Putting Ourselves In The Other Fellow's Shoes!

By Matthew Clark

During the Cold War between Western Capitalist Christian Civilization on one side, and Communist Materialism (Un)Civilization on the other side, a major advantage possessed by citizens of nations recognizing individual rights which their peers in totalitarian states did not enjoy, was an ability to put themselves in the other fellows (adversary) shoes. With that virtue political leaders of democratic nations understood that as a result of their WWII ordeal at the hands of the National Socialists (NAZIS), Soviet Government leaders, along with their citizens, had a mania for territorial security. Recognizing this mania did not mean that Westerners succumbed to Soviet desires, most of the time we did not. It did nevertheless contribute to the start of negotiations which, in retrospect, might have prevented nuclear war.

Furthermore, also during the Cold War, Western lawmakers and their constituents, realized that the irrational fanaticism expressed by Communist Maoist Chinese often stemmed from the Century of Humiliation (1839-1949, so actually 110 years), an era where territory and national soverneignty was forcibly transferred from the Chinese to Western nations, as well as Japan. Again that irrational fanaticism was not appeased, yet it was recognized, and discussed. In both cases it was acknowledged to the Soviets and the Chinese that they did have grievences, yet those abuses were not going to be indulged in a manner that would threaten the liberty of Westerners, or their allies in other parts of the globe. Putting ourselves in the other fellows shoes meant that the Cold War never went hot, while individual freedom prevailed in the liberal democracies.

It is therefore somewhat alarming to observe comtemporary Western lawmakers conducting themselves as if their geopolitical opponents are unworthy of any consideration. Political leaders of the Western Alliance demand compliance from their opponents, sometimes acting without restraint in pursuing policy. An example is the seizing of not only Russian government assets over the invasion of Russian military forces into Ukraine, yet also annexing the assets of private Russian citizens with investments in foreign lands.

A further case in point is the war initiated by Israel and the United States against Iran. On February 27, 2026 military forces of the United States and Israel commenced surprise missile attacks against a multitude of targets in Iran, including tens of dozens of Iranian politicians, despite the fact representatives of the three nations were in the midst of peace negotiations. Negotiations which, according to Oman government officials hosting the talks, the Iranians displayed a willingness to accomodate the terms demanded by the American negotiators. When senior Iranian government members met in Tehran (the Iranian capital) to discuss the talks between the three countries, they were executed by an Israeli missile. Was this a setup by the Americans and Israelis?

On December 7, 1941 Imperial Japanese military forces launched a surprise attack against United States, British, and Netherland soldiers, airmen, and naval personnel, as well as those nations military installations. This surprise attack infuriated Americans, who rightly saw it as an underhanded act. Is what the Israeli's and Americans did on February 27, 2026 any less underhanded? Arguably not.

Since February of 2022 the United States, along with other North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations has been providing the government members of Ukraine with satellite surveillance of Russian military forces. This is to assist Ukaine armed personnel in their war with Russia. Given this fact it appears nonsensical for members of the United States government to insist that the Russian government decline to provide Iranian forces with satellite surveillance of United States and Israeli armed forces conducting operations against Iran. Yet that is exactly what the Americans did! Obviously the Russians are going to treat the Americans in the same fashion as they have been treated by Americans. Instead of bellyaching the leaders of the Western world should show some dignity and shut up!

After subjecting the people of Iran to a deluge of missiles and bombs, U.S. President Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister, along with senior military staff, encouraged the Iranian public to overthrow their government. Liberty was held out as a reward upon the undertaking being successfully completed. To date their has been no revolt. If our political leaders placed themselves in the shoes of the average Iranian they might understand why there has been no revolt against the Mullahs. Iranians are a highly educated people. They are aware that the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria were all promised individual freedom and a better nation if they rebelled against their political hierarchy. Nevertheless when their governments were replaced they did not experience individual freedom, and their nation(s) were certinly not better off than they had been under the previous rulers!

Senior Western political and military officials threaten the Iranians with total physical destruction unless they surrender unconditionally to Israel and the United States. Do they not realize that such bullying will only serve to motivate the Iranians into defiance of their enemies demands! That is how people tend to respond to bullying. Every time these problematic demands are made against Iran that nations people become filled with greater resolve to triumph over their adversaries. Six weeks ago Iranians were in the streets protesting against their autocratic rulers. Today, thanks to the current United Staes and Israeli government administrations, they celebrte their mullahs. That is the outcome of Western Lawmakers not putting themselves in the shoes of their opponents.

The last 25 years have been an epoch of one geopolitical failure after another for Western nations. It does not matter if the government administrations were right wing or left wing, populist or globalist, socialist, liberal, or conservative. All have failed on the geo-political stage. Looking back on them all it seems apparent that one major characteristic they all had in common was an inability to put themselves in the other fellows shoes.