I hear a lot of people on the radio and see a lot of people on the Internet saying “what does it matter if Moussavi does end becoming president of Iran and Ahmadinejad is ousted. Moussavi is no more pro-west than Ahmadinejad is and both stand for Iran’s right to have nuclear power.” They also seem to agree with Obama’s “no-meddling” stance on the issue.
I would have to disagree. I think the reason we should be supporting the people who are protesting their right of freedom is because there are obvious signs that the government ran a corrupt election. This shouldn’t be about who America wants to be in office. Who America thinks is best for Iran. It should be about what the people of Iran think is best. It should be about whom the people of Iran vote into office and the freedoms they feel like they deserve. I don’t think there is a clear answer on whom that Iranian man might be solely because of how suspicious this election was, how quickly it was announced and how lopsided the results were, among other things. I think the response of the Iranian government to the allegations of impropriety make me want to call bullshit. And I have to ask myself since when did America stop “meddling” for the right of freedom?
I can understand where you are coming from, but I think you're view American's promotion of freedom and democracy around the world is a bit naive.
ReplyDeleteDuring what I think was the 60's, Iran had an elected leader whose name escapes me at the moment, who wanted to nationalize their oil supply. We overthrew him and put the Sha into power, not because they would somehow promote democracy and freedom better than an actual elected leader, but because the would promote our national interest in keeping Iran from nationalizing their oil supply.
What was the consequence of this? Iranians took American prisoners. It was a long, drawn out scenario that drew up hatred from both sides.
American citizens had the right to be angry as did the Iranians. But our anger was both misguided and misdirected. We were angry at the Iranians for something that was initially caused by our government "meddling" in the affairs of others.
The problem with this is that we hardly ever enter into these situations with pure intentions. We choose to enter the wars for political and national interest and sell them off the the people and world as fights for freedom and democracy.
Who do we really think we are that we can storm a country in the name of "democracy" when what we really intend to do make sure "our" oil is safe? How is oil buried underneath the Iranian sand "our" oil? It's not.
And not to jump off topic too far, but this does relate. If we really want to get off of the addiction to foreign oil and pursue alternate forms of energy, why don't we let them do what they want with their oil? Let the price per barrel reach true market value. When the price becomes so high the consumer no longer purchases it, I guarantee you the market will provide an alternative. Americans have it in their D-N-A. Always have and always will.
My point is this: if you believe in interventionism for the sake of freedom and democracy I can respect that. The problem is we intervene with national/political interest disguised as a beautiful cloak of liberty.
I think you attempt to go way beyond what I stated as my beliefs and came up with conclusions towards my personal foreign policy that haven't been stated. You seem to be justifying a lot of what my passage said, while there are some significant differences. But I will cover the history of what you were discussing.
ReplyDeleteYour history of Iran is all off... however I understand the point you are making. Iran never had an elected leader in the 60’s, they had a monarch, Shah Pahlavi, who actually was a very close ally of the American government. Also during Pahlavi’s rule, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of monarchy. The Prime Minister (your elected official working for the Shah) in the 1951 nationalized the Iranian gas industry. He was ousted from office with American help but Iran has continued to have a nationalized oil company and a nationalized gas company since 1951. It would be another 27 years until that monarchy would be overthrown. And all during those 27 years of nationalized gas and oil the Shah and America had an outstanding relationship.
The Shah was overthrown in 1978. The relationship between Iran and the United States continued to get worse under the Islamic Revolution, whereas the Shah himself, after being exiled, came to the United States for medical attention. The capturing of prisoners was a result of the students in Tehran attacking our Embassy in response to the United States not willing to hand over the Shah for trial and certain death, among other things. At this point there was no formal government set up in Iran, and wouldn’t be for almost 2 years, and the Shah was actually seeking asylum in Panama by then. The capturing of American hostages was done by the revolution not the monarchy trying to hold on to their nationalized oil and gas. The result of this non-American supported revolution was an Islamic Republic with a non-elected ruler in the Grand Master, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Although these facts void the argument that America meddling too much in Iran’s affairs in support of protecting our interests in oil, I can see where you are coming from and there have been more relevant examples in the near past.
I am not naive to the fact that our government has a strong history of protecting American’s interests while using the cloak of liberty, which I in fact think they should. I am optimistic to the belief that we attempt to balance our interests versus the interests of helping the oppressed.
I do feel we have an obligation to stand up for the oppressed when they are being denied basic freedoms. I think the definition of meddling might be a key issue here too. I am not saying we should attack Iran or send in secret black op agents. I am saying that when the leader of the free world says he doesn’t think we should meddle in the affairs of a foreign government’s brutal treatment of its citizens or highly suspicious election results we have a problem. Obama is afraid to even give a sound-bite and that strengthens the resolve of those who hate America. I have a feeling this is a fundamentally profound difference in our personal foreign policy.
To be continued...
Continued...
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I wouldn’t be surprised if the government is trying to hedge their bet by not voicing support or concern for the protestors of this “Green Revolution.” There is a slim chance that leadership will change in Iran right now and they want to come out on the upside is my feeling.
Also, on that the oil under Iran is Iran’s oil… I think that was what my whole passage was about. “It should be about what the people of Iran think is best. It should be about whom the people of Iran vote into office and the freedoms they feel like they deserve.” I think that goes along with what they want to do with their oil. I also don’t necessary agree with your economics of oil but we can discuss that another day.
To your last point: I do believe in interventionism for the sake of freedom and democracy. The problem I see in your thinking is you have completely disconnected intervening for freedom/democracy with keeping our national/political interest in mind. I think both are fundamental in any intervention. I am not naive to how hard it is to balance this but I don’t think the solution is giving up intervention all together.