Von Rothbart and the Iran deal
You may think I’ve gone stark raving mad. What could Van Rothbart, the evil magician in the ballet “Swan Lake,” have to do with the Iran deal?
Answer: not all that much. But in the wake of the Iran deal I keep having an image of a moment from the third act of that ballet.
Let me set the scene. Most people know about Act II of the ballet, in which Swan Queen Odette has been cast under a spell by the evil magician von Rothbart. He has turned her into a white swan, only allowed to resume her human form at night, and then only semi-human because she retains some of her swan characteristics. This makes for some lovely dancing when we meet Odette, she meets the Prince, and they fall in love.
Now, as with many spells, there’s a catch—an escape hatch, if you will. If a man falls in love with her and declare his eternal love, she becomes free unless his vow is broken. If he betrays her, she’s stuck forever in swanland.
The ballet never explains why Rothbart has it in for her; he is evil, and he just does. But when Odette and the Prince look as though they’re on their way to freedom, he can’t let that happen. Since he’s into spells, he disguises his daughter as the Swan Queen, only this time she wears a black tutu rather than a white one and is named Odile—just to help the audience out, unless it would get too confused. She arrives at a party at the castle and beguiles the Prince though her beauty, her dancing, and her crafty imitation of Odette. Although in most versions I’ve seen she emanates evil and should hardly fool a child into thinking she’s actually Odette (even though both roles are danced by the same ballerina), somehow the gullible Prince (who must want to believe) is fooled.
That’s when the moment comes: Rothbart makes it clear to the Prince (in mime) that he must vow eternal love (in mime, which involves hand on heart and other arm raised, with two fingers pointing upwards) to Odile. Our silly Prince happily makes the vow, at which point von Rothbart and Odile laugh in triumph and run off to the accompaniment of various stage effects that vary with the productions, but which often involve flashes of lightning, small explosions, and smoke, and more of their raucous “I fooled you!” laughter. After this, even the dumb-but-well-meaning Prince realizes he’s been had, especially as the figure of Odette has appeared, mourning, through a window and behind a scrim. The scene closes with the Prince racing off in panic to find her, and then with the Queen, his domineering mother, fainting at the shock and horror of it all. This was not what she had planned for the party.
I’m making light of it, perhaps because I’m in a bitter mood, and also because it’s extremely easy to make fun of such over-the-top schmaltz. It looks especially silly on video. But let me just say that when you are in a theater and watch a really good version, where the principles carry conviction as well as technique, the denouement is one of the most dramatic moments on the stage, almost guaranteed to send a literal chill down one’s spine.
I looked for a definitive version on YouTube that highlights the triumphant and derisive laughter, but unfortunately I couldn’t find one with camerawork that focused on von Rothbart and Odile. The video-takers are usually too busy looking at the Prince and all the general hubbub to notice. But this 2005 production of American Ballet Theater will give you a bit of the idea (I’ve cued it up to automatically start at the right point):
Now to get back to the Iran deal analogy, who’s who? Between Obama and Kerry, who’s von Rothbart and who’s Odile? Well, it’s not a perfect match, but I think I’ve put them in the right order. However, the hapless Prince would have to be the American people and the Western world, although they (like the Prince) bear some guilt for bad judgment.
Those who ascribe to the “fool rather than knave” theory of Obama (I do not) would say that Obama is the Prince as well, with the Iranian mullahs von Rothbart and perhaps Rouhani as Odile.
I haven’t mentioned the way the ballet ends. You may already know: Odette and the Prince kill themselves, and are united in heaven. In the Soviet version, which didn’t cotton to that sort of thing, the Prince killed von Rothbart and broke the spell, and the couple lived happily ever after in a large and state-furnished apartment on vodka and caviar.
I made that last little bit up about the apartment, but the rest was true.
[NOTE: I have a feeling this will be the only post I’ll ever write that is listed under “Dance” plus “Iran.”]
[ADDENDUM: Just now, only a few minutes after publishing this post, I noticed this at Powerline by Scott Johnson: a photo of Iranian Foreign Minister and negotiator Javad Zarif yesterday, standing on a balcony at the nuclear talks venue and laughing. The post is entitled, “How to think about the Iran deal in one photo.” Indeed—same as von Rothbart and Odile.]
I know the music pretty well, but not the ballet. In the stage version, which character plays the role of fifth columnist Valerie Jarrett?
F:
Well, you could say that Jarrett is actually von Rothbart, and Obama is Odile.
