Why I don't Mourn Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela was not the saint that world leaders and the media depict him to be. He was merely a gifted, practical politician. After being released from prison and becoming president of South Africa, Mandela understood—what many perceived as being saintly rather than practical—that South Africa would sustain civility, stability, economic growth and security only if he embraced the White minority, retain the state’s institutions, including the police, the army, and the rest of what the Apartheid regime had employed to reinforce the White minority rule over the Black majority. He treated the Whites with respect, did not avenge their crime of Apartheid, and did not deprive them of their rights, wealth and security. He did so because it was in the best interest of his fellow Black citizens. It was a bright, genius move, devoid of emotional needs for revenge. It was the rational act that earned him the world’s admiration.
But then he stumbled badly.
He slipped into the trap of mischaracterizing many of the world’s bad guys as freedom fighters akin to himself. He befriended, embraced and allied with Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat, Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor Ali Khamenei. He viewed these oppressors as liberators. Outside of his country, he approved of violence as means for achieving independence from the “bigoted minority rule” over the “sizeable oppressed majority”. He failed to see that those “liberators” failed to free the “oppressed majority”, but rather subjected their own people to a different and even worse form of tyranny and suppression.
Outside of his own country, he was not the same Nelson Mandela who had transformed South Africa from an Apartheid state to a true democracy by means of an olive branch and reconciliation. Outside of his own country he approved of violent resistance to what he considered to be either an imperialistic foreign element, or corrupt elite in control of the suffering masses. So was the case in Cuba, in Libya, in Iran, and in Palestine.
Nelson Mandela deemed the Palestinian propaganda as truth. He referred to Israel as a “Terrorist State”; he made known to the Palestinians that they were his “Comrades in Arms” and supported their struggle for the liberation of Palestine. He repeated Palestinian blood libels and false propaganda claiming that Israel was slaughtering defenseless, innocent Palestinians. He likened Israel to an Apartheid State, implying that Yasser Arafat was a Palestinian Mandela and that his South African countrymen were ready and willing to fight with the Palestinians against the racist Zionists. He viewed Zionism as an imperialistic movement, the objective of which was to seize Palestinian territory and subjugate the true owners of the land.
He was not speaking the truth. He was repeating lies and propaganda that he wanted to believe in. His hostility towards the state of Israel did not end there. He let it spill over and cover the rest of the Jews as well. When Iran tried 13 Jews for espionage in the year 2000, Mandela claimed that these Jews “received a fair trial”—as if anyone can receive a fair trial under the Ayatollah’s oppressive system. He dismissed South African Jews’ likely concerns regarding his stand on Israel. He let it be known that he cared less about their feelings.
But the worst part of all was the fact that Nelson Mandela was a George Washington of South Africa. He was the first leader of the new true Democracy. He set examples and established paradigms for others to follow. And although the examples he set and the path he outline internally was great and pure, the roadmap he delineated outside of his country and the especially the one concerning Israel and Jews was filled with anti-Semitism flavor. Desmond Tutu, the influential South African Leader, and his anti-Semitic views are a perfect specimen to that fact.
Sorry world, but I can’t bring myself to the same outpouring feeling and extolling eulogies I have been reading, watching and listening to in every news medium I have tuned to. I just can’t.
Left-minded western intellectuals, habitual anti-Semites, and other enemies of Israel have addressed the insistent discontent expressed by the Israeli government concerning the recent agreement between Iran and the P5+1.
They have been suggesting that Israel should dispose of its alleged nuclear arsenal as a condition for insisting on an Iranian termination of its nuclear program. They have pointed to the US relations with Nuclear India, the administration tolerance of the Pakistani bomb, and the world absentmindedness concerning Israel’s refusal to admit its undeniable status.
Why is Iran different? They have been questioning. Why can’t Iran try to seek what others, and specifically, what Israel already possesses?
Is there really no distinction, or are these “intellectuals” blinded by superficial generalities? It is a fact that, among the official and unofficial nuclear club members, none
There is a strong suspicion that Iran’s leaders view Israel as a requisite bus stop on the way to other Middle-Eastern countries, Europe, and beyond.
other than Iran is controlled by an Islamic religious fanatic leader who views martyrdom as a religious dictate.
