Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
Who is the victorious or the defeated is revealed by the equation of confidence
Written by Nasser Kandil,
A fierce media war is waded to change the consequences of the confrontations which occurred during long decades between two international and regional parties, the understanding upon the Iranian nuclear file has constituted a culmination for them and an expression of the assets of power which have been gathered at each one of the two trenches of confrontations, and which Syria was the most complicated presence in them, and because the form of the end of the wars which we knew in the First and the Second World Wars by the demise of the countries, entities, and ruling regimes and imposing submission documents has gone since the presence of the deterrent nuclear balance, so it becomes imperative for the observer to discover other measuring tools that allow the systematic inference regarding the triumphant and the defeated parties.
This has happened after the two wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been repeated after the July war in 2007 and the wars of Gaza, but despite the admission of defeat by the party which launched the war, which is America and Israel in all the cases which we knew, there are still who discuss among our ranks we the targeted in these wars, and refuse to admit of the defeat of America and Israel, those are innovating measuring tools though which they want to wade a media and psychological warfare to change the position of the victorious and the defeated, as if we are in front of a visual game that can be manipulated. Therefore, sometimes the losses and how are distributed on both sides of war is a sign to determine the victorious and the defeated, thus America and Israel become triumphant, and sometimes the structural damages which affected the targeted party are provided and promoted as an implicit unannounced achievement for the goals of war, as the invade of terrorism or the spread of the sectarian and doctrinal tribalism. So we become defeated, according to these two measurements it is clear that America and Israel become victorious while the resistance movements and their supporters are defeated.
Those wars are presenting in themselves a measuring tool for their consequences, According to the war science the capacities of the armies are not estimated with what the experts are calling the net power which includes the number and the equipments, but with the strategic value of these armies, and the magnitude of their ability to give their leaders the opportunity of going to war. For example the armies that are replete with weapons but their leaders do not have the ability to go to war which its strategic value is zero, even if its net power is high. The victory and the defeat are not estimated by the damage of the net power of the armies in the wars, but by the magnitude of the damage of the strategic value of these armies, it means by the extent of what a war grants the leaders of the armies the opportunity of going to war once again, this is simply how Israel has defeated in July 2006 because its ability to wade wars has been damaged, America has defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan as well because it has become less capable of wading new wars.
In the expanded wars and confrontations along many decades, and the scattered in the geography as it expands in history, and when they lead to settlements in which the problematic assertion of victory or defeat becomes more complicated, and when the media means and the psychological warfare that are occupied in hiding the results and tampering them, modifying and counterfeiting them become more effective, since because at the end the victory and the defeat are two equations that are related directly of how the human minds are receiving the consequences of confrontations and settlements. As a result of the extended confrontations since the fall of Berlin wall, the end and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the launching of expansion projects of the Atlantic alliance till Georgia and Ukraine towards the wars of Israel as an only maker of the politics in the Middle East, the two war of Iraq and Afghanistan to encircle Iran, and ending with the war of bringing Syria down using Al-Qaeda Organization that is proceeded by Muslim Brotherhood to accomplish this task, after all the war of Saudi Arabia against Yemen, therefore, the nuclear understanding is the settlement which paves the way for the era of settlements in which all the opposite parties are trying to have comfortable seats at the negotiation table which is prepared to host all the fighters each one with his reasons and balances of powers. So what is the criterion of judging the settlements in drawing the scene of victory and defeat?
The tools of the psychological and the media war have reactivated once again in order to draw equations that based on the visual manipulation, so they start with a reading that links the determination of victory and defeat with the media title which the war’s forces led by America have raised, entitled preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon, and the understanding based on Iranian commitment of offering guarantees of abstention of possessing a nuclear military program, just to say that the settlement has the triumph of the war’s forces and the sanctions. The speakers know that Iran has sold what it did not want and what it did not have and got in return what it wants and what its opponents have. Or the speech which is based on the bets of gains which Iran has achieved is uttered in order to say that Iran will be disintegrate by the force of luxury that is acquired by gaining a lot of money, as if one is saying that the Palestinians will fight each other for the sake of rule in case if Palestine is liberated in its full territories and considering that Israel which has been terminated according to this hypothesis is victorious, while the settlements are a historical and social action that is achieved by communities and states between each other in order to terminate a long dispute, so what is the criterion of the victory and defeat according to them?
The settlements themselves present for us tools of measuring the victory and the defeat, through the popular political value which is granted for each signed part y, so it is sufficient to consider the internal situation for each one of the signed parties along the two fronts and see the extent of confidence, the sense of power and the political and the popular stability to know who is the victorious and who is the defeated, so does the American-Israeli-Saudi-Turkish situation is stable? And do the constructional relationships of this alliance seem to be mounting towards cohesion and strength, or does the anxiety prevail and the doubts spread, and the voice of complaint rise?, and do those who signed are defending for their choice as the best of the possible? On the other hand, how is the situation of the Russian President, the Iranian leadership, the Syrian President, and the leader of the resistance look like? Is it full of confidence and the feeling of stability and the sources of power? Or do they feel with anxiety and the fear for their fate? And how is their inner relationship? Is it ambiguous and full of doubts or full of confidence and the certainty of cohesion?
Obama said that if he runs for a third mandate, he will win it, so is it a sign of confidence or is it a prior argument in case his party has failed?, by saying that the problem is with the candidate who seems that is Hillary Clinton and not with the nuclear understanding which Obama and his team tried to promote it for the Americans on one hand, and on the other hand prevailing the reassurances for the frightened allies who dream feeling anxious and waking feeling the same. On the contrary, the Leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran, the Syrian President and the Leader of the resistance have said speech that did not need to be explained or to be added, because it filled with the signs of the feeling of power , confidence, and the cohesion.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-07-31 | عدد القراءات 1988
