The aggression starts with Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

How many people are aware that Trump’s threat to destroy 52 sites important to Iran was a response to a specific threat by Iran? Here’s what a prominent Iranian general had said just previously:

[Gen. Gholamali] Abuhamzeh, commander of the Revolutionary Guards in the southern province of Kerman, foreshadowed a possible attack on “vital American targets” located in the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation of Soleimani’s death.

“The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there,” Abuhamzeh said according to a Reuters report, citing Tasnim news agency.

“Vital American targets in the region have been identified by Iran since long time ago … some 35 U.S. targets in the region, as well as Tel Aviv, are within our reach.”

Note the specific number, 35, plus the added threat to Israel.

Trump’s counter was therefore quite apropos and an “escalation” only in the numbers involved:

But it was very easy to miss the back-and-forth nature of the trash-talking. NBC’s coverage here seems typical. The headline was “Trump threatens attacks on 52 sites if Iran retaliates for Soleimani killing Trump tweeted the targets ‘WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD’ if Iran retaliates for the killing of Qassem Soleimani.” If one reads just the headline – as so many people do – it appears that Trump’s threat just came out of the blue. It’s only way way down much later in the article that there’s a mention of the quote threat from Iran that set it off. But I doubt most people get that far.

When I first took notes for this post, I looked at this Times article which began this way:

Iran condemned Donald Trump on Sunday as a “terrorist in a suit” after the U.S. president threatened to hit 52 Iranian sites hard if Tehran attacks Americans or U.S. assets in retaliation for the killing of military commander Qassem Soleimani.

“Like ISIS, Like Hitler, Like Genghis! They all hate cultures. Trump is a terrorist in a suit. He will learn history very soon that NOBODY can defeat ‘the Great Iranian Nation & Culture’,” Information and Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi tweeted.

Soleimani, Iran’s pre-eminent military commander, was killed on Friday in a U.S. drone strike…

Iranian propaganda led the way.

But now, looking at the same article again, I see that it starts somewhat differently and then goes this way (they keep updating it, apparently). My remarks and comments on the text are in brackets:

Iraq’s parliament called on Sunday for U.S. and other foreign troops to leave as a backlash grows against the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general, and President Donald Trump doubled down on threats to target Iranian cultural sites if Tehran retaliates. [No mention of the attack on the embassy. No mention of the Iraqi threats to which Trump was responding. Characterization of the Iraqi vote as a response to Trump rather than something the Iranian faction controlling the present Iraqi government has wanted and planned.]

Deepening a crisis that has heightened fears of a major Middle East conflagration, Iran said it was taking another step back from commitments under a 2015 nuclear deal with six major powers. [The Times and the MSM have been instrumental in heightening those fears of “a major Middle East conflagration.” It is a pretense that Iraq ever intended compliance with the Obama “deal.” The “six major powers” are invoked to give more gravitas to the idea that the deal was a great one, which is a fiction the Times helped initially convey and now tries to maintain.]

Iran’s most prominent general, Qassem Soleimani, [yeah, he was just a regular old “prominent general”] was killed on Friday in a U.S. drone strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport, an attack that carried U.S.-Iranian hostilities into uncharted waters. [U.S.-Iranian hostilities have been in these basic waters for a long time. Also, note that there is an equivalence here in the phrase “U.S.-Iranian hostilities,” with the US listed first as though Iran has not been the aggressor since 1979. All those “Death to America” chants are just a backlash, you see. Or maybe the Times hopes we don’t even recall those chants, or how long and how frequently they have been shrieked.]

An Iranian government minister denounced Trump as a “terrorist in a suit” after the U.S. president sent a series of Twitter posts on Saturday threatening to hit 52 Iranian sites…[I’d bet the Times agrees with the Iranian characterization]

Democratic critics of the Republican president have said Trump was reckless in authorizing the strike, and some said his comments about targeting cultural sites amounted to threats to commit war crimes. [Let’s add that to the other bogus impeachment charges.]…

It was Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the deal in 2018 and reimposition of sanctions on Iran that touched off a new spiral of tensions after a brief thaw following the accord. [Yes, when the US is paying a country to pretend to agree to something, and allows that country to use the money to fund terrorism and buy influence around the world, then there’s every reason for that country to ease up on the attacks for a bit. Don’t bite too hard the hand that feeds you.]

On Sunday, Iran further distanced itself from the agreement, saying it would continue to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog but would respect no limits to its uranium enrichment work. [Like it was ever going to abide by the agreement in the first place.]

