How much should the US step in on Iran?

19Jun09

Part two of this wild ride we are calling the Iranian 2009 Election. There have been lots of opinions on the US Government’s handling of the situation (as if the United States’ government has legitimate in the region to handle it). Many on the right are complaining that President Obama isn’t doing enough to support the protesters, and as individuals living in a relatively free democratic (well, republic) state, I think we have all the obligation to do as much to support the dissenters as we can. However, the state is a different entity with a different role.

Regardless of who is chosen to rule Iran, the United States will still need to work with the leader. As much as a fraud election is undesired, those are the rules in an anarchic international system. Iran’s sovereignty needs to be respected for any chance of proper diologue.

Also, critics of the president is using the US’ history of helping the values of freedom and democracy as a reason to intervene now. One blaring problem with this line of reasoning is that America doesn’t have a history of supporting freedom and democracy, at best it would have a mixed history, one that favors leaders, democratic or dictators, who support American interests. When I hear commenators talk about this history, I wonder if they fell asleep during the entire Cold War period, a good forty years when the American government supported dictators, and even helped fund coups supporting dictators over a democratic system (Iran).

The Iranian people may like Americans (contrary to popular knowledge), but the Iranian government doesn’t.

It’s easy for individuals and legislators to tell the president to be more firm in his support for the protesters, but they won’t be the ones being blamed if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon.

Change must come from the Iranian people for a sustainable and legitimate result. To have the American government blatantly endorsing a candidate does not lead to a positive result. Americans tend to forget the nationalism is not unique phenomenon to them, that Iranians are proud to be Iranians.

The president who put human rights as the cornerstone of his presidency is widely cited as a unefficient president (Jimmy Carter) as much as he is seen as a great man. There is a difference between how an individual can act and the most effective behavior of a state. President Obama recognizes this difference, and I have a feeling if McCain won the election, the faces of this debate might be flipped.

Funny how power shapes the opinions of the parties.

Anyway, you should read John Kerry’s Editorial With Iran, Thank Before You Speak.

Advertisements


One Response to “How much should the US step in on Iran?”

  1. Taking a more insightful look at the historic relationship between the U.S. & Iran, we need to go back to the 50’s, where, when after the Iranian democratically elected President nationalized the oil companies, after Britain failed to renegotiate the contracts, the U.S. sent in the C.I.A. to help overthrow the elected President of Iran and install the Shaw. The Shaw subsequently, killed, tortured and/or imprisioned a substantial number of citizens, and, by the time he was overthrown, the vast majority of Iranians had a family member or relative that had been subjected to the Shaw’s ruthlessness.
    The U.S. also assisted in the installment Sadaam in Iraq and then fed both countries (enemies at the time) arms and the C.I.A., threw covert ops, asst. in fueling the hatred between the countries which ended in war between them. Goal: Have the leaders of the two countries spend so much money on the war, that they send their countries into economic chaos, making them vulnerable to further outside influence.
    When that didn’t work (actually it almost did) Iraq was still on the verge of economic collapse and the C.I.A. went to Kuwait. (The following was reported by the infamous Jack Anderson) The C.I.A. secured the King of Kuwait’s cooperation in flooding the market with oil, thus driving down the price of oil, exasperating Iraq’s economic problems.
    Sadaam went to the O.A.S. & O.P.E.C. numerous times prior to their invasion of Kuwait, complaining about Kuwait’s actions, and both organizations acknowledged Kuwait’s wrongful tactics, telling Kuwait to play by the rules in the name of stability within the Middle East. Kuwait ignored the organizations.
    So, Sadaam, who even made a final plea, within 72 hrs of the invasions, felt he had no other choice but to invade, since Kuwait had (in Sadaam’s opinion) threw its actions, declared war, threw the deliberate destruction of Iraq’s economy upon his country.
    Kuwait, being the small country it is, had no chance against Iraq in a military war, however, the U.S. flew the King and his Royal Army out of the country within 24 hrs of the invasioin, stepped in, and, cleaned up the mess they made. A mess that threw Iraq into deeper economic troubles. Troubles, that the U.S. hoped would provoke the Iraqi citizens to overthrow Sadaam.

    I think you know the rest.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: