Recently, a close friend of mine sent me an article about Iran and its deteriorating relationship with the West. The following is an excerpt from that article.
Notwithstanding these setbacks, Khamenei remains steadfast. Preserving the ideological order of the Islamic Republic is more important for the supreme leader than crossing the nuclear Rubicon. For a leader who, in the words of John Milton, prefers “to reign in hell than serve in heaven,” surrender is political suicide. In the eyes of this custodian of political Islam, surrounded by a culture of complacency and mendacity, a Pyrrhic victory is divine providence.
Against this backdrop, Washington’s belief in the ability of sanctions to curtail Tehran’s atomic ambitions proves credulous. Iran’s nuclear defiance is ideological and thus cannot be resolved by coercion. Rather than repeating the failed policy of pushing the supreme leader into a corner, the Obama administration should aim for piecemeal solutions that would allow for a face-saving compromise. The goal should be to decelerate Iran’s perilous nuclear activities and put it under rigorous international monitoring until cooler heads prevail in Tehran.
In response, I said the following:
Very interesting. I think this approach is better than what a Republican approach would be. Still, I fear that sanctions will exacerbate things. I think fear is still being used to convince people that Iran is a threat, the same way the public was convinced that Iraq was a threat. To be honest, I think that if a country threatens U.S. Corporate interests – not government interests; those are very different – it automatically becomes categorized as a “nuclear” threat. This is the only way to garner enough public support to ensure that a foreign endeavor is not met with public outrage.
What are your thoughts?
Is Iran really a direct threat to the U.S., or is Modern Iran simply responding to centuries of imperialism that took the country back to the Middle Ages?