In the late 1930s, poets and intellectuals in Britain discussed and were concerned with the prospects of war with a tyrannical state known for its regional importance and anti-Semitism; many resisted the terrible implications of the conflict. Others, such as Churchill, predicted that such a war would have to come, and Britain should be prepared. In the end, after a phony war, it came, and evil was finally defeated. Now, in 2012, the West faces a similar shadow over our daily lives: What To Do About Iran? It is not enough to simply say that all war, especially all wars in the Middle East, are wicked - we know war is dreadful, but some wars are necessary. Nor is it I think sufficient to take a sort of multicultural-nuclear approach, and accept that, if Israel and indeed Pakistan, as well as India, America, France, Russia, Britain and China, have nukes, then what is the harm of Iran joining this ominous club. The fact of the matter is, Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, in word and deed. Iran does not accept that the greatest crime in human history, The Holocaust, happened. And yes, the slave trade, imperialism, and the potato famine were also forms of genocide. However, the cruel truth is that Israel came into rebirth with the help of the Allied powers (and their hindrance) because and despite of the Holocaust, and centuries of deplorable European racism and anti-Jewish violence. Israel learned to protect itself. Now, that right to protection infringes on a weary world, who do not want an arms race or a war in Iran. And that is understandable. Such a war would leave thousands, perhaps millions, of people, dead. The question now must be - what can the people of Iran do to renounce the direction of their leadership, renounce their nation's Holocaust denial, and denounce the phantasy of a nuclear Iran. Iran is not Sweden. It is not a neutral state. It supports Syrian terror and despotism. It seeks to destabilise Iraq. Eyewear does not know what the answer to all this is, but what would like to hear what poets think. Are they concerned? I opposed the last war, in Iraq. This one seems more problematic. Less clear-cut. The West must defend itself and its allies from nuclear threat, surely? And yet, last time, we were told Iraq had the weapons. And we saw the disaster therein.
When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart? A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional. Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were. For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ? Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets. But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ? How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular. John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se. What do I mean by smart?
Comments
Have you ever been there?
The fact is there is no evidence that Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. Read this by Scott Ritter, who was the one weapons inspector saying that Iraq had no WMDs during the cheerleading in the mass media that faciliated the last war that brought incredible profits for the politicians in the Bush administration who started it.
The last head of the atomic agency was removed because he was considered to be not hawkish enough for the people controlling such things, and in his place was put a person who is only to happy to do the bidding of those who want the west to start an aggressive war in Iran.
Talk about the holocaust all you like, but the fact is the people whose lands were taken so a flood of European people could claim it because God had promised it to them; these had no part to play in what the Germans did to the Jewish people.
Bottom line is, where's the evidence? A classic con, talk about the 'threat' enough and hey presto, the very few people who want to aggressively attack Iran without evidence, have educated people like you supporting them.
In none of your post do you offer any hard facts, only repeat what the MSM parrots on behalf of the few hypocrits who do have nuclear weapons and deny it, who do use their so called freinds passports to commit intertnational assasinations, who break every rule they claim the Iranians are after wanting to reach.
I read the first bit and reacted only after skimming the second half, and now see that far from supporting this folly of going into Iran just to keep the most radicalized of the Zionists happy, you are asctually positing a nuanced question.
I dunno mate. On the face of it Obama needs to be kept in power. God help us if one of those puppets of crony capitalism get in and start banning gay sex and contraception, setting their mad God philosophies into action.
As for supporting our allies, I am not sure the USA in particular has done Israel any favours by supporting them in much injustice and encouraging them to be intransigent. Maybe if they didn't constantly have Uncle Sam at their back they would have to devote more effort to getting on with their neighbours - I am not saying those neighbours are angels, far from it, but Israel's settlement policy could not have exacerbated the situation any more had it been designed to do so.
Teleologically the cause of war is hate and indifference to the victims of war among the masses who prefer shallow entertainments to the disturbing Orwellian truths of how we are all managed by fear and lies and violence.
Usually nations find a reason to go to war when the masses realize the weapons of oppression used against them and threaten to take back their own power-from-within, such as the Occupy and Feminist movements.
These are my thoughts ...
As far as Iran, well, how many people are aware that Ahmadinejad was an integral part of the student uprising that led to Iranian revolution and hostage-taking situation in that nation after the fall of the Shah under the Carter administration? He, the current president, Ahmadinejad, was actually openly opposed to taking the American embassy workers hostage and was ousted from the central party for many years, during Khomeini’s time, because of this stand (I don't know if you remember this but the 'hostage crisis' went on for 444 days, and the hostages were released on the same day Reagan was inaugurated - some say Bush, the vice-president under Reagan and the head of the CIA previously, had negotiated a deal in Paris to secure their release AFTER the election) .. so, is the current Iranian president a bad guy - well, I don't know, I don't like his rhetoric, but I agree with Sheenagh as she quite rightly says, "I don't at all like the regime in Iran, but .. I suspect much Iranian rhetoric is for home consumption .. Israel's settlement policy could not have exacerbated the situation any more had it been designed to do so." .. maybe he, like so many leaders in other nations, has to respond to the West and its aggressive stance towards anyone who wants their own self-determination ..
I currently live in a secular-Muslim nation, though I lived in the US for 25 years and the UK for 15 years, and find Islamic people to be, on the whole, the most peaceable and friendly people I have ever lived amongst. When I go out for a night I can expect to have a meal a couple drinks and music then walk home without fear of being mugged, raped, attacked or abused - and nobody, unlike every weekend in practically every town in the UK, is puking on the street or starting fights for no apparent reason - and yes, if you've ever been in a bar in good old Judeo-Christian America of a night you know all you have to do is disagree with something whatever president said and you'll get a punch in the jaw ..
You know Todd, I appreciate what you are asking, “The West must defend itself and its allies from nuclear threat, surely?” Are you suggesting a reduction of nuclear proliferation? During a time when the UK has just made a pact with France to increase sharing of nuclear energy? Well, I don’t want anyone using nuclear power – Iran, the US, UK, France, Japan, Israel, Pakistan or anyone else .. but war? Well, I imagine if anyone wants it, it's those with the largest military-industrial economy and the most senators with shares in the businesses that are supported by the continued shedding of blood - and we all know who qualifies in that department .. personally, I pray for their wisdom and attempts to create justice and peace in this unfortunately increasingly frightening world .. KW
www.kevinwallacepoet.blogspot.com
I too bitterly opposed the Iraq invasion which I believed would be an unmitigated disaster and would have gone on the anti-war march had I been in the country. What puts me off a similar invasion of Iran more than anything else is that fact that Tony Blair supports one!
Best wishes from Simon