That meant “there will be no limitations in enrichment capacity, level of enrichment and research and development and … it will be based on Iran’s technical needs,” state TV said, quoting a government statement. It said the rollback of its nuclear commitments could be reversed if Washington lifted sanctions on Tehran. [The sanctions are really hurting them.]

As head of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, Soleimani masterminded Iran’s clandestine and military operations abroad, creating an arc of Shi’ite power with the help of proxy militias confronting the regional might of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. [Soleimani was just trying to take over the governments of other Middle Eastern countries to counter that big bad troika, that axis of evil, the US, Israel, and the Saudis. Forget that this ambition by Iran has been going on long, long, before Trump.]

Hundreds of thousands of mourners, many chanting, beating their chests and wailing in grief, turned out across Iran to show their respects after his body was returned to a hero’s welcome. [No doubt they did this. Orchestrated mourning mixed with some sincere mourning from those who back the Iranian government’s terror and imperialist reach. So what?]

I could go on, but why bother?

And in fact, sometimes I wonder why I fisk the Times at all anymore. I think it’s because I know plenty of people who think it’s the paper of record, and I believe it still has tremendous influence. As propaganda, it’s rather brilliant and rather subtle in the sense that, if the reader doesn’t know the history and the counter-arguments, it is quite persuasive.

“It’s not debatable”…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is a weak argument, one I read sometimes on this blog and read quite often elsewhere.

To my way of thinking, one of the most suspect arguments about anything political and/or historical is that “it’s not debatable” – unless the person is speaking of a fact known with as much certainty as humans beings can muster, such as “the battle of (whatever) occurred on such and such a day” or “2 + 2 = 4.”

For example, what was going on in the Iraq War (or the Vietnam War or the Civil War or any number of wars) in terms of reasons it occurred, tactics, strategy, goals, and outcome is at the very least debatable. The winner of that debate may be rather clear or rather murky, and you may agree or disagree on that, too (it’s debatable). But it’s an insult to people to say it’s not debatable and to then refuse to argue your case, supposedly for that reason.

Now, I can completely understand why a person might not want to rehash the whole thing over and over again. I often get tired of debates, or am just not interested in debating a particular topic. But that’s a far cry from saying it’s not debatable.

Emily Dickinson is hard to love

The New Neo Posted on by

Dickinson’s hard to love, although she’s easy to admire immensely.

Don’t get me wrong; I like certain of her poems. But the more inaccessible ones weary me, although I usually tend to have patience with difficult poetry if it really draws me. One reason I think I have special problems with Dickinson is that she is so aloof that it’s hard for me to feel deeper emotions than admiration while reading her poetry. And for me, even extreme admiration doesn’t substitute for love.

With Dickinson, the reader is immediately aware of being in the presence of a poet so unique that her mind feels almost opaque and slightly alien, despite the window into it that’s presented by the poetry.

Dickinson’s poem “Because I could not stop for death” is a good example. The first time I ever read it I found it fascinating; it’s a masterpiece, IMHO. But there is cold (and I use the word cold because it fits the poem’s imagery) comfort in that fact. Dickinson never holds the reader’s hand. The message in this particular “letter to the world” is a brilliant yet austere one.

Because I could not stop for Death –
He kindly stopped for me –
The Carriage held but just Ourselves –
And Immortality.

We slowly drove – He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labor and my leisure too,
For His Civility –

We passed the School, where Children strove
At Recess – in the Ring –
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain –
We passed the Setting Sun –

Or rather – He passed Us –
The Dews drew quivering and Chill –
For only Gossamer, my Gown –
My Tippet – only Tulle –

We paused before a House that seemed
A Swelling of the Ground –
The Roof was scarcely visible –
The Cornice – in the Ground –

Since then – ’tis Centuries – and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses’ Heads
Were toward Eternity –

That poem almost never fails to give me a slowly dawning and increasing chill that is actually physical. Literal goosebumps. Each time I read it, it surprises me, too.

And I’ve probably read it well over thirty times.

Did you know that black people should never be accused of anti-Semitism?

The New Neo Posted on by

Case in point:

University of New Hampshire physics professor Chanda Prescod-Weinstein took to Twitter on New Year’s Eve to explain why anti-Semitism is exclusively a “white” problem, and why it is inappropriate to discuss anti-Semitic acts committed by black people.

Prescod-Weinstein began her tweetstorm by explaining that it is “anti-Black” and “dangerous both to non-Jewish Black people and to Jews” to consider violent attacks against Jews by Black people “equivalent” to “white antisemitism.”

“But know that if you’re demanding that Black leaders make a particular point of speaking out about antisemitism, you’re probably a garden variety racist.”

