Sunday, March 13, 2005

France vs Iran

Dr. Clam, being unusually orthodox in arguments pointing a finger at Iran('s secret service) is relying on Shiite vs. Sunni sentiments. He is saying that division in Lebanon is good for Iran. I want him to see where I'm coming from and I would like him to think a little outside the box. My game theory results point to arab vs arab division playing into Israeli hands. The arab street in Lebanon definitely thinks that Syria was behind the bombing. In other countries the Arab street is quite confused despite protestations by Iran and Syria that they had nothing to do with it. My thesis is that Iran (and Syria) wanted to sit tight in Lebanon until the US was out of Iraq. The last thing they wanted was to divert international attention away from Iraq & Israel towards either of them. Why have I picked France in particular? Mainly because no-one would suspect them! Even a lateral thinker like you has trouble even considering them. You might have trouble with motive but, as a former colonial administrator in Lebanon, a renewed international interest in Lebanon would benefit France. Both as a country that could get the UN involved there, and gain advantage through renewed commercial interests, it has a lot to gain. The victim however, was "innocent" in that they had nothing against France. One would have to assume a complete cold, calculating, mercenary attitude (the movie "La femme, Nikita" demonstrates the attitude to a T). An attitude pertaining to the "Iron Law" which is that the end justifies the means, rather than the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do to you. I would have to say, as revolting as the assassination was, the ends probably did justify the means, and it is definitely fighting fire with fire.

2 comments:

Dr. Clam said...

My theory is that the major beneficiary of the assassination is really Hizbullah, despite the apparent victory for Western sentiments. I think it is pretty clear that Iran has the least to lose and the most to gain by considering the spectrum of possibile futures, and that you have been unduly infuenced to consider French skullduggery by overexposure to 'la femme Nikita'. I don't see any reason why Iran would just sit tight and leave the choice of the next enemy of the week to the US. Arab vs. arab divisions have nothing to do with it, since Iran is no more an Arab country than Nepal is.

Dr. Clam said...

A quote by Menachem Begin, which I have probably used before, makes the (to me) incontestable point that some ends justify some means; otherwise we would not have dentists. It is only when we start thinking that our end justifies all means that the trouble begins.

I have thought what would happen with an isolated community that really lived by the golden rule if they were suddenly attacked by outsiders who went around looting their goods and killing them. Would they meekly submit? No, because all they know is treating other people how they would like to be treated. So they assume the outsiders have a different sense of what is fun and indulge them by robbing and killing them right back...