Southern Slavs, Syrians and other mythical creatures

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

        George Santayana

Ended in 1918, the First World War was followed by a series of international conferences in which the victors divided the spoils, deciding the fate of territories taken away from the vanquished.  Especially territories resulting from the break-up of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires.

One such conference took place in Paris in July 1922.  Under the chairmanship of the French Foreign Minister, diplomats from Britain, Italy and Japan – with the US ambassador ‘leading from behind’ as observer – ‘recognised’ the new state of Yugoslavia.

Meaning ‘Land of the Southern Slavs’, the newly-manufactured country bundled together several rather diverse populations.  Needless to say, no one thought of asking the Pravoslav Serbs whether they harbour feelings of national solidarity towards the Catholic Croats, let alone towards the Muslim Bosnians and Albanians.  To the ‘enlightened’ Western diplomats sipping exquisite cognac in Paris, the ‘Southern Slavs’ all sounded and looked pretty much the same.  What’s more, local potentates (they should know, shouldn’t they??) assured them that the newly branded Yugoslavs will all live together in blissful harmony – forever and a day.

‘Yugoslavia’ and ‘Syria’: different flags, similar problem.

The next few decades appeared to vindicate that opinion; the ‘Yugoslav people’ seemed amazingly cohesive.  But it wasn’t; it was just that the iron fist of successive dictators was choking off every secessionist squeak.

But even the strongest despot eventually dies; even the most relentless chokehold must ultimately relax.  By the early 1990s, ‘Yugoslavia’ became the scene of a horrendous civil war.  It was to last for a decade, costing the lives of 150,000 ‘Yugoslavs’ and displacing about 4 million people.

External actors got involved, too, with Turkey backing the Muslim Bosnians and Russia providing support for the Orthodox Serbs.

Midway through the ordeal, the ‘United’ Nations’ Security Council declared the town of Srebrenica a ‘safe area’ for civilians; it was supposed to be ‘protected’ by a Dutch Army unit, acting as ‘peacekeepers’ for the ‘United’ Nations.  Yet the place proved to be anything but safe for 8,373 people, murdered in cold blood; and nobody protected the many hundreds of women and young girls who were mass raped.

That one instance of unspeakable inhumanity finally compelled criminally callous Western ‘leaders’ to intervene, both militarily and diplomatically.  Even so, it took several years before the bloodbath could be brought to a standstill.

Eventually, a first fragile but increasingly stable peace emerged.  With millions of people displaced and the artificial state dissolved, the former ‘Yugoslavs’ managed to re-organise behind some sort of borders and form several nation states.  And that, more than anything else, removed the incentive for bloodshed: with the treasured identity reaffirmed, secure within national boundaries and no longer threatened by any imposed artificial ‘nationality’, there was little left to fight for.

‘Yugoslavia’: colours represent geographic distribution of various ethnicities, prior to the civil war; the black lines are the borders between the nation states that emerged from the war.

‘Yugoslavia’ was not the only artificial state created after World War I.  In the former Ottoman lands, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were similarly born, children of a marriage of convenience between Western imperialists and power-thirsty local potentates.  In the Levant, just like in the Balkans, nobody asked the various populations (Kurds, Arabs, Druze and Arameans of Sunni, Shi’a, Alawi or Christian persuasion) whether they wished to trade off their ancient and visceral identities for the newly-minted ‘Iraqi’, ‘Syrian’ or ‘Lebanese’ nationality.

‘Syria’: ethno-religious distribution, prior to the civil war.

Little wonder that horrific bloodbaths ensued: first in rudderless Lebanon; but soon also in Iraq and Syria – as soon as the local dictator was either removed or sufficiently weakened.

The similarity between the ‘Yugoslav’ and the ‘Syrian’ case is glaring; indeed, even some of the same external protagonists are involved: Russia and Turkey found themselves – in Syria just like in Yugoslavia – supporting opposing sides in the conflict.

The resemblance may be glaring – but not to inane Western journalists; nor to the inept and dishonest Western ‘leaders’.  They have yet to realise that these are similar problems – let alone that they have similar solutions.