“Antisemitism in the United States, historically, is a white Christian problem, and if any Black people have developed antisemitic views it is under the influence of white gentiles,” the professor clarified.

The professor goes on to explain how “white Jews adopted whiteness as a social praxis and harmed Black people in the process,” and that “Some Black people have problematically blamed Jewishness for it.”

This is interesting for so many reasons. The first is that it is historically inaccurate. Black people who have developed anti-Semitic viewpoints have done it mostly for two reasons. The first is the usual resentment developed towards people who are sometimes or even often the shop owners and landlords in economically depressed neighborhoods in which a certain group (in this case, poorer black people) tends to live. The second is the influence of certain anti-Semitic “leaders” who are far more influenced by Islam than by any “white Christians.” I speak of course of the likes of Louis Farrakhan, and he’s certainly not alone.

Another was Malcolm X and the black power movement of the 60s, which caused a rift between black activists and the Jews who had once been their supporters and co-workers:

Then, just as the struggle for civil rights achieved its cardinal victories with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many of its black activists began to turn away from their original goal, taking up instead the cause of “black power.” The meaning of black power was never clearly defined. Its driving motive seemed to be the venting of rage over racial humiliation, a rage that the earlier civil-rights movement had insisted on subordinating to the strategy of nonviolence and sublimating in the rhetoric of Christian love.

One convenient arena for this rage was the movement’s own organizations, in which the presence of whites in leading positions, and indeed at all levels, was now regarded as an intolerable affront. In a trice, CORE and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), which had been on the cutting edge of the fight for integration, became racially exclusive. For a while, CORE continued to allow my grandmother to stuff envelopes, but in time she was asked not to come back.

With whites in the movement redefined as oppressors, and with so many of the whites being who they were, some of the new hostility was bound to assume an anti-Jewish tone. In 1967, at the Conference for a New Politics organized by leaders of the New Left soon after Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, the black caucus insisted on pushing through a resolution condemning “imperialist Zionist[s].” The following year, during the New York City school strike, leaflets were distributed attacking Jewish teachers as “Middle-East murderers of colored people,” and a viciously anti-Semitic poem was read over the radio by the black activist Leslie Campbell.

These developments, cutting so sharply against the fraternal grain of the civil-rights struggle, shocked the Jewish community. Perhaps they should not have done so. For as we are reminded by Murray Friedman, anti-Semitism has in fact had a long history among American blacks. In the 1920’s, the “buy-black” campaign of the black-nationalist leader Marcus Garvey was explicitly targeted at Jews, and Garvey later spoke admiringly of Adolf Hitler. Malcolm X, too, was a vociferous anti-Semite in both public and in private. In one meeting with representatives of the Ku Klux Klan, at which he solicited their support for his project of black separatism, Malcolm “assured them,” writes Friedman, that “it was Jews who were behind the integration movement.”

“Georgia has the Negro and Harlem has the Jew.” Thus did the black writer James Baldwin acknowledge in COMMENTARY in February 1948 how widespread anti-Semitism was in his community. In time, Baldwin would demonstrate that he, too, was not above indulging in a little of the practice, as when he wrote that while Christians make up America’s true power structure, the Jew “is doing their dirty work.” Baldwin went on to denigrate Jewish financial support of civil-rights organizations as mere “conscience money,” and to complain bitterly that the Harlem and Watts riots of the mid-1960’s were not treated on the same high moral plane as the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943.

Prescod-Weinstein’s tweets also – among other things – deny black people what’s popularly known as “agency.” To blame the anti-Semitism of some blacks on the fact that they are puppets of anti-Semitic white Christians (who tend to be philo-Semitic, if anything, these days) is to deny that anti-Semitic black people are thinking for themselves, and also to deny the Black Muslim beliefs of many of them.

Prescod-Weinstein labels as “racists” those who believe that other black people should call out black anti-Semites on their beliefs. It seems that no one can criticize a black person or ask anything of a black person without being a “garden-variety” racist, despite (or because of?) the fact that Prescod-Weinstein herself seems to see the world in racial and racist terms.

And then there’s her use of jargon like “praxis” to demonstrate her bona fides in the world of academia and leftism.

Prescod-Weinstein is a somewhat unusual combination of theoretical physicist and leftist social activist, who is of mixed racial heritage herself (mother from Barbados and father Jewish – thus, the hyphenation). She is described (probably self-described?) as “queer and agender.” Here’s a passage from her webpage, the title of which is “Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Theoretical Physicist and Feminist Theorist”:

I’m Dr. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (she/her/they), Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy and Core Faculty Member in Women’s Studies at the University of New Hampshire. I’m also a columnist for New Scientist…

My work lives at the intersection of particle physics and astrophysics, and while I am primarily a theoretical researcher, I maintain strong ties to observational astronomy…

I also do research on feminist science studies, with a specific focus on the experiences of Black women in physics. I believe we all have the right to know the universe.

