To break this down, who is President Donald Trump? Who is Iran? What is Hell?
Donald Trump is the elected President of the United States of America (identifiable in international politics by a flag and a national anthem). At their (this writer is neither American nor in America) last election it was all hands for Trump, meaning the overwhelming majority of both Houses and a wide diversity of humans and genders. Political commentators call this a landslide victory but this blog does not appropriate such terms for the use of modern politics.
What is Iran? Iran is the land definition of the Islamic Republic of Iran, right central in the east-west historical complications arising from Christianity gaining power in the Roman Empire and disrupting the natural course of events. President Masoud Pezeshkian, only in leadership less than a year after the USA killed President Rainsi, is a heart surgeon and even though being President means he could not also be working as a heart surgeon, he would still be able to perform a complicated operation if needed.
What is Hell? Hell is the place formalized by the Christians and their text, where non-believers will spend eternity while the believers live in heaven, but as with all of Christianity, it was constructed by appropriating all various aspects from contemporary Greek and Roman, and surrounding cultures, and all native cultures have our own particular beliefs about life on earth and the cosmos, and the humans within that. As yet there is no evidence of the Christian’s Hell, although there is abundant evidence of spirit life after death, and there is no evidence of their heaven either. Hell on earth however is now a reality and the stakes only get higher and higher.
Why the title Trump -v- Iran? Should it not be Trump -v- Pezeshkian? A previous ‘post’ did ask of the difference between leader of land and leader of ideology, with the very simple demarcation of the leader of a land has nowhere else to go. They could be given a place in a friendly country, but they would still be the person of that land, not of their new living place. Running that line through present day leaders of the human world, it is a quick check on what exactly conflicts are about.
Tribal conflicts are as olde as the hills, and took place and still do in and around hills, rivers, moorlands, equatorial forests, mountains and icy lands, but not as icy as Eskimos because they are too busy for such things and too desecrated by film crews arriving to film the last polar bear and in the process melting the very ice flow the polar bear needs, paradoxically. No, true tribal conflicts are a normal part of life on Earth. Each tribe has a leader, the people do not have much choice but because they are all so busy the folks don’t really make a fuss because they know the leader is doing his or her (Boudica a good example here) job and would be the first to die in conflict. That’s an honest way to live.
The leader of a land however, is not that much difference to a tribal leader, only the scale is larger. They are still speaking for the land and the people of that land. The USA killed the previous Iranian leader but another one quickly stepped in. Some of the citizens might not like it, but the leadership continuity was fairly simple, and very continuous when compared with err… current events in the ‘UK’.
That Donald Trump was elected by so many, so hoping for a simpler era and even the radio news had interviews of American citizens openly saying they would go through harder times willingly, just to get to that simpler state of affairs, where goods bought and consumed within America had been made in America. That is the equation of leadership to citizen, and the massive majority in the USA to end the hot air of the lefties and get back to something functional, well, there were a lot of folks who quietly said how they wished for something like that here. Such things have to be said quietly in the ‘UK’, such is the political conflict and the risk of being prosecution for having been radicalised for speaking facts.
To take out a President not too far from your own centre of power is within the margins of reality and possibility, as Venezuela found earlier this year when the USA removed their President and took him away. But conflict far from geographical reality, on matters of religion – the Christian west -v- Middle East Islam, trade and energy – the blocking of just one small waterway on the planet of Earth has already resulted in global crisis, and the methods of warfare – now nuclear arms conflict, drones, warships in the Gulf region, all the various conflicts going on around Iran and which this writer is not entitled to comment on, and the supply of weapons and who is funding who, these three points could be said to constitute Hell on Earth.
There would be a worse Hell, if Sol, Helios, Ghrian, throws a solar flare on the scale of the Carrington Event somewhere back 150 years ago, all electricity will fail on this spinning mass of rock in space. If Campi Flegrei in the Phlegraean Fields erupts that will change the course of events in 2026. And the ‘UK’ is facing a big Hell with its dwindling food and water resources and not a lot of friends left. But in this equation of the present Trump -v- Iran, where the President of Iran speaks for a land and yes with the Islamic religion on that land but with the long history of Arabic science and philosophy still intact, and Donald Trump speaks for military might and the USA resuming its global glory, where will this end?
This blog has a useful suggestion which could be considered. It has already suggested that a new Nobel Peace Prize be hastily convened, that of Nuclear Dismantlement. If the model of France was followed that nuclear turns to heating homes and businesses then that reduces the need for oil at all then those Middle Eastern countries who have been destroyed by western need and greed might have a little more respect than is due at the moment. If there is no nuclear weapon as the overall threat then Iran might not be so keen to enrich their uranium.
If all warfare was further reduced to no manufactured armourments, which includes drones, guns, warships, submarines, war planes, all remote surveillance and all arsenal in the smaller bombs and bullets what would be left?
Archery would be left, a fine method of defence, hunting, and all round societal fitness. Knowing how to find the wood, make a bow, sharpen a flint for an arrowhead, these things are good for young people to learn. Hand to hand combat separates the men from the boys (as the phrase goes, and it had better not continue with the gender terms because it is illegal in the ‘UK’ to talk of function nowadays).
Arm wrestling is a clear winner and loser, and can be observed by onlookers for any foul play. The armies at the frontier in centuries before air and digital warfare took its hold, that was horrible for those in that frontline, but it was clear at least. Or, clarity in the other direction could also be considered, that somebody with the power to approach that button, put their finger on the nuclear and just press. That would end Hell on Earth and the plight of the natural world which through no doing of its own finds its habitat disappearing, its food and survival just running out, and the changing temperatures forcing it to migrate into places it was never designed to exist and survive. Or maybe Sol could throw that solar flare, a strong overarm flare to reset reality on Earth if the leaders of the Protestant west cannot stop this progressive disintegration. If a poll was held with citizens obliged to vote, what would the citizens of the USA vote for now, so caught between the rock and the hard place they are?
And where does it leave the population of Iran, also caught between a rock and a hard place with democracy having got its foot in the door? Where and what is Hell in 2026?