Friday, June 26, 2009

Iran again, a second time

Once again, Iran is being used as a political tool to rally and motivate a segment of Americans into fury. The Bush administration used Iran to solidify their opposition to diplomacy, and further drive their extensive need to show solidarity with Israel. Obama's more measured response during the Iranian presidential election crisis does not sit well with the same segment that not one year before, were calling for the destruction of Iran. These neo-conservatives, who once had unopposed access to policy have been largely eviscerated by a more pragmatic administration. Ultimately, the attempts by the squealing chicken hawks to derail the diplomatic efforts of the current administration are transparent exercises in destabilizing Iran.

Currently, Iran is undergoing a crisis of identity, with a large dissatisfied segment of the population upset at the landslide victory that they see as stolen by Ahmedinajad. As with the Islamic Revolution of the late 70's, this current revolution for greater access to freedom is spurned by students and women, and has met a great deal more resistance. Iranians, regardless of the West's attempts at painting a singular picture are a variable and proud people with a history that rivals any nation in the world. Throughout Iranian history, changes have come and gone, and the people know the power of revolt and uprising. This is not for Americans to dictate, or Europeans, but for Iranians alone. We have no right to involve ourselves in Iranian politics, because they do not want our support. The demonstrators want to absolve their nation of tyranny, and they do not look for foreign support. There may be a few disparate segments who may, but in general, most Iranians, even those who expect an overturning revolution, want it from within. The US has shown its unreliability when they deposed the democratically elected Iranian government, headed by Prime minister Mosaddeq in 1953. Their expected exploitation of Iranian resources backfired with the revolution of 1979. This was Iran's answer to US involvement in politics. The same mistakes must not be made again.

The neo-Conservative cry to support Iran's dissatisfied masses has little to do for empathy towards Iranians, and everything to do with quelling Iran's growing economic potential. By destabilizing Iran in this manner, two possible outcomes are expected. In one, the demonstrations grow to a point where a new revolution is made. With supposed international support, those newly elected in power may be more willing to allow Iran's economic resources to be exploited. A second, far more likely scenario, is the continued demonstrations, and crack-downs, resulting in widespread chaos. With Iran in such turmoil, the Iranian government would have problems developing their economic potential in their own terms. Ultimately, this all comes down to the West's persistent attempt at controlling Iran's growth. The opposition to nuclear technology has little to do with Iran's potential nuclear arsenal, and more to do with their energy needs of the future. With an energy surplus, powering an economy that's basically off the grid of Western control, Iran can move in many different directions. Russia and China may realize that uniting with Iran can create a block against Western interests. Further, the danger that Iran may attack Israel is negligible, when Israel has nuclear weapons that are readily capable of turning Iran dust. Yet, the threat from Israel attacking Iran pre-emptively is quite high. Again, this is directly tied to Iran's separate economic potential. Further, with Iran's large, educated populace, their untapped economic potential is vast. All these indicators point towards every possible means of destabilizing Iran's current progress. Ideology is not as powerful as economics, and sadly, this is what dictates modern thinking. Driving Adam Smith's economic theory into every possible orifice of every possible culture so they can be a known element. Far be it from allowing a theocracy to develop economic potential on their own terms. It must be Western-style democracy and nothing else.

No comments: