« Mid-Morning Art Thread | Main | Filthy Despicable RINO Coward John Cornyn: On Second Thought, Now that GOP Voters Are Set to Boot My Defeat-Mechanism Ass Out of My Cushy Job, Maybe We Don't Need the Filibuster After All »

Wednesday Morning Rant

Do they mean it?

It is rare that I am left trying to discern meaning and motivation from a piece of press coverage. It is usually very simple to figure out. The press, as a rule, despises the West and this colors all coverage. Members of the press wear their opinions and attitudes as badges of honor, and their work product reflects it. The press usually doesn't go for sarcasm or subtlety. They spin, lie, misconstrue or ignore as they see fit to serve the agenda.

Sometimes, however, an article surfaces that is so absurd, so over-the-top and so preposterous that it leaves me torn between two opinions: that it is just yet another example of the press making it clear exactly who they are, or that it is unexpected sarcasm and satire, playing on its readers' expectations to see if anyone notices. It has been a long time since this happened, but it did this week. I am embarrassed to admit that I am stuck in that "in between" - and I am doubly embarrassed because the source of the trouble is in The Economist.

On the one hand, The Economist is one of the West's worst publications. It is consistently as dishonest as it is ideologically pure. On the other, their treatment of the late Ali Khamenei is so outlandish that it defies belief if they mean it. If it is sincere, it puts the WaPo's coverage of ISIS' Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, where the paper's original headline referred to him as an "austere religious scholar," to shame. I cannot, however, figure out if it is sincere or an amazing piece of satire. It is The Economist and one does not expect biting satire about a progressive hero-figure, but their obituary is so over the top I don't know what to think about it. The headline and introduction is tame: Ali Khamenei hoped his legacy might last for ever Iran’s Supreme Leader was killed on February 28th, aged 86

The article is not. It comes out swinging in the first paragraph:

When the Shah fell in 1979, and the hotheads in Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s new Islamic Republic took American diplomats hostage, it was plain that America would seek to undermine Iran by any means. In the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 America even supported Iraq, ruled by a tyrant, rather than Iran.

It is not baffling that a country might support the enemy of an enemy. It is not unfathomable that a country wouldn't side with a country that has declared it to be the hated and existential enemy. It is almost like The Economist is putting one on.

This did not daunt him. Martyrdom would be sweet; in many ways, he had already courted it. Like Khomeini, his long-term mentor and friend, he had divine right on his side. America led a phalanx of countries that were morally corrupt; but Islam made Iran strong, pure and spiritually protected. It disgusted him to have to deal or negotiate with the West, even through officials. He came to disdain foreign investment, in case it increased "Westoxification" in Iran; during the pandemic he refused to import Western vaccines, because they might bring the virus in.

Strength and purity. Khamenei in a nutshell, eh? This reads almost tongue-in-cheek.

Only "heroic flexibility" induced him to agree to the nuclear deal with America in 2015. Then, predictably, Donald Trump tore it up and tried, with Israel (the Little Satan) to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities into oblivion. Why trust such people? Why negotiate, when America's sole purpose was to ensure that Iran had no nuclear power at all? No free nation would behave that way. Besides, when Mr Trump's body was ashes, eaten by worms and ants, the robust tree of the Islamic Republic would still be standing.

This is clearly written as if from the late Khamenei's perspective, as is much of the rest of the article. I cannot, however, gauge its sincerity. It seems inconceivable.

But when he was made an ayatollah almost at once, and the constitution amended to overlook his lack of learning, he settled into the role as if born to it. It was as a supreme jurist, wearing the black cap of a direct descendant of Muhammad, that he gazed benignly from billboards and posters across the country. And it was as a great teacher that he preached and wrote books on forgiveness, patience and "101 tips for a happy marriage", telling Iranians how to live. In short he was everywhere, ruling now by divine authority. His tongue could channel God.

If this weren't in The Economist, I'd be sure that this was satire, laughing at his corrupt arrogance. Since it is in The Economist, however, I don't know.

Also, though many had underrated him, he knew how to build up worldly power. He proved adept at playing Iran's state institutions off against each other -- the presidency against parliament and the army against the regime's most powerful security force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, whose activities he encouraged. This made him the final arbiter. Besides, whereas Iran's often-more-moderate presidents had a limit of two consecutive terms, he was appointed for life.

Is the cynical, ruthless realpolitik being described here by The Economist being described with admiration, or is it veiled contempt?

His business empire was also extraordinary. He might live frugally, receiving visitors in a bare room with one sofa and a few wooden chairs, but he controlled assets worth tens of billions of dollars. Soon after his succession he took over the Shia charities from the government and turned them into vast conglomerates that hoovered up state contracts. He also seized the properties the Shah's men had abandoned when they fled from the Islamic revolution. The humble cleric from Mashhad had inherited the Earth.

Are they intending to sincerely point out his obvious inveterate corruption, or is this merely a case of "yes, we know that all our West-hating heroes have feet of clay, but they are heroes nonetheless?"

It ends with a banger:

He hoped to leave a legacy. This was not necessarily a dynasty, though he had four sons, all of them clerics. He was thinking more of his "Second Step" of the Islamic revolution, more pious and more energetic. Evidently, his own time was limited. He would be bundled away for safety if or when Iran's enemies struck. How much more honourable, more deserving of the paradise to come, to drink the pure draught of a martyr's end.

Are they sarcastically lampooning him by juxtaposing the avowed sweetness of martyrdom with his continuous effort to avoid it? Are they doing the same by describing the decrepit, corrupt gangster as energetic and pious? Or do they possibly mean it?

I can't tell. The whole thing is so outlandish and absurd that it almost has to be satire - but it's also The Economist and so it might be a wholly-sincere lament. What do you think? Do they mean it?