People fight for many reasons; but the ‘Syrian’ war – just like the ‘Yugoslav’ one – is primarily a battle of identity.  Like most human conflicts, such wars are primarily fuelled by fear.  Fear of physical extermination, of course; but – even more, if possible – of spiritual annihilation.  Despite what self-proclaimed Western ‘progressives’ would have us believe, people treasure their identities – sometimes more than they do their lives; because identity speaks to the very core of human soul – its yearning for immortality.  People go to war, risking life and limb in the process, when they perceive that their identity, their primeval sense of belonging (whether tribal, ethnic, religious or ethno-religious in nature) is threatened.

It follows that any solution needs to alleviate the fear.  This means safeguarding one’s life; but even more, ensuring protection for one’s identity – against passive dilution and forced dissolution – within the borders of a cohesive state.

The outcome of the war in ‘Syria’ will, in all probability, be similar to that in ‘Yugoslavia’: sooner or later, the Levant will be Balkanised; artificial borders between post-colonial ‘states’ (which are already no more than legal fictions) will eventually be replaced by ethnic and sectarian boundaries.

Sooner or later, this will happen to the French-invented ‘Syria’ and ‘Lebanon’, as well as to British-invented ‘Mesopotamia’ or ‘Iraq’– just as it happened in the former British colonies of India, Palestine and Cyprus.

Before & After: ethno-religious distribution in Cyprus, before and after the war and Turkish invasion

The process is already well under way.  After all, some 14 million ‘Syrians’ have been displaced.  And no, not all these people are heading for Europe or for neighbouring countries – most have just moved to other parts of ‘Syria’ – parts that ‘happen’ to be inhabited by people with similar identity.  Safety in numbers.

One may like or dislike this development.  Call it ‘population transfer’ or ‘ethnic cleansing’, if you are so inclined; but whatever one calls it, it is certainly better than massacre and extermination.  Just ask the Muslims of Srebrenica or the Yazidis of Iraq.  If you can find any alive.

If Western ‘leaders’ had any sense (let alone that elusive quality called leadership), they would be planning how to help that happen as quickly and as painlessly as possible.

But they don’t.  Instead, they just spent a few days in Geneva, devising an ‘agreement’.  An agreement so helpful that even the clueless BBC correspondent reported that

Both [Russian Foreign Minister] Sergei Lavrov and [US Secretary of State] John Kerry admitted, repeatedly, this was only progress on paper. Some diplomats are already saying "it's not worth the paper it's printed on".

Even that was done only in order to show worried domestic constituencies that the ‘leaders’ are actually doing something about the threat of millions of ‘Syrian’ refugees potentially flooding Europe.

Of course, the Geneva agreement will be scrupulously implemented... when hell freezes over.  Well aware of this, EU politicians have meanwhile reverted to another solution, just as ‘diplomatic’ and just as dishonest, but – so they hope – more practical: bribing Turkey to take in the refugees and prevent them from travelling further to Europe.

Meanwhile, a few opposition politicians, religious leaders and NGO activists have argued that the European Union should generously throw its gates open to the refugees.  To the best of my knowledge, none of them has yet offered to accommodate a family of ‘Syrians’ in their spare bedroom; but this does not prevent them from feeling good about themselves.

People endowed with that awful burden called ‘common sense’ might ask why – if millions of ‘Syrians’ have to leave their homes – should they be brought all the way to Europe and spread among local populations with whom they have little in common.  Why not just help them establish themselves in another area of ‘Syria’, among people sharing the same cultural background?

What will happen once millions of ‘Syrians’ are settled throughout Germany, France and the UK?  Optimists dream that they’ll ‘integrate’ in Multi-cultural Utopia.  ‘Integrate’??  Why would they want to ‘integrate’?  People are more, much more than mere living organisms.  No, it is not just about saving their lives; nor is it just about feeding, clothing, educating and providing healthcare: these are not stray dogs in need of a home, but people endowed with rich cultural baggage, with identities they rightly treasure.  Just like the former ‘Yugoslavs’.

Provided with self-determination in their own national homelands, the various 'Syrian' communities will further grow and develop unique civilisations within the colourful mosaic of humanity; but try to haphazardly transplant them from Damascus neighbourhoods into Düsseldorf slums – and all you’ll get will be the horror of Mollenbeek: that devastating frustration of people bereft of identity.  It’s cultural genocide wrapped in the noble mantle of asylum.