That works, too, although Kerry wouldn’t have a role at all. Perhaps he’s just a stagehand.
Stagehands don’t get Nobel Peace Prizes. Kerry is counting on one.
What could Van Rothbart, the evil magician in the ballet “Swan Lake,” have to do with the Iran deal?
Are we talking the all male version, or the regular versions?
Matthew Bourne’s Ballet Clips- “Swan Lake”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChOnhxe-Vm0
it was interesting to see…
but then, all the linked adverts made it hard to go to another play, as you get inundated based on what they think you like based on one time showing. i was dating a choreographer, we broke up, but i owed her, so i took her and her new boyfriend to the play… then got inundated with gay literature, bath house ads, naked male reviews, etc.
so now i dont bother with broadway anymore as most of whats there will lead to crazy emails of things you dont want. (i dont know what they are thinking as their methods make no sense. i just bought a computer, so sending me ads to buy another computer make no sense, as did many other things. in fact the whole googleverse bs on adverts is super annoying and the linkages make one not want to bother with the net so much as fb and other things have you linked. dont answer questions for friends or else your “permanent record” may describe you as something your not)
I don’t, and I know almost everything.
F:
Well, if so, he will be in the illustrious company of Yasser Arafat, who won in 1994.
As for nominees and near-nominees, Neville Chamberlain was nominated but not awarded the prize.
That is a great post, you really nailed it. I agree with you in not (charitably) believing the occupant of the Oval Office is merely a fool. Would that we all be so lucky. Now if it’s a garden-variety village idiot you’re looking for, the horse-faced buffoon running the State Department is your man.
Perfect analogy!
Speaking of ballet, what is your take on Misty Copeland?
Have you seen her dance?
Francesca:
See this.
You are not surprised. We are not surprised that you are not surprised. You expected this. We expected this.
No one imagines it will turn out well. At best some Republican will be saddled with cleaning up a mess and then be execrated for it later.
Perhaps, finally, you will have a topic on which your modern-liberal friends and relatives will be anxious to engage you. Perhaps.
The question isn’t whether the moral – Mr. Positive Liberty, and “This is the way we care for each other” – alien in the White House is set on the destruction of western civilization and most especially classical liberty. But rather just how far he is willing to go. Both in the sense of accomplishing it, as well as the sense of where and what he eventually expects to result as a life way.
I guess if you wanted to be generous, you would imagine that he would be content with a left-wing Euro-style social justice and welfare state replacing the one we currently have.
However, I don’t think that he would be quite satisfied with just that. There would still be plenty to expunge. And then there is the matter of cutting off all routes of non-compliance and escape. The would-be “wreckers” must be dealt with with a firm hand. Even if it requires a bit of peremptory and anticipatory action.
Your “sister in law” would probably approve … and she would not be the only one.
DNW:
I think most will have no problem with it, and this is why—they don’t pay attention to details, and Obama, most Democrats, and the MSM will tell them it’s a good deal, with all sorts of checks built in, and will make the world safer. They will be told that the Republicans are just opposing because they hate Democrats and Obama, and like to stir up trouble for them, as well as also being fearmongers and warmongers and not willing to Give Peace a Chance.
It’s all a seamless whole, particularly if you’re not paying attention and just want everyone to be happy.
“This isn’t a treaty of peace… I can see at least eleven wars in it.” William C. Bullitt – 1919 Pact of Paris
history repeats itself, so i dont think its swan lake, i think its a repeat of 1938 Munich Agreement
“I’ll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers.” – Hitler talking about Chamberlain
There are many Munich parallels!!!!
including how the press is acting with obama and the shtick they make. the endagering of allies, and negating their positions. the future war potential increased for a short current idea of some ephemerial peace that does not actually exist, and on and on.
“Living in the Islamic Republic is like having sex with someone you loathe.”
― Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran
Forgot that in this deal, Isreal is poland and uae is Czechoslovakia… the press will fawn over chamberlain/obama…
but remember, it was not the munich agreement that really started WWII, it was the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact that did!!!!!
anyone other than myself know that russia and iran have similar non agression pacts and treaties of mutuality?