I was unaware that anyone on earth disagrees with the idea that “we all have the right to know the universe.”

Prescod-Weinstein might be a brilliant physicist. She might even keep her politics out of her work in physics, although that’s somewhat difficult to believe. My criticism, however, is of these tweets and the twisted “logic” behind them, which is very typical of the direction both leftism and academia (somewhat redundant, I know) have gone in recent years.

[NOTE: If you’re interested in learning more about Prescod-Weinstein’s thoughts on the matter, read the whole article about her at Campus Reform. Among other things, she has referred to Trump as “antisemite in chief.”]

Eyes were on Suleimani

The New Neo Posted on by

One aspect of Suleimani’s killing is what it says about the extent of our intelligence about the Iranians’ coming and goings. Someone – or some technology – had to have had “eyes” on Suleimani and been able to pinpoint his movements with great precision in order for this particular mission to have succeeded despite whatever security the Iranians felt they had in place. He was a very vital asset, both symbolically and in terms of his activities.

Or maybe Suleimani’s security lay mostly in the fact that he felt no one on the other side had the cojones to attack him, so he could move about and function with impunity. So far, no one had, despite knowing who he was, what he did, and probably where he was. But someone ultimately did decide to end Suleimani’s life, and that someone was Trump.

I believe that one of Trump’s advantages is that he is perceived as the proverbial loose cannon, unpredictable and perhaps even reckless. It may seem odd that I say it’s an advantage to be perceived that way – certainly, it isn’t always a plus – but it can give enemies pause when they feel they cannot say what a person will actually do and they perceive that they might be vulnerable to strong retaliation from that person. There is no question that the mullahs had no fear whatsoever of Obama, and most likely considered him a weakling and a dupe or perhaps even a witting or unwitting ally. They can have no such feelings about Trump.

All of this doesn’t mean that Suleimani can’t be replaced. In fact, he already has been replaced. But, as this article says [hat tip commenter “Barry Meislin”]:

…[W]hat’s really hard to win back is the image; to carve out another mystical figure that Soleimani earned himself after long, toiling decades in the making of and establishing a feared Iranian dominion over the Middle East.

The death of a man of such caliber with worldwide connections and revered, nearly-prophetic aura is more resonant off the field than on it. The crushing blow dwells not in Iran’s loss of a wise and professional warlord but in the loss of magic; the vaporization of the myth that surrounded the regime in the presence of Hadji Qasem; the spoiling of the spell that he had long exercised upon his regional subordinate and the cold-blooded brutality with which he used to operate; the closing of his celestial adventure on earth and with it the Islamic Republic’s lucky charm.

I don’t know if that’s the perception. But it’s my gut feeling that it is.

[ADDENDUM: One of the messages to Iran that Suleimani’s death conveys is “we know where you are, and if we don’t kill you it’s because we choose not to. But at any point we can kill you if we so choose.” Even though many Iranian leaders say they’re into martyrdom, this fact still must give them pause. And it must be especially true if they venture – as Suleimani did – into Iraqi space in order to cause trouble.]

Trump explains

The New Neo Posted on by

From Trump:

For those who think this will cause Iran’s response to escalate, I wonder what the Iranian leaders can actually do that they haven’t already been doing. Sponsor more terrorism? They’ve been doing that for decades and in fact it seems to have been one of Suleimani’s main tasks. Establish proxy governments and/or influence around the Middle East? Check. Threaten Israel? Of course. Try to develop nuclear weapons? Indeed. All have been ongoing for ages.

Maybe I haven’t thought of everything. Maybe Iran’s leaders have been holding back on something they might be doing to hurt us. But so far I don’t know what it could be. And they also have to deal with their own growing economic problems and increasingly rebellious people, the latter constituting a population that most likely (as Trump points out) didn’t feature many who actually “revered” Suleimani at all.

[NOTE: And from Mike Pompeo:

You have folks who served in the previous administration who are telling the Iranian leaders today, “Just hang on. President Trump will lose in the election in November and we’ll go back to appeasement. America will write you a big check, we’ll underwrite your terror campaign around the world, we’ll give you a clear pathway to a nuclear weapon system. Just wait until the Trump administration is finished.”

Whether they’re in communication with them and literally telling them that, or whether the Iranian leaders are just inferring it from American news coverage, I think Pompeo is correct about the message being delivered.]

