In his visceral rejection of Trump's America, the correspondent of Monde In Washington, Piotr Smolar stunned us! In an article published the February 28On the very day that the Israelis and Americans launched their attack on Iran, both eager to finally eliminate the major source of global instability—the theocratic regime of the mullahs—this journalist is outraged that Trump hasn't kept his promises and is "succumbing to the temptation of regime change in Iran!" He claims that Trump "built his political career on rejecting costly and endless foreign military adventures." He built his career on many other things, the most obvious being lies and greed. No, he's not a respectable person, and he's undoubtedly the worst president the United States has had in its 250-year history. But for once, when he makes the decision many of us were expecting, the accusation that he hasn't kept his promises is almost comical.
The journalist criticizes this decision for its "uncertain cost," its "dubious justification," and its "non-existent urgency." As for the cost, in dollars as well as human lives, it is certain, on the contrary, that it will be heavy; the dollars are Trump's business; the American lives sacrificed are a testament to the honor of the soldiers who enlist and know the risks; if we are talking about Iranian lives, the cost will be far less than the blood tax that people paid to their executioners. As for the justification, the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is high, which is a primary reason for bombing the sites that produce them; and if the more than 30,000 deaths in the brutal repression of January are not enough to trigger a bombing campaign, then American fire is welcome. As for the urgency, I would say, on the contrary: "Finally! But why are you coming so late?" "There was already an urgent situation last month, and Trump's dithering allowed the regime to murder even more young Iranians; it is also geopolitical: it is never too early to destroy those who endanger the very existence of a neighboring country and proclaim that this is their objective.
What were the cost, the justification, the urgency of intervening in Europe in 1917 and 1941? We owe Wilson invaluable support in ending the Great War, and Roosevelt the same support in liberating France. Did they consider American intervention too costly, unjustified, or unnecessary? I don't like to engage in... reductio ad hitlerum But faced with the one who was massacring his people in Iran, shouldn't we have used the weapons that eradicated the one who was massacring an entire people of Europe? The religious fury of the ayatollahs is comparable to Hitler's racial fury. America, which de Gaulle called upon for help as early as June 18, 1940, took a year and a half to decide; many voices in Europe called on America to intervene in Iran, first for geopolitical reasons, then for humanitarian reasons. The journalist from Monde He laments the American strike that "puts an end to the ongoing negotiations." What hypocrisy! One can negotiate this or that provision concerning enriched uranium, but one does not negotiate with the murderers of a people. Would he have wanted Roosevelt or Churchill to "negotiate" with Hitler? Khamenei had the incredible luck not to die hanged before his martyred people dancing at the foot of the gallows: let him remain in the ruins of his bunker—and of history.
Let's return to this journalist who regrets that Trump intervened without waiting for UN approval. When we see that this "venerable" organization harbors a full-fledged anti-Semite, Francesca Albanese, and that its Secretary-General equates the veil worn by women in Iran with the abaya in France, is there anything to expect from this "thing"? Piotr Smolar also believes there are too many justifications for the intervention – the dead of the past[1]Terrorist attacks, ballistic missiles, a nuclear program, repression of protesters—and consequently, "we lack convincing arguments." A curious line of reasoning! Has he never heard the expression, "Enough is enough"? We were expecting the intervention; all the reasons for it were piling up, and perhaps other American presidents would have launched it in the same way. But there you have it, it was Trump who made the decision, and that's enough to disqualify it. Trump is generally indefensible, but for once he's doing something for world peace, let's not spit in his face. Besides, I haven't read anywhere that Obama, Clinton, or Biden condemned the intervention. Have they become Trump supporters? European leaders, for their part, are being coy, for diplomatic reasons à la Norpois; only the German chancellor had the courage to explicitly justify the American action.
Is there anything left to expect from this newspaper after its past and recent journalistic failures? Remember its coverage of the Cambodian events of April 1975! Le Monde rejoiced at the arrival of the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh… How long did it take for its editors to understand that what was happening there was nothing less than self-genocide? Okay, but that was progressive! Just as progressive was the triumphant arrival of Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran in 1979, that Le Monde Compared to… de Gaulle and Gandhi! This newspaper behaves like a compass pointing south, only to mislead the traveler on their journey through the information. From the bist of the Geist of the verneint stets "said de Gaulle one day in Beuve-Méry, parodying Mephistopheles… It's still true.
