In the NYTimes, here
“We intend to study the Iranian response,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, deputy White House press secretary, in a statement. He said the United States would discuss the letter with the five other governments — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — “before responding formally.”
1 comment:
The pattern of behavior since 9/11 suggests that the global clash between the West and Islam—including the three very distinct issues of Palestine, al Qua’ida, and Iran—is becoming chronic in part because it benefits elites despite the harm that it does to populations on both sides.
On both sides, politicians and media frequently paint a picture of a zero-sum confrontation between Western and Islamic societies. The meaning of the confrontation and the path to resolving it would be instantaneously transformed if it were instead perceived as a confrontation between power-hungry, violence-prone elites on one side and common people on the other.
Many groups benefit from this confrontation:
• Politicians (in Western electoral systems; Christian, Jewish, and Moslem fundamentalist movements; and Moslem dictatorships) use fear and nationalism to marshal support;
• Arms manufacturers gain endless profit from endless war;
• Big Oil (both Western oil companies that buy the petroleum and corrupt elites in Moslem societies who sell the petroleum) just keeps getting richer as the price rises.
It is in the interest of many elite groups (politicians, religious extremists, arms manufacturers, Big Oil) to convince everyone else that a clash of civilizations is occurring in which neutrality, compromise, and consideration of potential positive-sum outcomes are immoral and treacherous.
Despite this gloom and doom, is it possible that the U.S. presidential election might ever so gently be pushing the country toward a more mature, positive-sum perspective?
Post a Comment