How important was Suleimani?

The New Neo Posted on by

We all knew the name of Osama Bin Laden. He was really a household word in the US, because of 9/11.

But it appears that in terms of geopolitical influence and scope, Suleimani was much bigger, and his takeout might – accent on the “might” – be far more important.

I don’t know, but consider this:

About that “revered military leader” Suleimani

The New Neo Posted on by

The media continually makes choices about how to cover stories, or whether to cover them at all. The death of the Iranian terrorist head Suleimani at American hands is one such story, and it’s a big enough one that it really can’t be ignored.

The death of a terrorist is ordinarily celebrated and praised, especially one of that magnitude. So the task facing a Trump-detesting newspaper like the WaPo is to cover it but to make sure that Trump comes out looking bad. It’s something with which they’ve had a great deal of practice.

This particular tweet of the WaPo’s – referring to Suleimani as “Iran’s most revered military leader,” has gotten a lot of flak and a lot of ridicule, and rightly so. But first I want to note that the WaPo probably thinks it covered itself by only offering this “revered leader” thing as what “Iraqi state television” has reported, not what the WaPo itself is calling him.

I don’t know whether that’s the defense the WaPo is using; so far, I haven’t seen whether they’ve defended themselves at all. But it’s certainly one they could use, because technically that’s what the tweet said.

But if they are offering it, it’s a completely inadequate excuse for the simple reason that they chose to highlight this particular phrase in a tweet that doesn’t reject it or put it into any context whatsoever. It’s also (as many people have kindly pointed out) of a piece with their ludicrous characterization of al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar.”

Although I suppose that, if you consider the possibility that none of Iran’s military leaders are the least bit “revered,” it may indeed also be technically true that Suleimani was their most revered. Which is to say he wasn’t revered at all, except by those “protesters” (another euphemism) who were “demonstrating” (still another euphemism) in Baghdad so recently.

There are many ways to wage war. The WaPo does it with words.

Trump’s threats were not empty: Suleimani, head of Iranian terrorism, killed in Baghdad

The New Neo Posted on by

The very predictable reaction of Democrats is typified by this Elizabeth Warren tweet:

In other words, there’s a formulaic condemnation of Suleimani as a dangerous killer. But it’s followed by fears of a huge war to follow, and words like “reckless” and “escalation.” Many responses also express complaints that the action was done without Congressional approval – as though a strike on a terrorist like this could or should be subjected to Congressional debate and a vote.

If you study the entire thread under Elizabeth Warren’s tweet, you’ll find that many of the respondents criticize her for criticizing Suleimani. Yes, that’s really what many are saying; here’s an example:

Liz Warren isn’t leftist enough for them.

However, there is a very real dilemma when faced with Iran: how to respond in a way that doesn’t lead to a widespread war, a war no one wants, including Trump. I don’t have an answer, but I understand the problem. Appeasement and weakness do not work. Provocations must be met with a strong and unequivocal response. But they do run the risk of being met with even more provocation. Where does it end?

One thing I have little doubt about is this: if Suleimani had succeeded in mounting a new attack on US troops in the area, and Trump had done nothing to stop it, he would have been roundly criticized for that.

Another thing that has seemed clear for several years is that Iran is very influential in the Iraqi government. Will this latest action have any effect on that situation?

And how will the Iranian and/or the Iraqi people respond to it all? Will they cheer – and if so, will it be privately, or publicly?

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting Twitter exchange:

“You can’t do anything”??

There are a lot of comments in the Twitter thread saying: “This didn’t age well.”

The hubristic elites and Trump: new clothes, anyone?

The New Neo Posted on by

That pretty much sums up the work of Thomas Sowell in his books The Vision of the Anointed and The Quest for Cosmic Justice, wherein he describe the hubristic flaws of the leftist elites. There are plenty of people who think they can design a world to distribute “social justice” more fairly by controlling more and more and more of life. Equality of outcome is the stated goal, but the gulag and the guillotine somehow end up coming into it, and liberty is always highly compromised.

Fernandez writes this about Trump:

I’ve never been a proponent of the “Trump plays 3-D chess” theory. I understand what Fernandez is getting at; there’s a quality of Trump’s that makes him something like the brave child in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the one who blurts out what just about anyone can see, which is that the emperor (in Trump’s case, the previous emperors and the leftist would-be emperors) is naked.

In addition, however, I think that Trump does have some special expertise in deal-making. He’s also particularly good at insulting his rivals and critics. But it’s also true that a great deal of his success comes from stating the commonsense obvious, principles that once were commonly agreed on by most Americans but have fallen by the wayside in recent decades.