Articles inciting violence, encouraging or defending violations of international law, etc. will be rejected. FPJ is unashamedly pro-peace, pro-respect for international law, and anti-establishment propaganda. So if you’ve written an article, for example, about how the U.S. or Israel should bomb Iran, don’t bother submitting it to FPJ.
The Washington Post, on the other hand, has no problem whatsoever with publishing articles that advocate criminal acts of violence.
Jamie Fly and Matthew Kroenig (the latter of whom wrote an infamous piece for Foreign Affairs last year advocating bombing Iran) write that “the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to stress the possibility and desirability of a diplomatic solution, and to make clear that the military option is a last resort.”
Of course, as I just commented a few days ago, this is a farce. The Obama administration’s definition of “diplomacy” is issuing Iran an ultimatum to surrender its “inalienable right” under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes or face a military attack.
Despite the obvious lack of good faith on the part of the U.S., they write that “there is little reason to believe that Iran is serious about doing anything other than using the coming weeks to enrich more uranium and make progress toward a nuclear weapon.” The implication is that Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon. The only problem with that assertion is that there is no evidence for it (as I’ve written on constantly).
But never mind that minor detail. Fly and Kroenig state that “the United States must not only lay out the curbs on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington would be willing to reward, but also clearly outline what advances in Iran’s nuclear program it would be compelled to punish with military force.”
Notice that the assumption is that internationally recognized rights are something other countries on planet Earth receive as a “reward” from the U.S., the Lord of the Universe. But if a country dares to disobey Washington by insisting on those same rights without the Lord’s blessing, the Lord must “punish” it “with military force”. The Lord must with fire and brimstone strike down the wicked nations of the Earth who dare to worship false idols of international treaties rather than bow down to the one, true God, whose Prophets have ascended Mt. Washington, D.C., from whence they have brought down to us the only Law the world must obey inscribed in stone by the finger of the Almighty: Thou shall worship no other God before the United States of America.
Fly and Kroenig write that while talks are underway, Iran’s nuclear program “has continued to progress, reaching disturbing milestones. For example, in 2008, the international community was concerned about Iran’s mastery of enrichment at a formerly secret underground facility at Natanz”, and “in September 2009, the existence of such a facility was exposed; earlier this year, Iran began enriching uranium at the facility near Qom.”
What they mean by “formerly secret” with regard to the facility near Qom is that Iran declared it to the IAEA, and what they mean by saying it was “exposed” is that three days after Iran had declared its existence to the nuclear watchdog agency, Obama and friends gave a press briefing declaring that Iran had a “secret” enrichment facility.
Our authors add that “Iran had again been caught concealing an enrichment facility, which U.S. officials claimed was ‘the right size’ to produce weapons-grade uranium and was designed to give Iran ‘an option of producing weapons-grade uranium without the international community knowing about it.’”
If it was Iran’s plan to enrich uranium to weapons-grade at this facility without the world knowing about it, it was obviously a very ill-conceived idea for them to have declared its existence to the IAEA. It is shocking that Fly and Kroenig, as such big critics of Iran, don’t criticize them for their plain idiocy in this regard—such a lost opportunity to gratuitously bash those silly Persians!
Fly and Kroenig continue, saying that “earlier this year, Iran began enriching uranium” there. Before, “Iran was enriching uranium to 3.5 percent — a low level that has plausible applications for a civilian nuclear energy program”, but now “possesses more than 100 kilograms of 20 percent-enriched uranium”, which is “90 percent of the work required to get to weapons-grade material.”
The implication is that 20-percent-enriched uranium has no plausible civilian applications. That’s what you are supposed to think, of course. Never mind the fact, as Fly and Kroenig are certainly aware, that it is used to produce isotopes for medical purposes. Never mind also that the IAEA has continued to verify that Iran has not diverted any uranium to any military aspect of its nuclear program. Never mind that both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assess that Iran today has no active nuclear weapons program.
The facts do not matter. The only thing that matters is that the Lord hath spoken, and Iran has disobeyed, and for this heresy “it will invite a strike that will be much more painful for itself than it is for the United States. After all, Washington has a spectrum of viable military options, including a limited strike against a few key nuclear facilities, as well as a broader bombing campaign that could destroy the Iranian military and destabilize the regime. The response could be commensurate to the seriousness of Iran’s transgressions. This proactive approach should help calm nerves in the region about Obama’s mettle, and could forestall Israel from taking matters into its own hands.”
I like how, in addition to punishing the wicked for their transgressions, starting a war in the Middle East would have the added benefit of helping to “calm nerves in the region” and preventing Israel from bombing Iran first. Now, why didn’t I think of these? It’s so obvious to me now.
Fly and Kroenig add, “No one wants military action.” No, of course, not. I mean, it’s not like we have op-eds in the Washington Post calling for the U.S. to bomb Iran in an unprovoked act of aggression or anything.
A nuclear-armed Iran, they conclude, would “menace international peace and security for decades”. Not like the U.S., whose benevolent wars are only ever fought for peace and justice, and, of course, to help calm people’s nerves.
This article was published in the Washington Post.
Think about that.
Think about what that means and what it says about America and its intellectual culture, that something like this is actually taken seriously.
YHVH help us. (Oops, did I just blaspheme?)