It is a fact that Islamic religious fanatics have no regard for innocent lives. They believe that Allah wants them to kill anyone who stands on the way of their version of world order. 9/11 and the culture of suicide bombing prove that point.
It is a fact that Islamic religious fanatics take their orders directly from Allah’s earthly self-appointed representatives and follow it blindly without a question.
It is a fact that Iran’s supreme leader and many of his followers, including his former president have already announced their intent to wipe Israel and its “rabid dogs” leaders off the map. They clearly implied that they would use a nuclear bomb for the task had they had one.
There is a strong suspicion that Iran’s leaders view Israel as a requisite bus stop on the way to other Middle-Eastern countries, Europe, and beyond, in their Jihadi mission to cleanse the world from its infidels.
There is a strong suspicion that Iran may actually bring its nuclear bomb into play, or let its Islamic comrades experiment with it on real human beings. There is no analogous anxiety when it comes to other members of the nuclear club.
But what about Israel? Why does the Western World beg off pressuring the Jewish state to open its nuclear facilities to international inspections? Why is Israel given a preferential treatment on the issue?
Apparently, the West, the US and even its Arab neighbors, understand that Israel would not use its nuclear arsenal in battle unless it is under an imminent existential threat or is being attacked with WMD first.
The Yom Kippur war—initiated by Egypt and Syria who invaded Israeli-occupied territory in 1973—and all Arab-initiated wars that followed are a clear and present proof of that assertion. They all understood that the Israeli capability was, still is, defensive. The attackers knew that Israel would not resort to nuclear weapons. They dared attacking a nuclear power, and they were proved right. Nevertheless,
Sunni Arabs, neighboring Iran, have indicated that they would seek parity once Iran becomes a nuclear power. They understand that Iranian nuclear aspirations are offensive. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was never on the table when Israel was alleged to having the bomb.
The US and the rest of the civilized world understand that Israel is the only country in the world whose citizens rather than their government are targeted for elimination by its religious fanatic enemies. Israel is the only country in the world whose citizens are threatened with a massive genocide by those aspiring to nuke it.
The North Korean government does not want to kill all of its Southern neighbor citizens. It wants to control them. India and Pakistan do not want to kill all of their enemy civilians. Their dispute is confined to territorial control.
All recent wars among the nuclear club members and other nations amounted to wars, cold or hot, between governments over territorial or political jurisdictions. These objectives are in contradiction to the utilization of nuclear weapons.
Iran’s “wipe them off the map” call is clearly a departure from the norm. If these neurotic desperados place their hands on this WMD button, the world may actually witness mushroom clouds for the first time since Nagasaki.
And that is why Iran should never have the capacity affording it the potential of fabricating a nuclear bomb.
One of the major anxieties concerning the Iranian nuclear program is the Israeli angle. Iran’s repeated calls for the destruction of Israel and its Zionist population gave rise to a strong suspicion that its “peaceful” nuclear project is aimed at producing nuclear bombs, the first and foremost target of which is Israel.Although this suspicion should not be ruled out, it is my opinion that Iran has other designs involving a blend of religious hostility combined with ambitions for economic hegemony and political super powers.
It is no secret that Sunni/Shiites hatred among Muslims is as fierce as Arabs’ hostility towards Israel. The civil wars in Syria and in Iraq are sectarian in nature where Sunnis and Shiites kill innocent civilians of the other Islamic sect. Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are historic adversaries; their rivalry intensified following the Iranian revolution in 1979, replacing the secular Shah with an Islamic fundamentalist, Ayatollah Khomeini and his gangs of religious extremists.
The new Iran, controlled by Ayatollah Khamenei, Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of the elite Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and their would be successors is much more extreme and exceedingly aggressive in pursuing its ambitious goal involving dominance over the oil-rich, Persian Gulf region.
Iran’s strategy comprises three phases, at the end of which it would be in control of 28% of the world oil supply. Iran would be able to set prices, blackmail, dominate and influence world politics, impose its will and brand of religion on a significant part of the world. And its leaders would become the ruling Caliphs of the latest Islamic Caliphate.
