Perfidy in Tehran
Alastair Crooke
The West is in the throes of at least one, potentially two, crushing defeats at the moment – and so the question arises: Will lessons be learned?
Perfidy in Tehran
The essay critiques various geopolitical dynamics, focusing on how narrative control and restraint are handled by Western leadership, particularly in relation to Iran, Israel, and the broader international order. John Kerry is quoted as stating that the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech in the U.S., is a barrier to controlling disinformation. This is interpreted as the West's preference for narrative control to manage populism and dissenting voices.
The essay suggests that the U.S. and its allies are avoiding acknowledging uncomfortable truths, such as the effectiveness of Iran’s missile capabilities in recent conflicts, in favor of maintaining a controlled narrative. It argues that this approach exemplifies a broader technocratic and nihilistic attitude in Western governance, which prioritizes control over genuine diplomacy or moral considerations.
The essay also reflects on the West’s treatment of Iran, particularly how restraint on Iran’s part—under Western pressure—is perceived as weakness, encouraging further aggression from Israel and other Western allies. This miscalculation, the essay suggests, could lead to further escalation in the Middle East, particularly war between Israel and Iran, with the U.S. indirectly supporting such conflict.
In conclusion, the text criticizes the Western professional class for its rigid ideological stance and its failure to engage in meaningful diplomacy, which it claims exacerbates global conflicts and misperceptions, drawing historical parallels with past conflicts like World War I.