To dream an impossible dream… Ladies and Gentlemen, US Secretary of State John Kerry!

Westerners have no problem with Bosnians, Serbs and Croatians each living in their separate, sovereign nation state; they even support a ‘two-state solution’ for Palestinian Arabs and Jews.  Yet when it comes to Syria, pompous, sanctimonious arses like John Kerry weirdly dream of

a future that ensures Syria’s unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character.

Of course, “unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character” do not exist in Syria – and never actually did; but hey, that won't prevent Mr. Kerry from fighting for those ‘values’ – to the last ‘Syrian’!

A Tale of Two Agreements: what do Greece and Iran have in common?

Two important agreements have been concluded recently, almost at the same time: one dealt with Greece and its economy; the other – with Iran and its nuclear programme.  The former was said to remove a threat to the financial health of the Eurozone; the latter is purported to remove a danger to the security of the entire world.

The Supreme Leader smiles with satisfaction...

There are both similarities and differences between the two ‘deals’.  In both cases, negotiations have been long and difficult – though in the case of Iran brinkmanship was taken to an entirely new level: overtly or covertly, various wheeling and dealing has been going on for 12 years, until just 2-3 months separated the mullahs’ regime from its first nuclear weapon.  Both with Greece and with Iran, extreme economic pressures ultimately made the agreement possible.  Both countries were about to reach the end of the rope from a financial point of view – Greece through years of mismanagement and economic profligacy, Iran through the piling up of international sanctions.

A broken Greek Prime Minister on national
television: “I fully assume responsibility
for mistakes and oversights, and for signing
a text that I do not believe in, but that I am
obliged to implement... The hard truth is
this one-way street for Greece was imposed
on us...”

But a humbled Greek government was ultimately brought to its knees and – in return for a measure of financial relief – was forced to accept incredibly harsh terms negating its core ideological basis; in contrast, the mullahs’ regime will be granted full relief from nuclear-related sanctions, along with consent to continue its nuclear programme, although banned by six UN Security Council resolutions.  The democratically-elected Greek government has been forced to admit, in front of their own people, that all they could achieve was a “bad deal”, preferable only to an even-worse alternative; conversely, Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei could smilingly thank his negotiating team for its great achievement.  The Greek population – which only a few days ago voted to reject the terms – gloomily received the news of their country’s capitulation to European pressure; whether spontaneously or at the behest of the regime, Iranians celebrated in the streets.  Democratic Greece has been forced to accept blatant, colossal violations of national sovereignty – in practice relinquishing control over its own economic policy; the rogue ‘Islamic Republic’ has won recognition of its ‘sovereign right’ to enrich uranium under its own control, upon its own territory.

Barely a day after the signing of the Greek ‘bailout’ deal, none other than the International Monetary Fund (the ultimate financial experts) cried ‘the Emperor is naked’: in a publicly issued report, they basically conclude that the ‘deal’ has zero chances of being executed as agreed.  Similarly, nobody but a handful of starry-eyed naïves truly believes that the ‘Iran nuclear deal’ will ever be implemented as agreed.  In fact, not even the deal’s most enthusiastic supporters seem to entertain such illusions.  Writing about a month ago in the Time Magazine, one such supporter (a chap called Ian Bremmer) admited that

“The history of Iran’s nuclear program says it will cheat, and inspectors won’t catch every violation. In fact, Tehran may already have started, reportedly growing a nuclear stockpile it had promised to freeze.”

Still, Mr. Bremmer advocates the deal, on the basis that

“Even if Iran one day builds a nuclear weapon, it’s unlikely to use it…”

The rest of us, who are rather less cavalier and not endowed with Mr. Bremmer’s enviable clairvoyance, can only guess how “unlikely” that possibility really is; we can try to figure out what degree of ‘likelihood’ (that some jihadi finger will pull the nuclear trigger and obliterate our families) we are happy to tolerate.

You may wonder why anyone would conclude agreements that have – from the word ‘go’ – zero chances of being implemented.  And why was the mullahs’ regime (a rogue theocracy sponsoring global terrorism and regional sedition) treated so differently from democratic, tame Greece?