The first phase of this grand design has already been embarked on. Parts of the western coast of the Persian Gulf is dominated by Sunni leaders ruling over a Shiite majority in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, or a large Shiite minority in the UAE, (which has started cleansing their territory by deporting Shiite residents for no apparent reason other than sectarian). Iran has been using their Shiite brothers in fomenting unrest, engaging in insurgency and undermining authority in these territories and beyond. Eventually this Shiite population would facilitate an uprising intended to overthrow of the existing government and replace it with an Iranian proxy.
The second phase would comprise the fabrication of a nuclear weapon. It would be used as the main tool for bullying Iran’s neighbors and imposing Iran’s hegemony over the Persian Gulf and its oil rich resources. Iran would try to call the shots concerning OPEC’s strategy with regard to prices and quotas; it would use its nuclear clout to bully its neighbors and dominate the economic discussion and its conclusions.
Once Iran encounters resistance it would defer to the third phase—a full invasion of Saudi’s oil-rich Eastern coast, evoking memories of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. This time, however, Iran would feel shielded due to its possession of a nuclear deterrent in addition to local backing of the majority Shiite population in the occupied areas.
Iran’s calls for “Wiping Israel off the Map” are an attempt to cover up their grander design. By focusing on Israel, Iran is trying to sedate its neighbors, have them support or, as a minimum, trim down their criticism and opposition to its nuclear ambitions.
Saudi Arabia has been anxious ahead of the signing ceremony in Geneva, calling for a slowdown in Iran’s progress on the road to a nuclear bomb in lieu of relaxation of some sanctions. Nevertheless, the Saudis have seemed to have succumbed to the agreement’s conclusions. They seem eager to believe that the interim agreement struck in Geneva brought about a pause in the Iranian action, and that the P5+1 interpretation of what the agreement entailed was the proper understanding of what would take place on the ground for the next six months before a final agreement, which would effect a reversal and a full cessation of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Not so. The Iranians deception and cover up of their real intent has been effective. Iran is intent on pursuing their agenda as outlined above. They already interpret the Geneva agreement differently from the P5+1. They continue to claim - in contradiction to the P5+1’s understanding - that the agreement they have signed acknowledges their right to continue enriching Uranium to the 3.5% level.
Like a diver running out for air before passing out under water, the sanctions relief obtained by Iran in return for minor, mostly cosmetic, concessions on their nuclear program, felt to them like a lifesaving lungful of fresh air. It let the Iranians break their rapid dash on the road to an economic catastrophe.
It gave them time to reload and continue to foment unrest, engage in insurgency, undermine authority in Saudi, Bahrain, in Eastern Arabia, Yemen, and continue to commit terrorist acts around the world. What’s more, the agreement did not address Iran’s buildup of an aggressive military capacity including ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear war heads.
The agreement does not cover what the West does not know about the Iranian nuclear program. Even if new information may be forthcoming due to closer inspection by the IAEA, this new information will only be dealt with during the next phase of negotiations, but that new phase will find the Iranians less flexible since some of the sanctions pressure has been lifted and the economic pressure that drew them to the table in the first place has been alleviated.
The universal consensus among most intelligence agencies is that the present Iranian enrichment capacity—even after dishing out the stockpile of the existing 20% enriched uranium and exclusive of additional centrifuges—is capable of attaining a nuclear breakout in less than two months. This time window is shorter than the time it would take to revive the sanctions. And in general, there is a considerable lag between sanctions imposition and their associated impact due to the fact that the Iranians, like most other nations, maintain reserves of economic resources.
The best (and maybe the only) way to undermine the Iranian design of domination over the oil-rich Persian Gulf is to facilitate a regime change in that country. A choking economic pressure, considerably more severe than the present level of sanctions, could have yielded that goal. The nuclear question helped in unifying the world against Iran, but the unspoken (regime change) true goal should have been even more compelling. It should have guided the US and the EU in their pursuit of a better world.
Unfortunately, the politically correct west (they could not go in for a regime-change agenda in the open) and their misreading of the Iranian’s true intentions led to a bad agreement. It relieved pressure at the wrong time; it saved the Ayatollah and his militant IRGC from a potential implosion. It let Iran continue to carry out its grand scheme. And it failed to realize the monumental mistake they have made in letting the present Iranian regime off the hook