Many of those who today sides against Tehran yesterday defended Ukraine. As always, doubles is the master. Rather than looking for white knights, we defend the national interest.
And here is the benevolent fortune gives us another pretext to slaughter us, divide us into consortiums and snort each other. The cathodic fights on Gaza and Ukraine are overcome, or rather included in the new conflict ground. The choice of the field must be lightning and total, we do not go back. And woe to make mistakes. If you say that Iran, threatening Israel, piercing her opponents and craving their destruction, a little went to look for the bombs, part of the crowd that is clear that you are a cursed philosionist accomplice of the genocide. If, on the contrary, you allow yourself to advance some objection on the opportunity of the attack on Tehran, here you become an anti -Semitic servant of the Ayatollah, enemy of the West and self -destructive idiot. It must be said that this second version of the media attack predominates slightly on the large print. In any case, the double morality and the short circuits dominate practically everywhere.
In this regard, the reading of the editorial of Antonio Polito on the Corriere della Serawho took it out with the “bad faith and naivety” of the pacifists. “Those who Netanyahu It is a crazy warflower to attack Iran, but Putin His reasons had it to invade Ukraine, “he wrote Polite“I am an example of logical and ethical contradiction unfortunately somewhat successful in the disoriented local political discourse”. There is true in this note: if the use of force is condemned, you must always condemn it, not to alternate current. And it is up to admit that the bombs are horrendous and kill regardless of those who scattered them. If Polite He grasped a contradiction of certain pacifism, however, he slightly flew over the contortions of the anti -Iranian front that has been in a hurry in these days. This front is also composed of numerous commentators who, in recent years, have wanted to oppose strenuously to Putinconsidered a warfounding invader, a violent dictator worthy of being destroyed. To want to be honest, it is difficult to deny that the right to self -defense was unilaterally invoked both by Israel and from Russia. Israel triggers a sort of preventive war against Iran because he would be preparing the atomic to be released on his head. Russia invades Ukraine to defend the Donbass battered by Kiev’s bombings and to protect itself from an West that barking more and more vigorously near its borders. Why should a nation be right and the other wrong? Why are the Ukrainians and the bad Iranians? There is no doubt about Ukrainian democracy on the Iranian one. Also regarding the bombs of Netanyahu On Gaza you could have something (a lot, for the writer) to object, and in the same way you could discuss the Ukrainian ones on Donetsk.
Second Politethe “double moral standard, Putin statesman/Netanyahu Assassin, it remains and indeed strengthens ». But on closer inspection, the double standard is also sturdy: Putin killer, Netanyahu defender of the West. Always in the opinion of the publishing of the Courierthe reason why someone is with the Russians and against Israel could reside in the hatred “investerate of an Italian political sector for America”. It may be, but even here everything is and its opposite: there are also those – and there are many – that the US were back Biden and they contest in principle those of Trumpalthough some foreign and internal choices of the two administrations to the test of the facts are very similar.
The truth is that the list of contradictions could be infinite, even on the Iranian case. Two nations that possess atomics support the assault on Tehran because it wants to (perhaps) to build it. A nation that attacked Iraq falsely accusing him of having weapons of destruction of mass invested against Iran for the same reason. All with the political and media support of commentators who contest Iranian rearmament and Russian warmer but approve European rearmament and western warnings. At the same time, here to contest the bombs against the Ayatollah, self -styled movements of the rights of minorities arrive, the same minorities that in Iran and Gaza are not exactly protected.
All this is actually extremely instructive. The confusion and the opposite short circuits demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that, in international politics issues, moralistic dichotomy does not make sense of existing. It can be contrary to the export of democracy with bombs and, together, do not appreciate the regimes that are recipients of those bombs. It can be recognized that in an authoritarian state it would not be able to live and together to say that the alternative regimes created violently by the West are not so better, on the contrary. After all, we are forever those who gone through Afghanistan and then accepted the return of the Taliban, those who slaughtered Iraq and now push the militias who supported Saddam, and via twisting.
The bitter reality is that international politics is regulated by power and nothing else. Those who have the strength to act, act, and mostly do not care about the right or fold it to their needs of the moment or worse invokes it to commit massacres. There are no beautiful souls and white knights, salvatori and super bad. There are powers that make their game, and civilians who crack in the indifference of most. There are causes that conquer the media and others completely similar that rot in silence.
Recognizing it would not change much, but perhaps it would make us less hypocritical. Above all, then, get rid of moralism could avoid infinite and sterile discussions, useful almost exclusively to distract from other problems. We could serenely do without demonizations and censorships, of insults and pathetic brawls. And we could converge on the only position that really makes sense: the defense of the national interest, which in most cases does not include clear and uncompromising field choices, but flexibility and shrewdness. Is it a cynical attitude? It may be. But it is better a little honest cynicism of much hairy moralism exhibited by the defenders of freedoms (of every color) with his hands dirty with blood.