Some Western politicians (especially the self-appointed ‘progressives’ among them) appear to believe that non-Western or non-white people (especially if they are Muslims) must always be treated with kid gloves; that they have a God-given right to misbehave and that their misbehaviour must be treated with a degree of tolerance – like that of children.  Feel free to attribute that attitude to post-colonial guilt, to moral relativism, to some form of ‘Stockholm syndrome’ or to sheer stupidity; I think it stems from deeply entrenched (albeit carefully – perhaps too carefully – concealed) racism.

It’s called reverse racism.  Rather than viewing people as complete equals in rights and responsibilities, irrespective of faith or the colour of their skin, reverse racists tend to infantilise Muslims.  The latter are seen as having rights – even special rights, like children or disabled people; but, again like children, they are not expected to manifest complete responsibility for their actions.  In effect, reverse racists subliminally place Muslims (and less frequently other non-Western people) under some form of mental tutelage.

Reverse racist attitudes are manifest not just in the über-tolerant treatment of Iran versus the harsh handling of Greece.  They are visible everywhere: when ‘the government’ (i.e. a ‘paternal figure’) is expected to prevent young Muslims from being radicalised – rather than their own families and communities; when older men are allowed to take advantage of young girls simply because the men are Muslims and the girls white; when indoctrination and extremist propaganda in schools and mosques are seen as cultural peculiarity, rather than criminal activity…

And here is another, perhaps less obvious example of reverse racism: President Obama’s famous Cairo speech.  Made at the beginning of his first presidential term, the speech is full of nice words.  So nice, in fact, that they often stray far, far away from the truth:

“I am honoured to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar [a famous school of Sunni Islamic doctrine] has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.”

“Harmony”? “progress”??  “advancement”???  Oh, pleeease!  There was, there is very little “harmony” in Egypt, a country ruled at the time – and now – by a ruthless dictator who imprisoned opponents and turned Al Azhar into just another propaganda tool; there was even less “progress” in a country where poverty was – and is – rife, where homosexuality is not even tolerated, let alone accepted, where one in every three women can't read and write.  Mr. Obama knew all this, just like every Egyptian knows it.  Yet he chose to ‘beautify’ the truth, rather than spell it out in its candid nakedness.  Some will say that he was just being courteous; but where does ‘courtesy’ end, at which point does it turn into brazen lie?  Why do tyrants deserve courteous lies more than their hapless subjects deserve the courtesy of being told the truth??  Would Mr. Obama have used such language, had he spoken to a Western audience?

The Cairo speech was made in the capital of a failed country – one that cannot feed its people, let alone develop and fulfil their natural abilities; yet one word could not be heard among the more than 6,000 uttered by the President: reform.

Yet Mr. Obama knows how to advocate reform.  Hear the tone of another speech – one made less than a year later, not at Cairo University, but at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.  The topic was healthcare reform:

“… every single President has said we need to fix this system.  It’s a debate that’s not only about the cost of health care […].  It’s a debate about the character of our country – about whether we can still meet the challenges of our time; whether we still have the guts and the courage to give every citizen, not just some, the chance to reach their dreams.  […]  George Mason, the time for reform is right now.  Not a year from now, not five years from now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now -- it’s now.  We have had a year of hard debate.  Every proposal has been put on the table.  Every argument has been made…”

Question: when did the President sound like speaking to children who need to be placated and cajoled – and when did he seem to address mature, responsible human beings, who need to make crucial decisions about their future?

But let us go back to the Cairo speech:

“I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings…”

Reading these exhortations about Islam and “Muslims around the world”, one may think that this was the Pope speaking, or perhaps a Chief Rabbi.  Yet Mr. Obama is neither; nor was he speaking in the name of Christianity.  So why did the leader of a nation (the United States of America) purport to speak not to the host nation, but to the followers of a religion??  Simply: Mr. Obama was trying to manifest ‘empathy’ with the concept of ‘Muslim nation’ (ummah).  But why?  That concept is one promoted not necessarily by Muslims, but by Islamists.  Surely Mr. Obama does not believe that followers of Islam (whether in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Europe or the Americas, whether speaking Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish or English) belong to one nation and should therefore aspire to reconstitute the Islamic Caliphate.  No, he was just cajoling, ‘making nice’ to his audience, just like one tends to do with children.

