Have you wondered why Iran keeps making its way back to the
headlines in America? The fear mongering abounds, the outcry does not seem to
cease and a nuclear apocalypse is said to be imminent. The threat remains the
same—Iran almost, almost…already…kind of got the bomb. No, wait…it got all the
necessary components, nuclear fuel from Russia, etc. to make the bomb that it
can use to leverage its position in the Middle East.
In the meantime, politically dysfunctional Pakistan and rogue North Korea have tons of weapons and missiles, but these facts make only
an occasional appearance in the mass media outlets. In addition, the
aforementioned countries do not receive the same level of demonization as Iran
does.
Thus, the question arises: Why Iran? Why Iran and not North
Korea, Pakistan or even Somalia (save for the occasional pirate stories).
What makes Iran so special to be the prime target of every
newspaper commentator and TV pundit? Furthermore, what do we know about Iran,
its history, culture, heritage and current situation to throw our weight behind
all proposed sanctions, embargoes and other devastating actions.
Why Iran remains the target of the USA foreign policy? This
is the intellectual challenge I am willing to undertake to understand the idiosyncrasies
of this situation. Moreover, I hope my readers will assist me in furthering
this understanding.
The relations between USA and Iran began to deteriorate
after the Iranian popular revolution of 1979, which ousted the monarch and
established the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the aftermath, America adopted a
harder line toward the Middle East in order to preserve the regional status
quo.
Regular readers of the Foreign
Affairs magazine, published by the prestigious Council on Foreign
Relations, might have read numerous policy articles on the Middle East region. The
apparent fact is that this region is composed of diverging nation-states, some
of which have aspirations for regional dominance. In order to preserve status
quo, America is actively engaged in the region to prevent any one country from
reaching the status of the regional hegemon and to continue to set its own
policy.
The Iraq was taken out of the picture during the American led invasion
in 2003. The next aspiring actor in the region is Iran. Its strength and
vitality must be extinguished in order to fulfill the policy of preventing any
one power to control region’s development, thereby ensuring the preservation of
American primacy in the region.
It is quite apparent that United States’ policy toward Iran
is twofold. First, all the war conflicts and military operations carried out by
the Western governments appear to take place around Iran, which is in tune with
the policy of encirclement and containment. Second, United States will use any
means necessary to prevent the ascent of any one country into the hegemonic sit
of power in the Middle East. The hegemon will ultimately dictate its policy to
the region and might unite all Arab states under one common front, which will
pose a threat to the U.S. interests in the region.
Even if Iran does go nuclear, should we become more fearful
of it than of rogue North Korea and unpredictable Pakistan who currently have
the capability to carry out a nuclear strike? In addition, Pakistan is
politically unstable and vulnerable to terrorists and non-state actors who contemplate
stealing a nuclear device. Furthermore, have you seen any real military
response to the threats that North Korea has been issuing since it has acquired
a nuclear weapon? So, why all this focus on Iran, who in addition to lacking
nuclear weapons, does not have a delivery system for a successful launch?
Although, the Iranian government is known for their radical
rhetoric and unwarranted threats, but they exercise reasonable caution when it
comes to taking military actions outside their borders. Tehran is not as crazy
as the leader of the North Korea and it is in their interest to preserve
stability and uniformity in the Middle East. The fanatical speeches are mostly
directed towards dissenting political bodies and other troublemakers who are
considered a threat to the Iranian regime.
It is true that in the current international nuclear
non-proliferation climate, the leading countries would like to see a nuclear
de-escalation and a shift toward a safer world. However, countries who choose
to live and act independently should not be muscled and intimidated by more
powerful world actors.
As was pointed out by Mohammad Java Zarif in the Foreign Affairs magazine, Iran is one of
the few countries that “remained independent from outside powers and practiced
genuine nonalignment, lending it a particular freedom of action within the
existing global order.” Perhaps Iran’s independence is another reason why it
has to pay the price to the new global order that is attempting to emerge. Iran
wants to take its own road to happiness, whatever they conceive it to be, which
apparently deviates from the Western plans.
Well, I wonder what happened to the concept of Inclusive Diversity
and why can’t the West leave Iran alone.
Instead of taking a hard-nosed approach, U.S. government
should focus on economic growth and development.
To sum up, I would like to leave you with the quote from
Hillary Rodham Clinton, which appeared on the pages of the Foreign Affairs magazine. Her article in the November/December 2010
issue is titled “Leading Through Civilian Power” and focuses on the American
diplomacy and development abroad. Perhaps an economic miracle that was achieved
in the South Korea and Japan can be replicated elsewhere.
“Economic growth is the surest route out of poverty, and
expanding and strengthening middle classes around the world will be key to
creating the just and sustainable international order that lies at the heart of
the United States’ national security strategy.”
For anyone interested in the works used for this blog post,
please contact the author. I strongly encourage comments and suggestions.
No comments:
Post a Comment