This Carbon Based Life

By David Glenn Cox

What if they held a peace conference, and no one attended? If peace dies at a conference table, will anyone hear it? The 50/50 chance of peace negotiations in Islamabad took a serious hit as the US Navy opened fire on and Iranian cargo ship, moving from Iranian port to Iranian port. This wasn’t an oil tanker heading the for high seas; this was a coastal freighter. The US Navy opened fire on an unarmed merchant ship plying its home waters.

The Navy felt justified in shooting. They’d told the freighter to stop, and it answered, “No.” So the Navy put one round through the boiler room and the ship stopped. But it wasn’t so simple as that. The Navy ordered the ship to stop, and it answered, no. So the Navy asked it to stop again for over an hour, almost pleading for the freighter to stop. As much as I hate Trump and this: the stupidest of all wars. The freighter was sent out as a trial balloon. Would the blockade be enforced on local traffic? This is where judgement comes into play. Is intercoastal shipping subject to the blockade?

How would the world be worse off if the Navy looked the other way to coastal traffic? Clearly, the Iranians were sending a signal. And by taking a hardline the Iranians will also take a hardline and there won’t be a peace conference, because a Navy Captain holds the fate of the world in his or her hands while dealing with an unarmed coastal freighter. “But it says in the manual, if they don’t stop, It says, I shoot!” Where is it written the United States Navy has any authority to police the Strait of Hormuz? Was that a UN resolution I missed? Much less the authority to shoot at unarmed merchant vessels. Now, the question was? What exactly is an illegal order? Shooting at an unarmed civilian merchant marine?

The Iranians set the trap with a big piece of cheese, and the Trump administration fell right into it. Who shoots at a civilian ships? Not Iran, America. Who says they want peace, but really doesn’t? Who shoots at civilians during a ceasefire? Not Iran, America. The Iranian side believes the US doesn’t really want peace, but only uses peace as a pretext for the next provocation. I’m not saying they’re wrong; it sounds feasible, but I have no way of knowing for sure. The US attacked Iran while in negotiations, so what do negotiations even mean? If Iran signs a peace deal today and gives the US everything they want. What would it mean in six months or a year?

Trump now knows he’s caught his pants on the fence and it gals him. There is a seething frustration in the administration that is pushing Trump past the bounds of credibility. “The Pope wants Iran to have a bomb. I won’t let that happen!” That’s what this country needs, a strong anti-pope party. Even if the Pope never said that, Trump is willing to put words in the Pope’s mouth over it. Mr. Trump argues he has a right to fight with the Pope if he wants. Showing us clearly, Trump doesn’t know the difference between can’t and shouldn’t. You shouldn’t fight with the Pope, even if you can, even if you want to.

It’s just poor optics sparring with the leader of a major religion. Ask Henry 8^th, he’ll tell you. It can get messy fighting with popes. It looks bad working on peace negotiations while fighting with a pontiff. You know, if you can’t get along with the Pope. Who can you get along with? He’s not Lewis Black. The king of the world is not happy. This shit is getting hard and the apparent frustration shows. He’s promising more war crimes. He’s going to destroy everything! Like a madman, a madman. (illegal orders, kids. Remember, illegal orders.)

The elected President of the United States is threatening a country with total destruction if it doesn’t give in to his unilateral demands. No UN resolution or nothing, just stand and deliver! Give it up to Jabba the Trump. Because he says so, that’s why!

When the Iranians opened the strait, the US should have reciprocated and dropped their blockade. What were they thinking? Did they not know that would spoil the negotiation? Did they not see that as an opportunity to advance the cause of peace and give the Navy some much-needed time off? Did they not see themselves being set up? “Dah book says, if they don’t stop when I say stop. I should shoot!”

What message does that send? Does that sound like someone anxious for peace? It seems like it was just a couple of weeks ago, Iran had no legal right to close the strait. But now; the US does? A blockade is a legal act of war. So the US assumes an authority it doesn’t have to shoot an unarmed coastal freighters, but it really wants peace. It seems as if the US does really wants peace but doesn’t wish to admit defeat and so becomes crusty and arbitrary about the details. “Yes, we’re going to keep the blockade in force! Yes, that includes coastal freighters!”

Hostile acts may lead to hostile acts. Trump is frustrated and still thinks he can win the war he’s clearly lost. The administration thinks the blockade is the angle they need to pressure Iran into submission. The administration is playing chicken heedlessly with the world economy. A will-o- the wisp administration that thinks this today and something else tomorrow. Lacking in consistency like claiming it wants peace while shooting holes in civilian ships during a ceasefire.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ― Abraham Lincoln

“I feel that the dormant goodwill in people needs to be stirred. People need to hear that it makes sense to behave decently or to help others, to place common interests above their own, to respect the elementary rules of human coexistence.” ― Vaclav Havel