I don’t pretend to know how “Muslims around the world” feel, but I suspect that, like everybody else, they feel in various ways – as individuals rather than collective; and I know that, were I a Muslim, I would feel deeply offended by such patronising, paternalistic and ultimately racist attitude.  Perhaps that is why Mr. Obama’s speech, replete with such over-schmaltzed attempts at ‘endearment’, was ultimately received with coldness, as just another expression of Western hypocrisy.  Perhaps it would have been better if he spoke and acted towards Muslims with the same unadulterated conviction, with the same honest bluntness that he uses towards Western audiences.

Folks, there is nothing remotely ‘progressive’ about reverse racism.  It does not compensate for past wrongs, it perpetuates them in the present and exacerbates them in the future.  The key word in ‘reverse racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’ is ‘racism’.

The Audacity of Hoax: the real story behind the ‘Iran nuclear deal’

Have you by any chance read the framework agreement recently signed by Iran and six world powers?  No?  Of course you didn't – no  agreement was signed.  True, after missing the original deadline, the negotiators did show up with exhausted-but-triumphant facial expressions, slapping each other on the back like NBA players that just scored a slam dunk.  But there was no slam dunk at all: the negotiations had only produced an agreement… to agree.

Years and a small fortune – nay, make that a laaarge fortune to you and me – have been spent; ministers have neglected their other duties, to pursue all-important nuclear negotiations; and all they have to show for all that is... a verbal agreement???  One that the parties already ‘remember’ in at least three different, conflicting ways?  Now, think hard: when was the last time a grave international dispute was resolved through a verbal agreement?  International treaties are long, carefully worded legal documents, signed with ceremony by leaders and ratified by parliaments.  A verbal agreement?  Seriously???

Folks, we are being taken for a ride; they’re playing us for fools, with ‘fact-sheets’ meant only to hide the ‘agreement’s’ blatant non-existence; its being but a figment of deceitful minds.  In reality, after months and years of negotiations – there is no agreement; nothing beyond a loose, vague, reversible, oral ‘understanding’ on some bare-bones ‘principles’.  That’s a truth politicians thought best to keep from us, ordinary Joes.  What a brazen hoax!  What incredible chutzpah!  How they mock our honesty, our genuine trust!

And it’s not just sordid politicians, these mollusks who make a living (and a good one, too!) from falsehood and deceit; it’s also regimented ‘journalists’, the politicians’ intellectual prostitutes; those swiftly mobilised to prop up the fraud.  Take, for instance, Time Magazine’s Joe Klein: he has already produced at least two 'articles' – two shameless pieces of Soviet-style propaganda – praising the verbal ‘framework’ (which he dubs, of course, ‘the agreement’ or ‘the deal’) as the best thing since sliced bread.  Just in case someone should doubt his ‘expertise’ in Middle Eastern affairs, Klein starts by brandishing his ‘Jewish’ credentials, informing readers that he’s just celebrated Passover Seder with his friend Ramin

"an Iranian leprechaun, if such a thing is possible – born a Muslim but converted to Judaism…"

Needless to say, the personal opinion of this starry-eyed ‘Iranian leprechaun’ (who, we are informed, “does favor regime change, but through peaceful means”) is harnessed to serve Klein’s ‘argument’ – or rather is employed in-lieu of an argument.  After all, as a mercenary pen-wielder, Klein’s ‘conclusions’ are pre-determined by ideological fixations.  So why bother to perform research or interview some genuine authority?  Much easier to pen an article based on casual conversations with friends over chicken soup and matzo balls!

