Iran Overload
I’m on overload too. Now, what would Will Rogers say? Remember one of his favorite quips, “All I know is what I read in the papers”. If he were here today Will would have to say, “All I know is what I read in the papers, newsmagazines, e-zines, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC. Don’t you think he’d just pack a lunch, buy bait and go fishing? I’m tempted to do just that but then I think of all the information, people are dying to hear me dispense, and I blog.
As you can tell, if you’ve read any of my articles, Iran—Ahmadinejad—uranium enrichment is the theme of this blog and true to that theme I’ll stay, sort of.
During the past month or two A-jad has gone from resistance to IAEA inspections to semi resistance and now he’s saying Tehran may agree to ship part of its stockpile of low enriched uranium abroad for enrichment. The AP reported that this is the first official indication that Iran could at least partly sign onto a UN-drafted plan aimed at easing nuclear tensions. I’ve underlined the obvious modifiers.
There are those who think this is a step in the right direction but is it really. We all hope so, however, there are many who think it’s a lie, another delaying tactic while A-jad ramps up his program of enriching uranium for military purposes. You’ve heard this over and over, I know. Here is the reason I’m siding with the skeptics. Anthropologists believe Homo sapiens moved out of East Africa 50 to 100,000 years ago and those people (our ancestors) brought with them practices that would help them survive. Survival was the only goal, nothing else mattered. Those practices—that later became traditions, customs, mores, culture, etc.—included self defense, there were a lot of adversaries including predatory animals. Long story short groups formed out of a need to protect themselves from animals as well as a growing number of adversarial human beings. With the advent of groups (tribes, settlements, towns, cities), and ultimately a perception of encroachment, came conflict over the traditions and customs mentioned above. All of that has been engrained (hardwired) into the brain of the male gender along with suspicion and deceit. You can not conquer an enemy without first being suspicious of their intent and employing deception in discovering whether your suspicions are warranted or not. The crux of what I’m saying is this hardwiring of self defense, suspicion, deceit, and ultimately killing (barbarism, if you like.) trumps diplomacy most of the time. Therefore, diplomacy must be entered into with the same level of suspicion and deception as our adversaries. Diplomacy is a tool, not a universal remedy, like the military it should be used sparingly and with utmost caution.
One might think I’m being barbaric, uncivilized, silly or stupid for thinking this and out of my mind for dumping it in cyberspace and maybe I am. I invite you to tell me what you believe.
IRAN’S NEXT MOVE
Iran has played its last card. That is, Ahmadinejad has been re-elected president and Khamenei has exercised his authority by sanctioning the election. Two events everyone knows, without a doubt, are as authoritatively empty as America’s bank account. Everything originating from Iran’s leadership that follows will be seen for what it is, baseless. The Guardian Council and all the president’s men, at least the ones still around, will continue the theatrics even though the curtain has fallen. Acting the role of tough man—Ahmadinejad, and holy man—Khamenei will represent little more than an off, off Broadway play to the citizens of Iran and the rest of the world. Both men will be powerless and their influence will dwindle to nothing. If smart Khamenei and Ahmadinejad will keep their heads down, try not to aggravate other Iranian people, the Middle East and the US. In other words they should just play it safe until able to move from the spot light to lamp light. However, my hunch is both are a bit egomaniacal and that character flaw will prevent them from doing the wise thing which would be to leave their respective offices without further blemish to their celebrity. Let’s hope they don’t pick the road more often traveled by individuals of this persuasion and try to force the opposition into submission.
The most prudent thing to do with Iran for the moment is to leave them alone and see if more rational, less ideological voices can be heard and listened too. For more rational, less ideological voices to be heard Israel must not strike just yet. Instead, the world—including Israel—should give the rational thinkers’ time to make the regime change on its own, without outside interference. That statement needs explaining. Iran should be given time, true. The time must be made clear and the consequences should be made clear also. The time keeper, whoever that is, should not be specific about the consequences only that there will be a penalty to pay. If Ahmadinejad fails to encourage rational thought, that would include stopping nuclear enrichment, then Israel or the US or both should take out a nuclear plant.
HAVE WE DONE THE RIGHT THING?
I'm concerned that our collective political heads are once again in a hole in the sand. Reading from Newsweek, op-ed pieces and hearing commentary on TV about President Obama and his administration got me to thinking of a conversation I had with a friend last August. It went something like this: Friend, "...I'm convinced Obama is our man." And my friend was right, not that he was my choice but that he is the one now sitting in the Oval Office. I replied, "I'm sure he's a good man, well educated and certainly intelligent, but--" My friend interupted, "But what?" "I think Senator Obama is naive." I went on to explain that I thought his campaign platform overestimated his ability to calm the masses and bring peace to the world. And that Senator Obama underestimated those that wish to do us harm. The conversation tapered to the point of us agreeing to disagree.
This illustration has nothing to do with the present state of America's economic woes, but more to do with America's safety and security. You don't have to be a think tank member to know that there are a number of calamities that could befall the U.S. that would have a far worse effect than a serious recession and that, fellow Americans, is another strategically placed terrorist attack.
The point of this is are we ready or are we loosing our edge? Are we distracted by the economy, and mezmerized by Obama's Kennedy-like popularity.
The idea of trying to mend our reputation with the rest of the world is to me an insult. The ugly American label may well be deserved by the ugly Americans, but to categorize the majority of America, as Obama did recently in Europe, as arrogant, dismissive and derisive was an insult and an ignorant one at that. That kind of leadership mentality plays well with those that hate us and fuels the fires of governments that want to see the U.S. collapse militarily, economically, socially and religiously. The next step will be a level-the-playing-field philosophy that will be introduced in subtle fashion. The proponenants, I believe our President to be one, will favor equalizing everything--it's only fair, right? Wrong! That's a big wrong and the reason is obvious, the U.S. is the only country I trust to carry the big stick, not Argentina, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, N. Korea, India etc.
Do you believe this is Obama's ultimate intent--global equalization? Is it a wise strategy or not?