News on the encroaching “crisis” at the Federal level tells us that because of “pending automatic budget cuts, the Pentagon says it’ll reduce its presence in the Persian Gulf. Specifically, removing one of the two aircraft carriers.”
Now, this is serious stuff, especially for those who think in a Zionist way, which curiously seems to include a LOT more “Christians” than Jews. Even so, we do get a number of Jews protesting the move, ostensibly because it is a threat to Israel. To wit:
A top American Jewish leader on Sunday criticized the Obama administration for cutting its aircraft carrier presence in the Persian Gulf region from two carriers to one. He said the move sent entirely the wrong message to Iran about America’s commitment to keep all options, including the military option, on the table in the struggle to thwart Tehran’s nuclear drive.
“I’m personally very disturbed by the withdrawal [of one of the US’s two aircraft carriers] from the Persian Gulf, the Arab Gulf, because of the message it sends to the Iranians,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization, in unusually critical comments. “We have to think about how the Iranians perceive it.”
Now, Israel is one of the most capable military nations in the world, and I’d take their secret service over ours any day: they’ve been quite adept at killing off the scientists working on nuclear issues in Iran. They’re nuclear-armed, and could turn Teheran into a parking lot should the need arise. So I am starting to question the anti-Persian animosity as originating in fear for the nation of Israel’s survival.
A different perspective is offered by modern Iranian cinema. See, for example, the 2011 film, A Separation. I hesitate to link you to an online copy, but you can find them. To quote from the following review:
Nader and Simin are middleclass Tehranis whose dispute appears to stem from the couple’s disagreements about staying in Iran. Simin wishes to leave Iran before their immigration visa, acquired with great difficulty, expires but Nader is reluctant to leave behind his ailing father who is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The main dispute taken to court, however, is over their adolescent daughter, Termeh. According to Iranian law, children cannot acquire a passport or leave the country without their father’s permission. Nader has given his consent for the divorce but not for Termeh’s departure, prolonging and complicating the proceedings as Simin refuses to leave without her daughter.
I will instead cite some of the dialogue, with my emphasis added. The film opens with Simin and Nader appearing before a judge. Simin, the woman, has asked for a divorce from her husband Nader.
JUDGE (O.S.)
Madame, the things you are saying are not reasons with which you can file for a
divorce, unless there is something else.
SIMIN
Like what?
JUDGE (O.S.)
Like if he is an addict, physically abuses you or does not give you an allowance.
Seems the Iranians agree with traditional Christians that abuse is necessary for a proper divorce, although they have gone beyond permitting divorce only in the case of adultery. There is something else, of course: they have removed the threatpoint, as we will see.
Note that, in the movie, there are only two people in the room, husband and wife, and no lawyers or social workers incentivized to spur divorce. As a result, the wife has not been coached correctly, and responds:
SIMIN
No, he is not an addict. On the contrary, he is a good, decent person…
JUDGE (O.S.)
Then why do you want a divorce?
A perfectly reasonable question, no? Why do women throw away perfectly “good, decent” men?
SIMIN
Because he won’t come with me. If he does I’ll drop my case for a divorce…
(to Nader) Will you come?
NADER
No, I won’t. If it’s important for her to leave, she can.
…
SIMIN
You give me one reason why we should stay.
NADER
(to Simin)
I’ll give you a thousand. The first one is I can’t leave my father.
SIMIN
But you can leave your wife?
NADER
You brought me here! You filed for a divorce! When did I leave you?!
The reason Nader cannot leave is his Alzheimer’s-afflicted father that he cannot abandon. His wife in unsympathetic to these family values:
SIMIN
It makes no difference to him, whether it is you that is with him or a stranger. He doesn’t even know that you are his son.
NADER
But I know that he is my dad.
The real issue, of course, is the couple’s only daughter, and who will control that particular fruit of the marriage. The wife annoys the judge:
SIMIN
Doesn’t your daughter’s future matter to you?
JUDGE (O.S.)
(to Simin)
So all the children living in this country don’t have a future?
SIMIN
As a mother I prefer that she not grow up in these circumstances. Can I have this right as a mother?
JUDGE (O.S.)
What circumstances?
(Simin falls silent.)
JUDGE (O.S.) (CONT’D)
Is your child better off here with both her parents or there without a father?
So, let’s get this right. Assuming the film depicts the Iranian family courts correctly, not only does a woman need to present a case for WHY a divorce should be granted, unless her husband assents, but the judges actually consider fathers important to the development of the child. What are they, stuck in the world of 1960, before Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law?
JUDGE (O.S.)
(to Nader)
Are you willing to grant her a divorce?
NADER
If she prefers going abroad to live to her husband and child, then I have no objection to a divorce.
…
JUDGE (O.S.)
Like I said, this is your personal problem. For a divorce, you need his consent.
SIMIN
If he consents to a divorce, what happens to my daughter?
JUDGE (O.S.)
You have to agree on everything. How old is your daughter?
SIMIN
She’ll be eleven in two weeks.
JUDGE (O.S.)
She can only come with you if her father gives his permission. If he doesn’t then she can’t leave.
Serious stuff. But the script online at Sony is different from what I recall as the subtitles on the screen. I found a transcript of the subtitles:
SIMIN
He can take everything, just give me my daughter
NADER
I’m entitled to our daughter, she doesn’t want to come with you anyways
Now, what does the judge have to say to this reactionary assertion that the father is “entitled” to his daughter?
JUDGE
He has rights to your daughter too …
And that’s why we need two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. A theocratic, reactionary state like that cannot be allowed to continue. Where is a modern Cato to rise in our Senate and demand: Persiam Delendam Est!