Joe Klein, the 'resident Jew' in charge of propaganda

Despite his a priori enthusiasm for ‘the deal’, Klein does mention in passing a certain Mohammad Reza Naqdi; who, as the negotiators were still backslapping, declared that for the Islamic Republic of Iran “erasing Israel off the map” is “non-negotiable”.  Naqdi is neither a leprechaun nor one of Klein’s bohemian friends; he’s a much more prosaic (but much, much, much more influential) General and senior commander in the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard – a vital power base of the ayatollahs’ regime.  But don’t expect Klein to assign any importance at all to Naqdi’s genocidal threat.  In fact, the journo only mentioned Naqdi so he could take another swipe at Benjamin Netanyahu; no doubt, because the latter chose to react to the Iranian general’s spittle – and not by pretending it’s rain.  Of course, Netanyahu isn't necessarily right; the point is, however, that he has the right: his own family is on the line, within striking distance of Revolutionary Guard’s ballistic (and potentially nuclear) missiles.  If it’s Klein who got it wrong, the only personal pain he’s likely to feel is that caused by his own haemorrhoids, gingerly seated in a soft armchair in Midtown Manhattan.

So what’s gonna happen now?  Well, not much: they will continue to negotiate ‘the details’ of an as-yet non-existent agreement.  The new deadline is June 30.  But don’t worry – it will be extended, of course.  After all, the old deadline (March 31, the ‘deadline’ for the ‘framework’ concocted on April 2!) was itself an extension of the extension…  Eventually, some sort of agreement may emerge; or the whole thing might just fizzle out, as the world’s attention turns to some other crisis.  Ukraine, perhaps; or Yemen; or South China Sea…

In truth, it makes no difference if an agreement is signed or not; it’s all the same if you judge it to be a good deal or a bad one; it does not matter whether, like Klein, you’re stupid enough to trust the ayatollahs’ regime to abide by any agreement.  In general, it makes absolutely no difference what you or I think; or what Klein thinks, or what Barack-effing-Obama thinks.  What really matters – the only thing that matters, folks – is what people in the Middle East think.  Not all people, of course, just those few people in power.  And we know what they think: not one of them trusts the ayatollahs; not one of them puts his faith in the likes of Obama, John Kerry and François Hollande.  And why would they?  Aren't these just foolish Westerners, weaklings who want to ‘lead from behind’?  Hasn't their ilk already allowed North Korea to get The Bomb?

Says Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s main foreign policy spokesman:

"I've always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.  So if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it's not just Saudi Arabia that's going to ask for that.  The whole world will be an open door to go that route without any inhibition, and that's my main objection to this..."

Obama re-assuring the (now dead and buried)
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

The Saudi nuclear programme will of course be entirely peaceful.  Just like Iran (world’s fourth-largest reserves of crude oil) Saudi Arabia (world’s second largest) simply wants to produce a bit of atomic energy.  Which is why in March, just as the negotiators were hammering that Klein-acclaimed Iranian ‘framework’, the Saudis were quietly signing an agreement (a written agreement!) to purchase two South Korean nuclear reactors.  In total, the oil-drenched desert kingdom plans to build no less than 16 nuclear reactors.  All of them utterly peaceful, of course!  Egypt’s military rulers want an equally peaceful nuclear programme; which is why, in February, Egypt’s General-turned-President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi met Russia’s President-turned-Prime Minister-turned-President Vladimir Putin.  The two triumphantly announced an agreement to build a nuclear reactor in Egypt.  Doubtless, a few other Middle Eastern kings, sheikhs and presidents for life will follow the lead, using their oil wealth to buy themselves a bit of nuclear oomph.

Another good friend: former Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak

As for the rest of us, one day we will wake up to a Middle East (yes, the Middle East of sectarian beheadings and suicide bombings!) able to wage nuclear jihad.  A prospect that should send some mighty shivers down Western leaders’ spines.  If, that is, they were leaders; or had spines.

The rat and the mongoose: a modern fable

No, this did not happen ‘a long time ago, in a galaxy far-far away’.  It happened in the Hawaiian archipelago; and it all started towards the end of the 19th century.

Brought as natural rat exterminators, the mongooses soon proved to be just another pest...

At the time, Caribbean plantation owners were tired of their relentless war against field rats – the rodents were eating into their precious sugar cane crops.  Come 1872, a chap called W.B. Espaut had an original idea: why not bring over a few Indian mongooses – those unpretentious mammals known as enthusiastic rat hunters?  Espaut travelled to India, had some mongooses captured and brought them to Jamaica.  Proud of his achievement, the fellow even wrote a journal article, praising the mongoose as the best thing since sliced bread.  The carnivorous mammals had, it seems, multiplied and prospered.  They ate lots of rats, but also, explained Espaut with satisfaction,

"snakes, lizards, crabs, toads and the grubs of many beetles and caterpillars have been destroyed."

