Short Memories On The Iran Nuclear Deal

I don’t get it. I don’t get the attitude of those who are pleading with Trump to keep the Iran nuclear deal. They cannot have that short memories, can they? Back in 2017, when Trump was in Ryadh, he spoke at length about the newly cemented relationships, and about the country that was out in the cold.

I transcribed the whole of his speech in the post Trump in Ryadh, but here are a couple of paragraphs that should make his position clear:

Starving terrorists of their territory, of their funding, and the false allure of the craven ideology will be the basis for easily defeating them. But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three — safe harbour, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in that region. I am speaking, of course, of Iran.

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fuelled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror. It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.

And yet commentators think if they plead then that he might want to continue the work of his predecessor, and keep the Iran nuclear deal?

Weaving Snares

Weaving snares with words. I find myself turning away from writing that talks about soul, grounding, development – words that are woven together to produce what I now think of as magic.

I am repelled by writers of these pieces who work to draw in the reader with a promise of a better way of being.

I am repelled by the way the writers weave descriptions that allude to something, but in reality it is for the reader to fill in the narrative from their own longings.

It puts me off. I am suspicious of the motive – even when the writers do not know that is what they are doing – even when they think they are writing for the good of their audience.


What comes to mind and makes me laugh, is an event I went to some years ago when Steve Wozniak was speaking.

Someone in the audience asked him whether he agreed with the view that the such-and-such uprising had been a success because of the way a message was able to spread quickly with social media.

Steve said he thought the guns supplied by the CIA were more influential.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.