Sorry for the last response. I accidently excluded the first paragraph when I copied and paste the script into EO.

I probably should not have posted. My reply was a knee-jerk response to a simple theme often stated in the US that we have cause all problems in the Middle East. However, your response indicates that this in not your view.

I am rather disappointed in President Obama for not doing anything at this time. I think that “A Time for Silence” has passed. The structure of the Iranian is government is dissolving down to – I don’t know – a dictatorship?

President Obama went to Egypt to mend relationships. So, we could say that the US stepped up to the plate. Now, it is time for the Middle East countries, and perhaps world community (United Nations) to step up to the plate regarding the sham Iranian election. One would think that with the President’s unique personal background (in comparison to other Presidents) he could come up with a dynamic response to this matter.

This is a clear example of how the Middle East countries (and International community) are responsible for allowing a government regime to brutalize its own citizens – in their own back yard. This is a clear example of how a government can dissolve down to something less – becoming a system that is more difficult to negotiate with on important issues. These factors have nothing to do with Christianity or negative influences from the West.

And, unfortunately, President Obama is doing nothing. At this time, has he contributed to this deterioration in Iran and shown a lack of leadership? The answer is leaning towards ‘yes’. This doesn’t look like the “Change we need” in the Middle East.

All my statement implies is:

Due to meddling in Iranian affairs done by the US and Britain, the anti-western bias in Iran is not only explicable, it is fairly justified. We have meddled to their detriment in the past. It seems logical to assume we may do so in the present as well.

It does not claim:

1. All problems in Iran are due to the US.
2. Any action taken by the US in its own interest are necessarily bad.
3. Iranian leaders do not take advantage of the existing, fairly justifiable anti-western bias to do bad things that are unjustified. In fact, many times, I’ve said that’s exactly what they’re doing and it’s a very bad thing.

And just by the by, Iran is not and never was part of the Communist bloc.

America’s been messing with Iranian politics for the latter half of the last century (most disastrously with Mossadeq through Operation Ajax), and they were really only joining the British, who’d been meddling and exercising economic imperialism for much longer than that. The resentment is deeply-entrenched and, sadly, fairly justified.

I didn’t ascribe that view to you… you did it to yourself. It certainly looks as if you are starting out with the viewpoint that anything done in the national interest of this nation or our allies is by default a bad thing compared to things done in the national interests of the Communist bloc. Do you really assume that the Communist bloc was mischaracterized and maligned, that they did not try to exert influence in direct opposition to us, that they did not attempt to foster anti-Western bias in that region? Maybe when you display a healthy reduction in naivete I’ll be ready to listen to what you have to say.

Once again, you insist on ascribing to me views I do not hold. When you’re ready to listen to what I say rather than make me the straw man for your cathartic raving, then I’ll be happy to have a conversation about Iran, Honduras, or any number of political topics. But if you decide that I would approve of military intervention in Honduras (and imply that I would have approved, had I known(which of course I do), of the re-installation of the shah in the 1950s), you’re wrong and we can’t really have a conversation.

Roger,

Of course the US doesn’t import oil from Iran – but the oil-rich nature of the region has elevated it above others due to its overall economic importance. I was actually agreeing with a statement you made earlier when I said that.

And while I think the anti-western bias in Iran is fairly justified by idiotic actions taken by the US and Britain especially, at no time did I say that all of Iran’s problems are the western powers’ fault. I just wish we’d try to understand the history of our relationship with Iran and use that knowledge to try to make better diplomatic decisions in the future instead of doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

Clearly the men in charge of Iran are power-hungry jerks who don’t have the people’s best interest at heart and who are willing to enact violence upon the people to maintain power. But just as clearly, as we’ve seen in the last two months, there are men and women in power who are reasonable and seem to seek democratic reforms for the country.

We need to find a way to support the reasonable people while opposing the tyrants. But our history with the country makes it a dicey thing, diplomatically-speaking.

Which is why we need to acknowledge our history with the country and its impact on the country’s current state. It’s not mea culpa, it’s going into things with our eyes open.

To clarify, the US does not import oil from Iran. Most of Iran’s oil goes to Asia, mainly China and Japan, and the rest goes to Europe. The governments of Iran and the Middle East benefit greatly from the billions in revenue from oil. The World basically gets much of its oil from the region. Think of the complexity of international relations brought on by this trade. Also, the entire world imports to the Middle East! There are a lot of global exchanges of goods and money. There are lots of complex issues.

I am actually impressed with your implication in how the US has mainly caused all the problems in Iran. We’re the only country that has attempted to influence political governments?! The government of Iran would never attempt to influence its own citizens, or for that matter, other countries of the world. And of course, other countries would never attempt to meddle in Iran’s affairs.

Historically, families / tribes / religious sects within and between countries of the Middle East attempt to position themselves for financial and political power. The elite in a given country tend to exploit its citizens. People are treated as a commodity, such as women. The word ‘theocracy’ comes to mind, as it is the norm for a number of countries in the Middle East to use religion to control solely for political power. Then there are the violent overthrows for political control – people die – political powers change – then the victor kills anyone perceived as a threat – then things run smoothly for awhile.

