Monday, November 21, 2022

The Iran Card

Guest post by Mustang.

Mr. Con Coughlin is a British journalist currently assigned as the Defense Editor for the Daily Telegraph.  He likes to moan about Iran.  More recently, he complained that Tehran tells lies about the true extent of its nuclear ambitions.  Worse, he argues, Tehran hasn’t been entirely truthful about its support of Russia in Ukraine.  It is hard for me to know where to start.  Perhaps with this observation: if Mr. Coughlin has a problem with Iran’s lack of transparency, he must be positively apoplectic thinking about the number of times the U.K. and U.S. have lied about Middle Eastern Coalition forces, NATO, or even U.N. peacekeeping forces.  One must also wonder if Mr. Coughlin is genuinely a journalist — or if he is the mouthpiece for western Neanderthals. 


I realize that I’m making a grave charge.  It is a serious matter whenever a journalist becomes an instrument of the state (or, in this case, the civilization) he represents.  Whenever this happens, a writer becomes a politician rather than a journalist.  There would be no concern if not for the fact that confused journalists place their peers in danger of being targeted as politicians. 


On that note, why is Mr. Coughlin choosing sides between Islamist Sunnis and Islamist Shi’ites?  Since both of these sects are irrational, I assume that Coughlin is parroting the western line: pro-Saudi and anti-Persian.  After reading Coughlin’s commentaries, one wonders if the man is even aware that the Saudis fund twice to three times more global terrorism than Iran.  This statement is not only accurate but also easily proven to be true.  Why is Coughlin backing the Saudis over the Iranians?  Why is Mr. Coughlin going out of his way to convince you or me that Iran = bad or that anyone with an ounce of sense couldn’t see the Russian-Ukrainian conflict materializing at some point over the past 30 years? 


After the Soviet Union Collapsed in 1991, western aligned countries had plenty of opportunities to “reach out” to welcome a newly defined Russia into the community of nations.  Did the alliance of the west do that?  No, they didn’t.  Why not?  Because the western aligned countries wanted to beat the Russians into the ground more than they wanted to pave the way toward global peace. 


Everything the western nations did was precisely the wrong thing.  They gave the slow-thinking Ukrainians the notion that they could become part of the NATO alliance, enticed them with membership in the E.U., and promised them an unlimited supply of chocolate-filled lollipops.  Well, let’s review some of the histories of the former Soviet Republics. 


Does anyone remember Joseph Stalin?  Stalin was responsible for murdering 20 million Russians.  He was from Soviet Georgia.  How about Lavrentiy Beria?  Beria pulled the trigger on 20 million Russians.  He came from Soviet Georgia.  Does anyone remember Nikita Khrushchev?  Khrushchev placed nuclear weapons in Cuba (90 miles from Key West, Florida).  Mr. Khrushchev was from Ukraine.  Vladimir Putin is Russian.  So then, one begins to question how much British and American diplomats (and their propaganda minions) know about the people they support and oppose.  I recall President Kennedy's unhappiness when Khrushchev parked nuclear missiles in Cuba.  It wasn’t all that long ago — so I wonder why the U.S. and NATO members thought it a neat idea to park NATO weapons along Russia’s geographic underbelly.  Is this yet another example of western civilization’s double standard?  Or is this entire shebang a matter of affirmative action gone wild? 


I would like Mr. Coughlin to use his bully pulpit to explain how it helps move us toward world peace by supporting the world’s number one exporter of terror (Saudi Arabia) while constantly attacking Iran.  And while he’s at it, Mr. Coughlin might explain what the NATO countries were thinking when they began their scab-picking campaign toward Russia.  How about Mr. Coughlin telling everyone what he would do about Ukraine if he were in Putin’s shoes?  And finally, could Mr. Coughlin ask those same questions of the western aligned nuclear powers?  What are the United Kingdom’s nuclear ambitions?  Does he imagine that Iran’s ambitions are much different? 


We seem to live in Romper Room, and elementary-minded persons are running the show.  Geez ... grow up, people.  If you want a peaceful world, start acting like it by questioning the shills, like Con Coughlin.


  1. Excellent post. For a time there, Mustang, I felt you channeling Chesterton. On topic, I sometimes ask US conservatives how they'd feel if Russia had an active military mission in Mexico. They look at me blankly and slack-faced change the subject.

    We have to admit that the demonic Dems hit on remarkable PR. Blame everything on Russia, Trump's a Russian spy!, and steal the GOP Cold Warrior base right out from under themselves. The mind boggles at the simple genius of the thing.

    And look where the logic's got us. Right up the brink of the next Big One and tens of thousands of people killed. Heinous. He was a murderer from the beginning.

  2. why is Mr. Coughlin choosing sides between Islamist Sunnis and Islamist Shi’ites?

    Like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


    I do note that the Sufis are hardly ever mentioned. Why is that?

    1. My guess is that you can fill up a warehouse with what people don’t know (or understand). But you’d expect someone like Con Coughlin to know “something,” anyway. It makes you wonder if he’s part of the team or simply a useful idiot.