This unreserved praise grabbed the attention of Hawaiian sugar cane planters, who also suffered from the rats.  Bringing mongooses to Hawaii as natural pest exterminators seemed such an elegant idea.  True, around 1883 some wise Hawaiian farmer wrote a letter to the ‘Planters Monthly’, urging caution:

"Whether it would be wise to introduce the animal to these Islands may be a question. It would be important to first learn more of the nature of the creature, for they may prove an evil."

But who listens to such prophecies of doom?  Why work hard to hunt or trap the rats, when one could simply let the mongooses do away with them?  ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’.  Long live the alliance between man and mongoose!

...while the rats continued to multiply and prosper.

The problem – it soon turned out – was that the mongooses did not just kill rats; they killed birds, ate eggs, insects, useful reptiles, even small deer fawns.  True, the mongooses also hunted and killed lots of rats; but they did not kill them all.  In fact, the rodents continued to multiply – and so did the mongooses.  Worse, both rats and mongooses carry a disease called leptospirosis, which can be lethal to humans.  To cut a long story short, rather than getting rid of one pest, the hapless Hawaiians ended up with two.  To this day, they still have to use poison and traps – only now they fight both rats and mongooses.

Given his childhood spent in Hawaii, one would expect US President Barack Obama to be familiar with that historic blunder.  Which would be useful, because there’s an important lesson to be learned from it.

These days, a gang of religious fanatics has taken control of large swathes of what used to be called Syria and Iraq.  They see themselves as God’s deputies on earth, and are intent on bringing the joys of medieval-style Sunni Islam to everybody – or else.  In short – they’re a pest.  And a dangerous one, too: they have already killed untold thousands of people – mostly Shi’a Muslims and Alawites.

So what’s to be done?  USA, UK or NATO could, of course, intervene militarily.  But getting involved in yet another war in the House of Islam is unpopular with the Western public; and fighting ISIS would mightily displease the Sunni oil sheikhs who pass for ‘allies’ of the West in the Middle East.

Which is why the idea of subcontracting the ISIS problem to Iran got floated.  After all, the Shi’a Islamic Republic is the only thing Sunni fanatics hate even more than liberal democracy.  ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’.  Or ‘fight fire with fire’.  Or any of the other similarly shallow clichés politicians use to justify morally repugnant acts.

US Secretary of State John Kerry lost no time before discussing the matter with the mullahs’ regime.  Asked whether military cooperation was in the cards, Kerry answered:

"I wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability."

Stability??  What about morality?  What about common sense?  Isn’t this the same regime that held American diplomats hostage – in violation of age-old rules of human behaviour?  Isn’t this the same regime guilty of mass murdering innocent people, both in Iran and abroad?

But the idea of fighting the ISIS pest by supporting the equally malignant mullahs is not just nauseatingly immoral – it is also incredibly stupid.  Yes, ‘stupid’ is the only way to characterise those who endlessly repeat the same mistakes, never seeming to learn from them.  Did we not commit precisely this type of mistakes – several times already??  Did the West not back with money, weaponry and 'moral' support (both directly and via Saudi Arabia) the Afghan jihadis against the Soviet pest – only to ‘reap’ Taliban and their Al-Qaida ‘guests’?  Did the West not aid Iraq’s ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein against the Iranian ‘common foe’ and did not that Middle Eastern version of Frankenstein later haunt us, his people and the entire region?  In fact, even the mullahs’ nuclear programme – which the West is now struggling in extremis to contain – was born out of Islamic Iran’s fear of an Iraq backed by the West and armed with weapons of mass destruction.  So what do Messrs. Obama and Kerry suppose it’ll happen this time, if the West is now seen to back a potentially nuclear Iran in its clash with Sunni extremists?  Where do they reckon, for instance, that the Sunni, nuclear Pakistan will stand, vis-à-vis of such conflict??

This is not ‘realpolitik’; it’s just a really, really bad idea.  As ill-conceived as bringing the mongoose to fight rats – but infinitely more damaging.  Like the hapless Hawaiian farmers, we are sure to end up with two pests.  Nuclear-armed ones, to boot!