Debate Magazine

The Post-Colonial Hangover and the Jihadi Bomb

Posted on the 16 March 2015 by Mikelumish @IsraelThrives
Michael L.
hangoverOne thing that is striking about this political moment is the fact that the western Left seems entirely complacent with the idea of a nuclear bomb controlled by the ayatollahs.
This is rather odd since the Left, in general, opposes nuclear proliferation.  Yet few seem disturbed at the idea of a theocratic-authoritarian regime, grounded in al-Sharia, that hangs Gay people from cranes, and that has incessantly called for the destruction of Israel, gaining a nuclear arsenal that could devastate anything on the planet.
How unusual.
When Barack Obama told the world that it was US policy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, he lied.
Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in The Atlantic, in the fall of 2012, said this:
But the record is the record: Given the number of times he's told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.
The Obama administration changed its stated, if not actual, policy from preventing an Iranian bomb to enabling an Iranian bomb.
Democrats still complain about Netanyahu's speech as a violation of protocol.  This is transparent nonsense.  The problem that Obama has with Netanyahu's speech has nothing to do with protocol and everything to do with the fact that Netanyahu alerted the world that Obama's "deal" enables a Jihadi bomb in the not too distant future.
That is it.  That is all.  And although The Speech was well-received by Congress, the Obama administration has done a lovely job of sicking the hounds on the Israeli Prime Minister who is up for reelection tomorrow.  Obama has done everything short of literally spitting at Netanyahu in order to delegitimize the guy.
How anyone can seriously yammer about protocol when the real issue is a nuclear weaponized Iran, is beyond me.  Politically-inclined people often tend to have issues of proportionality.  That is, we often have a tendency to blow up small issues at the expense of much more important issues because doing so fits our political predispositions.  Thus, when we lambaste Netanyahu about protocol or about "playing politics" versus discussing the possibility of an Iranian bomb, this is what we are indulging in.
Disproportionality.
When Iran gets the bomb, though, they may use it and they may not use it.  But do we really want to fling dice on this matter as if we were playing craps on the street?
When Iran gets the bomb, they may give it to terrorists or they may not do so.
One thing is certain, when Iran gets the bomb it will set off a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East, the least stable and most volatile area on the face of the Earth.  In fact, it is a safe assumption that this arms race has already commenced.  Are we honestly supposed to believe that Cairo and Riyadh and Amman and Ankara are not stepping up their own programs?
The question is why?
Why is the Obama administration, and almost the entire western Left, complacent at the prospect of an Islamist regime with the world's most dangerous weaponry?  My suspicion is that what explains it best is what we might call the Post-Colonial Hangover... otherwise known as "white liberal guilt."
Because westerners view themselves as the progeny of rapacious imperialists who intruded into other people's lands for the purpose of extracting natural resources and exploiting helpless native populations, it is only fitting and just that we keep our hands off the doings of other countries in such parts of the world.
This leads to a circumstance in which white western "liberals" feel entirely free to lambaste Jews for daring to build second bathrooms in Judea, but they would never dream of denying Jihadis the Bomb because that would be "racist."  Jews are considered not only white and privileged, but among the most white and most privileged and most deserving of a smack-down due to (our apparently inherent) arrogance and militarism.
Jihadis, however, are usually people "of color" - often indigenous people "of color" - and therefore deserving of every indulgence, however irrational or counterproductive.  Who are we, after all, to tell the children of the oppressed that they must not develop the means to defend themselves?  If we were Iranian and saw American troops to our left and to our right, we would want nuclear weaponry, as well.
The problem, of course, is that Iran might use its nuclear arsenal and white western guilt at the history of imperialism will be no consolation if a city or a region or a country gets vaporized.  The truth is that the Obama administration and the western Left are taking a huge gamble with the lives of people all over the world, particularly the lives of the people of the Middle East, and they seem not to care one whit.
As the centrifuges spin and as Iran gets closer and closer to breakout capacity, the western Left is sitting on the ground staring intently into its own navel.  The Obama administration will not prevent an Iranian bomb because that was never its actual intention.  Its intention is to reset international relations in such a manner as to mitigate centuries of white, western imperialism.
If I am correct - and I believe that I am - what we are witnessing is nothing less than Barack Obama's attempt to re-orient the United State's position in the world according to the visions of people like Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and Noam Chomsky.
Toward that end Europe, the United States, and Israel, must be weakened and non-western regimes, particularly those that tend to be hostile to the West, need to be strengthened, supported, and emboldened as a matter of historical justice.
Because the white, liberal West is said to be guilty of horrendous crimes against the non-western world, over the course of many centuries, it is only fitting that it step down and allow the children of their former menial servants to fulfill national independence in whatever manner they choose.
And if that means that they go nuclear, then they go nuclear.
If that means that they go Jihadi, then they go Jihadi.
There is, at bottom, something deeply nihilistic about western liberal attitudes toward an Iranian nuclear bomb and toward the rise of political Islam under the misnamed "Arab Spring."
They honestly do not seem to care whether Iran gets the bomb or not.  They tend to support the Jihadi-inclined Palestinian-Arabs over the scientifically and self-defense inclined Jews in that part of the world.
They despise Benjamin Netanyahu for warning about the bomb, but they do not despise Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for the joyous head-chopping of infidels of any color.
They despise Benhamin Netanyahu for an alleged breech of protocol, but they do not despise Barack Obama for lying to the American public concerning the administration's lack of intentions toward an Iranian nuclear bomb.
The western liberal instinct has become self-flagellating and corrosive to the safety and well-being of people all around the world.  The Obama administration has signaled that the West, including the United States, is in decline and is thereby leaving the very worst actors to fill the void.

You Might Also Like :

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog

These articles might interest you :

Magazines