Russia gave the green light to a long-stalled $800 million deal to deliver an advanced anti-missile rocket system to Iran, bringing sharp criticism from the White House and Israel and new political peril for President Obama’s prospective nuclear deal with Tehran.
and
Iran and Russia have signed a military cooperation pact
“We are in favor of long-term and multi-level cooperation with Iran and welcome the Iranian leadership’s attempts to expanding its ties with Russia, including in military defense. We have common challenges and threats in the region that we can oppose only if we communicate.” –Shoigu
The S-300 is regarded as one of the most potent anti-aircraft missile systems currently fielded
here is the problem.. they are not designating WHICH system, and the claim that the west can pass it… maybe the earlier ones, but not the newest ones… not to mention the s400 which also carries an s300 designation!!!
[and this would be used with the new system that can shut down our ships, air equipment, etc… makes them go completely cold like a lightswitch and completely inoperable]
they are supposed to get five S-300 squadrons.
Obama’s comment on S-300 supply to Iran sparked “shock and amazement” among Israeli analysts, the Times of Israel reported.
“Jaws dropped” around Israel’s Channel 10 News studio, said the diplomatic commentator Ben Caspit.
“He’s amazed that the Russians honored an agreement with him [for this long]? That’s what is astonishing”
will they give them he new system that they shipped to venezuela?
Artfldgr:
The Munich parallels have been pointed out time and again, on this blog and others (especially Powerline), and in many articles. See this, this, and this.
This post was a different way to look at it, one that came at it from a different angle, that of art rather history.
But of course the historical parallels are clear.
They said Bush was being a cowboy, unilateral, and thus public opinion would be able to hold him like like Gulliver.
As it is easy to see, a US President has no functional limit on his powers, besides Congress and the SC.
When Congress and the SC are with the President, what makes anyone think their public opinion matters a damn? It doesn’t, it never did.
Bush could have railroaded every single one of the anti war protestors and traitorous saboteurs if he wanted to. Just didn’t want to.
One of the little prophecies I liked to use as a comparison to Leftists, is that if what the Left said about Bush and his admin were true, the Leftists would have long ago been thrown into the Pacific trenches, never to be seen nor heard again. Certainly the internet trolls would have been terminated sooner or later.
And yet, there they remain, mouthing off.
Now look at the obverse. If Hussein Obola is as I said he was… what would have to be true, what would happen?
People underestimate the power of the Leftist alliance at their own peril. Now that they have decided to mobilize the full force of their military and economic assets to win the war, do people really think they stand a chance when all they ever talk about are politics, winning elections, and voting?
This is the Left you are dealing with here. Take them lightly and watch what happens.
Ymarsakar:
You’re leaving out something pretty big: the press.
Obama has the press behind him, Bush had the press attacking him. That changes public opinion, and public opinion, if stirred up enough, can act to pressure Congress and even the Supreme Court. I think Bush would have run the risk of having either or both turn against him. In his last two terms, he faced a Democratic Congress. Not only that, but Republicans in Congress have a history of being willing to turn on their own presidents if they feel the offense is bad enough. Nixon resigned because members of his own party had desrted him; they went to him and told him that he was about to be impeached and that he would be convicted because the Republicans were deserting him.
That could have happened to Bush. It will not happen to Obama.
Obama has the press behind him, Bush had the press attacking him.
Hussein has control of the press due to blackmail plus media preference. While Bush would not have gained the same control, violence and force will still obtain some degree of media control. Cause they are weaklings and cowards, they bow down to force and power. They don’t speak truth to power, they speak power to truth.
Nixon resigned because members of his own party had desrted him
Nixon resigned because he had a conscience and wasn’t a corrupt crook like Clinton or other Demoncrats. With the world arrayed against him, it only took a few allies turning ship to turn the tide.
Ymarsakar:
You are incorrect.
It was NOT just a few allies of Nixon who turned against him. Virtually all the Republicans abandoned him.
This is what happened [emphasis mine]:
It was NOT just a few allies of Nixon who turned against him.
I didn’t say it was a few allies. It said it was enough to make Nixon bend, only a few were enough to do that, it didn’t need to be everyone.
Ymarsakar:
But it was not a few, it was an overwhelming majority, far more than enough to impeach and convict him.
So, how can you say “a few” were enough? Until he discovered it was virtually the entire Republican Congress, he had hung tough and was going to fight it.
But it was not a few, it was an overwhelming majority, far more than enough to impeach and convict him.
What does that matter? If a feather was enough, and a brick lands on him, the brick does the job, but I’m not stating that the brick was required.
Until he discovered it was virtually the entire Republican Congress, he had hung tough and was going to fight it.
People like Nixon fought for themselves or their own ideals. That allows him to suck up losses due to voter corruption, without losing his faith in the American people or system. It’s why he supported Israel, even though he knew Jews hated him, refused to vote for him, and would never recognize his actions as just.
