I heard someone say if god wanted us to vote, he would first provide us with some decent candidates to choose from!
Since I have been commenting about the roster of Democrat and Republican presidential candidates in my recent articles, I have been receiving emails and comments criticizing me for some of my views, as though I have been taking sides for or against certain candidates. But before I get into this topic, I feel compelled to touch on an important issue.
First and foremost, my focus, as well that of the websites I choose for posting my articles, has been America’s foreign policies toward Iran or, Iran/America relations in general. There are, however, various methods of writing that address such issues. My choice has remained the analytical style, as objective, pragmatic, unbiased and realistic as I could possibly make it. I do not claim that I have always succeeded, but I have done my best to adhere to that principle.
To be sure, I could have chosen the writing style that appeals to certain political camps in order to gain popularity and fame in related circles, as so many commentators have. But I am not seeking fame or popularity, and I have never been subsidized by or affiliated with any group or party here or elsewhere. Many of the articles I have submitted for consideration never see the light of day because the editors do not find what they prefer to see in my writings. Criticisms and words of praise must be based on facts rather than likes or dislikes of the writer or his or her personal biases and, biting my tongue, ambitious motives.
Now back to the main topic here. I want to make something clear: as far as my personal political ideology is concerned, I regard myself, using the American vernacular, a diehard left-liberal progressive. But ideology is one thing, and the pragmatic or practical aspects of life quite another.
Among all the candidates, both Republican and Democrat, Bernie Sanders’ ideas and pronouncements are most appealing to me. But, as I mentioned before, my interest is in the foreign policies, particularly regarding Iran, that each candidate has talked about. Sanders, like all the others, but perhaps somewhat less emphatically than the rest, has made some of the same patented remarks about the Islamic Republic of Iran, that it is a state sponsor of international terrorism and a regional troublemaker. I cannot really blame him, since in competing for votes and delegate against his rivals, rejecting that Gospel according to the neocon Zionists would terminate the poor fellow’s political career. Chances are that, in spite of his foreign policy illiteracy, he’d rather engage than disengage and erect a taller wall between the United States and Iran. Of course, we cannot be sure; can we; he is a politician after all.
Donald Trump shoots off his mouth without a second thought, and adlibs his way through his speeches using repetitious slogans and cheap adjectives that the bovine crowds seem to like. Ted Cruz is, in my opinion, the real dangerous prospect, as he seems to actually believe in what he professes. John Kasich, the last Republican hopeful, is pathetically naive when it comes to foreign policy, as his humiliating performance at the Israel lobby (AIPAC) gathering last month demonstrated. Hillary Clinton, a true political wolf in a woman’s clothing, gave perhaps the most aggressive anti-Iran speech at the same AIPAC venue. We should understand that, in these United States of America, the Jewish and Zionist money and power influences, indeed steers, policy decisions, especially concerning foreign relations, which cannot be ignored by any candidate aspiring to achieve any political office.
Of course we cannot hold these presidential candidates to their bold gestures of unmitigated, arrogant, lambast against Iran; all perhaps with the exception of Mr. Cruz, who is the epitome of sleaze in my not-so-humble opinion. As I have mentioned before, what politicians claim and say during their campaign is simply and purely aimed at gaining votes by appealing to the beliefs, fears and sympathies of as large an audience as possible. However, real policies, particularly with regard to matters of foreign affairs, which to most Americans equates to dealing and negotiating with people and nations in some vague parallel universe, are often far from the pronouncements made during the months of campaigning.
It is unfortunate that we don’t have an honest prince of peace and a champion of global harmony to vote for. Jesus Christ, contrary to the hopes and expectations of some Christians, is not really planning to come down and to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, again! You see, he did try once before, but after seeing the extent of disharmony and chaos that had befallen this humanity, he headed back to his abode in Heaven in disgust. In short, we have to do the best we can with the options we are given.
No, Bernie Sanders, a socialist Jew with some great and, for the American public, novel ideas, such as an abandonment of the rule of the jungle, i.e., predatory capitalism, etc., has no realistic chance of becoming a Democratic Party nominee this year and sit in the Oval Office. But, quite sadly, even if he did, his lack of foreign policy experience plus the bureaucratic entanglements within his administration would force him to delegate any policy decisions toward Iran to the existing establishment, which has made it so difficult for President Obama, even in his second and final term in office, to exercise the latitude to fully implement his desired objectives.
As the Persian saying goes: It takes the dog of Mazandaran to tackle the Mazandarani Jackal! The “dog” here is the blonde lady, Hillary Clinton, who has had the experience, the tenacity and the savvy that enable her, should she so choose, to follow through with her predecessor’s foreign policy directives, which I believe to have been toward a practical, gradual, rapprochement with Iran, primarily because this policy would favor America’s own strategic and economic interests.
I am not betting on Mrs. Clinton to follow this course, but we do see what the Republican dominated Congress and its neoconservative cabal that steers its foreign policy decisions have been up to. We also know what Ted Cruz intends to do about America’s plans for Iran, as one of his first orders of business if he is elected President.
Trump has no idea what his decision might be, since he is continuing to play it by ear, so to say. Yes, he wants to make America great again, whatever the hell he means by that, nobody knows! He is flexible enough as a businessman to actually attempt to do the right thing regardless of some of his ridiculously bombastic statements; but he is also unpredictable enough at the same time to tip over the proverbial apple cart. The team he has tentatively chosen to advise him on foreign policy consists of some of the most vocal and vicious anti-Iran, mostly Jewish, neocons in business. Of course, being Donald Trump, he could just as easily do what he has done so many times on his TV program, The Apprentice, telling the lot of them they are fired! What a tragic joke this charade, this election year, has been; what a disgrace in the eyes of the world!
So, even though I am not a religious man by any means, I do like what the man said: If god wanted us to vote, he would first provide us with some decent candidates to choose from!
The good thing is that, contrary to what the neocon-driven foreign policy engineers in the US Congress would like us to believe, Iran’s fate does not hang on American politics alone. There is bigger world out there in that parallel universe where not everything that is done is with the knowledge and approval of one superpower.
About the author:
Kambiz Zarrabi is the
author of In Zarathushtra's Shadow and Necessary Illusion.He has conducted lectures and seminars on international affairs,
particularly in relation to Iran, with focus on US/Iran issues. Zarrabi's latest book is Iran, Back in Context.
... Payvand News - 04/15/16 ... --