Picking a fight

One cannot help recalling old school ground tactics of those testosterone driven jocks pursuing the race to the top of the teenager pecking order: Picking a fight any which way they could; twisting every word, every action, in order to justify a dual. Such is the current, ongoing taunting between the US and Iranian governments.

This past week Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, visited the USA in order to address the UN General Assembly as well as to participate in a debate at the Columbia University, NY City. Acrid words were spoken by all sides. However, one can't help finding the words of the Iranian president rather more focussed at encouraging peace than those words of the various US responses.

In particular, the president of the Columbia University resorted to outright rudeness and unashamed bias in his opening address at a venue supposedly standing for academic objectivity and free speech. The first four points of the opening speech are subject matter for another discussion. Suffice it here to say that those four points exposed in glaring daylight the questionable standard of American academics at this point in time if the president of Columbia University were representing that standard.

In stark contrast, the remarks by the president of Iran were eloquent by comparison, a strong plea for the upholding of scientific objectivity and purity without submission to political or personal motives; desires and greed. His underlying message was one of worldwide brotherhood and mutual respect even if his answers to specific questions were often convoluted and indirect.

In the same week, the US Senate adopted a resolution calling for the classification of the Iranian elite forces as a terrorist organisation. Interesting, if that is the correct term, was the choice of argument leading to this resolution. In the resolution it was alleged that Iran's Revolutionary Guard, or elements thereof, was supporting factions in Iraq that opposed the US military endeavours in that country. Ironic how the current occupier and aggressor in Iraq would make such a claim. It is especially ironic since the disposed president Saddam had been supported militarily by the US during the 8 year war against Iran before the first invasion of Iraq by the US.

In a tit-for-tat, the Iranian parliament has declared the CIA a terrorist organisation.

The continuous picking around the edges of the nuclear issue while the IAEA has failed to find evidence of any Iranian nuclear weapons program and the Iranian president has clearly stated the rejection by Iran of nuclear weaponry, reminds strongly of the winding up against Iraq of hysteria before the current war there. The common denominator seems to be oil resources.

There is no lack of distortions and exaggerations regarding motives for all this posturing. Oppression and undermining of human rights don't quite cut the mustard. Saudi Arabia is not significantly less oppressive or autocratic than Iran. Yet, a cosy relationship of convenience has been struck between that regime and the West. One could say the same of China. So something really serious and frightening must be found or else fabricated if need be. There is nothing quite like a convenient nuclear program to whip up the neuroses. Of course, Pakistan with its military ruler-under-siege has a few of those for real and all in the West seem quite at ease with that. But then Pakistan does not quite have oil or any other resources except home-grown radical Islamists to wet the appetite for conquest.

It is hard to escape a sense of cynicism at such a display of self-interest and pragmatism in the rush to satisfy the ever increasing greed after resources. What remains now is to wait for the first punches to be planted. The school yard is preparing itself for the battle as everyone gathers around the protagonists for the show-down. Soon it will not matter who was right and who, wrong. Sides will be picked and the cheering will start. The winner's account will become history. Civilisation will take its course.