For people like that, with real enemies in and around them, it doesn’t take much for their exceptional talents to be eroded by the sheer weight of human corruption and vileness. The more Nixon tried to fix things, the more his energy was sapped and saboteurs tried to overthrow him.
At a certain point, his faith in humanity will break, his will to fight will break. When the Republican party decided to support the Left in throwing him out, it didn’t matter how many of them would do so. The fact that they would even think of doing so, would be enough to shatter Nixon’s will. What else was he going to believe in after he realized the entire world was his enemy, both his own people and the enemies of his people? Sooner or later he was going to have to either fight until he drops dead, or realize that he was trying to save an America that didn’t want to be saved. What was the point?
Ymarsakar:
Let’s review.
You wrote:
I responded:
You responded:
But actually, that’s exactly what you had said, and so I replied:
And then your reply is basically that it didn’t matter how many of them turned against him, a few would have been enough, and would have been “enough to shatter Nixon’s will.” That is quite speculative, and my point is that he seemed to have plenty of will to fight those who wanted to impeach him right until the moment he discovered that it was the vast majority of Republicans in Congress who would not support him.
Nixon was a scrappy guy, not an idealist. He was not above fighting dirty himself, and had been doing so for many years. He was a quintessential politician, not someone who had illusions about human nature. And he had always had plenty of people who hated him, to whom he gave back as good as he got.
As far as Jewish support went, Nixon got more Jewish votes in 1968 than Goldwater had in 1964 (17% vs. 10%). He got a LOT more in 1972 (35%), more than his successor Ford did in 1976 (27%), and not unlike Reagan’s totals in 1980 and 1984 (39% and 31%) and Bush I’s in 1988 (35%). It was also more than any Republican candidate has received in every presidential election since.
Jews had no special animus for Nixon, if you look at that record. Or, if they did, it certainly seemed to evaporate in 1972. Jews voted for Democrats and against Republicans in general.
Nixon had a lot of negative things to say about Jews (in private), but he did not let that get in the way of his support for Israel.
With the world arrayed against him, it only took a few allies turning ship to turn the tide.
And then your reply is basically that it didn’t matter how many of them turned against him, a few would have been enough,
A few allies turning ship turned the tide of Nixon’s will to fight, thus it doesn’t matter that ultimately the entirety of Congress was against him. Once Nixon lost his will to fight, nobody else was going to sacrifice themselves for his sake anyways.
What mattered is what it would take to break Nixon’s will. His conscience and the world turning against him, is enough. The world was already against him in Vietnam and when Israel got their back caught in a crack. He still fought on. It was only afterwards, due to the domestic coup, that he lost his will to fight. Rather than the numbers of Congress or the legal technicalities being what turned the tide, I proposed a different interpretation. The Left is a good example of what people can do when their will to fight is not broken. What became of Nixon, did he resurface or do something else against his Leftist enemies that destroyed him and his country, later on when the Congress shifted hands or opinions? Or did he just fade away like a broken soldier. A person that inherited Vietnam and tried his best to bring back the patriots with a victory, would he have given up so easily?
This line is consistent with my posts. It’s merely quantified and elaborated on more now.
Jews had no special animus for Nixon, if you look at that record.
The anti Republican propaganda was strong enough. Blacks often have no particular animus against individual whites or Republicans either, it’s the history involved and the propaganda.
Ymarsakar:
Why do you say Nixon lost the will to fight when only a few allies turned against him? What is your evidence? What I’ve read—from every source I’ve seen—says the opposite: that he only lost the will to fight when he discovered that almost all the Republicans in Congress had turned against him. Until then, he fought and fought and fought.
Excerpts:
It was after that that Nixon learned nearly all the Republicans had turned on him, and he realized that the tapes would implicate him as well, and he resigned.
More here.
Wouldn’t his own cabinet turning on him and thus rendering his entire administration unworkable, be a better contender for what broke his ability and will to fight, rather than Congress?
Congress reacted to his own cabinet’s lack of faith or support, it seems.
Nixon pushed too hard on his own people, thus checkmating himself, since he didn’t realize what the Left and the FBI sub director had already done. That was perhaps a personality flaw due to paranoia or rather improper intelligence on what he was dealing with here, it wasn’t merely Watergate itself. Without his own Cabinet, I don’t see how he could have continued fighting even if he wanted. What work was he supposed to do, now that his own people had fallen off the platform or been pushed off?