If noting the geopolitical nature of the motives involved behind a country’s external adventurism is to be treated as sufficient factor for legitimizing that country’s behavior, then, no country can be ever be faulted or condemned for its adventurism, be it an Iran, a Russia, a China, a France or a United States. As such, those who insist on justifying Iran, Russia or China’s adventurism while condemning France’s or America’s reveal their ideological slant and hypocrisy. If one is truly opposed to intervention in the “internal” affairs of other states one has to do it across the board, and not play favorites.
There will still be crime and criminal activities: some as old as civilization (e.g., prostitution and human trafficking), some new in form if not essence (e.g., cybercrime). There will still natural disasters, social upheaval, family breakups, poverty and assassinations. There will even still be a need for a limited military action in one hapless part of the world or another.
A rare point of agreement between the critics and advocates of a deal with Iran starkly captures the nature of my own disaffection with it and with the current state of affairs in our world. The point simply put is this: the deal is being inked with Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni blood.
I was honored to take part in the launch of Freedom Matters! – “a supplemental curriculum developed to help high school students connect the foundations of freedom to today’s global struggles for liberty,” prepared by the wonderful people at the Bush Institute.
When I referred in my post yesterday to Hady Al-Bahra’s appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I was not suggesting that he was wrong in doing so, I was merely explaining that, because it happened now and not two years ago, the impact of such an appearance will be minimal, and that we should not raise our hopes too much. After all, American officials are talking about a multi-year plan, even in connection with the upcoming training of the FSA.