoted the Monroe Doctrine in the 1800's.  Basically, the Iranians want the same thing as virtually every people on the planet: a chance at a decent life without living under constant imminent threat of having a bomb dropped on one's head.  What radical assholes, huh ?

One more thing: this is a country that gave us in the Bush-era puppet-leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a perfect foil for George W Bush, a ranting anti-Israeli lunatic, and a prime gift to Iran-haters like Bibi, but has since elected the relatively moderate Hassan Rouhani.  Opportunities to deal with possibly reasonable players often don't come that often in reactionary states and we throw away those opportunities (*cough*Khatami, *cough*Medvedev) at our peril.  And had Reagan rejected the (perhaps looking back now far too generous) appeals of Gorbachev back in the eighties ?...  Well, we'll never know, will we ?



Note: The title and image of this post uses the Smurfs' character Gargamel to represent a generic cartoon villain/bogeyman.  Looking at this again later, something didn't seem quite right to me about that choice in this particular context.  And then I realised what it was.  Shit.  I considered changing it, and noting the same, but I'm not sure what an appropriate substitute would be, and as for re-writing the whole post, although I still haven't listened to and have no intention of listening to Bibi's speech, I kinda feel like changing any part of this post (other than minor typos, and the like) after the fact would be suspect.  So, I'm leaving it as is, with this postscript, and apologies for any offence that may have been caused (for the Gargamel thing that is, and any associated stereotypes, not for any criticisim of Bibi, or of the Republicans, or of US foreign policy, generally).  I think it was when my list of candidates for substitute figures included the 'GI Joe' character 'Serpentor', that I finally figured, fuck it, let it be what it is, no way in hell is 'Serpentor' ending up on my blog.