03 November 2008
Helping Iranians Find a Way Out
A major tenet of the Bush Administration has been its assumption that the U.S. has a right to change the behavior or structure of foreign governments when they do not play by our rules. It has concluded that the welfare of Americans depends on all other peoples allowing the U.S. to act freely in its own interest, particularly those nations that are endowed with control over assets we deem critical to our welfare. That puts the Middle East in an especially vulnerable position given the importance of energy.
That policy is dangerously wrong when it postulates that an acceptable means for achieving its goal is military action. Combating the similar conclusions of the German and Japanese states in the 1930s and 1940s was our rationale for entering WWII. The fortunate resolution of the Cold War that left the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower allowed us to invade Iraq with no effective sanction from the rest of the conventionally organized world. Of course, there has been violent opposition to our occupation, but it has been attributed to an international non-state terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda, and not to rightfully incensed patriots.
The ability of the U.S. to persist in its domination of Iraq has led the Bush Administration and its cheerleaders, such as the Heritage Foundation, to consider taking a similar course in Iran. Adopting such a strategy, however, would find much more effective opposition--the Persian cultural community, which has existed for thousands of years, would resist steadfastly. The wiser strategy would be to employ methods of public diplomacy and strengthen civil liberties in Iran. It will eventually help eradicate the current religious regime in Tehran and the threats to our interests that regime conveys.
Examining the requirements for using force to overthrow the Iranian government, as the Heritage Foundation does (cf. “U.S. Policy and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge,” James Phillips, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/hl942.cfm), is perhaps necessary in order to make the regime and the Iranian population consider seriously the ideas that we communicate to them through public diplomacy and non-violent sedition. But using military action to effect political change in Iran would be disastrous, and create an enemy out of a friendly nation caught in a theocratic trap out of which it has not yet found the way out.
A major tenet of the Bush Administration has been its assumption that the U.S. has a right to change the behavior or structure of foreign governments when they do not play by our rules. It has concluded that the welfare of Americans depends on all other peoples allowing the U.S. to act freely in its own interest, particularly those nations that are endowed with control over assets we deem critical to our welfare. That puts the Middle East in an especially vulnerable position given the importance of energy.
That policy is dangerously wrong when it postulates that an acceptable means for achieving its goal is military action. Combating the similar conclusions of the German and Japanese states in the 1930s and 1940s was our rationale for entering WWII. The fortunate resolution of the Cold War that left the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower allowed us to invade Iraq with no effective sanction from the rest of the conventionally organized world. Of course, there has been violent opposition to our occupation, but it has been attributed to an international non-state terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda, and not to rightfully incensed patriots.
The ability of the U.S. to persist in its domination of Iraq has led the Bush Administration and its cheerleaders, such as the Heritage Foundation, to consider taking a similar course in Iran. Adopting such a strategy, however, would find much more effective opposition--the Persian cultural community, which has existed for thousands of years, would resist steadfastly. The wiser strategy would be to employ methods of public diplomacy and strengthen civil liberties in Iran. It will eventually help eradicate the current religious regime in Tehran and the threats to our interests that regime conveys.
Examining the requirements for using force to overthrow the Iranian government, as the Heritage Foundation does (cf. “U.S. Policy and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge,” James Phillips, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/hl942.cfm), is perhaps necessary in order to make the regime and the Iranian population consider seriously the ideas that we communicate to them through public diplomacy and non-violent sedition. But using military action to effect political change in Iran would be disastrous, and create an enemy out of a friendly nation caught in a theocratic trap out of which it has not yet found the way out.
Comments:
Post a Comment