We can also add the beheadings, car bombs, recruitment of children for suicide bombs – and those terrorists from Iran who kill Iraqis – and the list goes on.

Wow. The US is solely responsible for all this unrest!

I didn’t realize that the rest of the world consisted of saints.

Let’s stay out of Honduras … we don’t want to upset anyone.

The Iranian government accused the US and other Westerners of influencing the unrest in their country! Oh my, why didn’t Obama just remain silent?!

Can the United Nations (world community) do anything? Is there any talent in the United Nation to do – anything? Isn’t Obama the President of a country that is part of a world community?

Maybe they could ask the Iranian government to simply stop imprisoning, beating, and killing the protesters. That’s a thought. The United Nations could ask China to do that! After all, China buys lots of oil from Iran – and they are much nicer than the US.

But, Obama doesn’t have to worry. The press has basically dropped this story.

Oh, the anti-western bias goes back much further than Nixon/Ford. America’s been messing with Iranian politics for the latter half of the last century (most disastrously with Mossadeq through Operation Ajax), and they were really only joining the British, who’d been meddling and exercising economic imperialism for much longer than that. The resentment is deeply-entrenched and, sadly, fairly justified. Unfortunately, that’s allowed radical leaders to use that resentment to build political capital that justifies their actions.

I think you’re right that, long term, the solution is to make countries like Iran less economically important to the US by decreasing our reliance on petroleum-based energy sources. It’s the smartest move we can make for national security. We spent the better part of a century making ourselves less safe for the sake of oil – time to change tactics.

My only concern is about the current Iranian government and their development of nuclear weapons — the concern of the Israeli government — and potential war involving nuclear weapons.

Anti-American sentiments have been in Iran since Nixon/Ford (and probably before). A few of my friends went to Iran with family members (parents) who were either working in the oil or defense industry during the Nixon/Ford era. At that time anti-American (west) sentiments were apparent.

In the past, the international community was not effective. Hopefully, you are correct in that a more neutral country like Japan can have a more positive impact. But I doubt it.

Perhaps the best thing is for our country is to not be dependent on petroleum, pulling our oil money from those regions. Petroleum has been a dominate factor for us meddling in their affairs — and probably disrupting the natural progression of these societies.

What should we do with a government that doesn’t listen to the will of the majority of its own citizens — or to the concerns of the international community on very important topics? ”

The idea is scary, but the whole Iranian situation has been scary since 1979. What’s new about that? And just because the US doesn’t have influence in the enforcement of free and fair elections within Iran doesn’t mean other countries of the world are equally ineffective. There’s been a lot of talk trying to urge democratic countries like Japan and others who don’t have an imperialist or otherwise prickly history with Iran to diplomatically intervene.

As for your second question: what should we do with a government that doesn’t listen to the will of the majority of its own citizens? My goodness, we deal with those government all the time! Where’s this outcry over Sudan? Zimbabwe? Any number of South American or Southeast Asian countries? What about our best buddies, the Saudis?

We’re only squeamish when we want to be. We only stand on America’s duty to enforce democracy worldwide when it’s convenient to us. That’s not evil, it’s pragmatism – Iran is a dangerous country with leadership we’d rather didn’t have nuclear weapons, and if using its own corruption against it is an effective means of neutralizing that threat, we’ll try.

That’s great, but let’s not pretend it’s something else. Let’s not pretend we’re so passionately committed to democracy that we must intervene in Iran. If that’s the case, we’d be spending a lot more time and money on Africa.

I agree that any rhetoric from Obama would be used by the current powers in Iran to fuel anti-American sentiments. I agree that perhaps any dialog from the U.S. is useless in helping the people of Iran to establish a government that will represent the people. Those in power will keep their power at all cost — even to the extent of possibly rigging an election.

I also believe that with the current Iranian government, Obama probably has no influence in stopping Iran’s current attempt at building nuclear weapons. It is very possible that the Israeli government will have no choice but to act against the impending ‘real’ or ‘perceived’ threat of Iran against the people of Israel. Whether it be bombing the nuclear facility, as was done with Iraq in 1981, or an all out war, perhaps as vicious as the one between Iran and Iraq.

If Israel does act, people (especially those in academia) will scream out the need for Israel to negotiate — and Israel’s actions will be condemned.

Why? If Obama has no influence with the current Iranian government to have fair elections that simply represent the will of their own people, than Israel or any others in the international community certainly can’t do any better with halting their development of nuclear weapons. Historically, negotiations with the international community did not work with Iraq.

The idea that Obama or the international community has no influence with altering the course of the current Iranian government to have fair elections — is a scary concept with global consequences.

What should we do with a government that doesn’t listen to the will of the majority of its own citizens — or to the concerns of the international community on very important topics?

Remain silent? Negotiate?

Respectfully