"The United Nations cannot but react," said former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. "Iran is a member state of the United Nations that is threatening to destroy another member state of the United Nations," he said.
Let's wake up, people. Iran is throwing elbows, and our current administration in America is on the warpath.
Yes, Iran wants to destroy Israel. Yes, their president denies the holocaust . Yes, they are most likely a state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, something needs to be done. Maybe war, maybe not. But something needs to be done.
But if we go to war this time, it won't be so pretty.
We cannot do this unilaterally. If the US goes alone to war with Iran, we will have a meltdown. Our budget sheets are already soggy and swollen from bills from the Iraq War. Its economic ramifications could soon surpass $1 trillion, and one estimate weighed the total impact as high as $2 trillion.
Normally, war is good for business because materiel and supplies must be produced en masse, creating a huge boon for the economy. However, as we noted in Iraq and Afghanistan, we didn't have much trouble fighting and toppling the formal regimes. Hence, the need for military-industrial production never materialized. It seems as though this would be the case in Iran as well.
And if you haven't noticed, our economy isn't doing so hot right now. Detroit's Big 3 are flagging, and Ford's sales in September dropped 21 percent.
Furthermore, the housing market is collapsing out from under its foundation, which amounted to short-term unstable price bubbles.
Robert Shiller, a Yale university economist, told a US Congressional panel on Sept 19th, "The collapse of US home prices might turn out to be the most severe since the Great Depression.
Finally, the dollar has recently reached an all-time low exchange rate against the euro at 1.4 dollars per euro. If that's not bad enough news, listen to this, truest patriots: The American dollar is now equal to the Canadian dollar! This weak dollar will impact us in several ways. Most notably, it makes us pay more for everything we import. Hopefully no one owns anything made in China…
Now, I'm not a warmonger, and some of our worst fears from the Iraq War have come true: Instead of creating a new gleaming democracy, we have destabilized an ethnically fractured country in an already unstable region and given impetus to an entirely new generation of suicide bombers. We thought we were taking the fight to the enemy, but we just put our fist into the wasp's nest. Due to our heavy-handed meddling in the Middle East and our two current wars there, we can expect more terrorism.
Texas Representative Ron Paul nailed it when he said about terrorists, "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there." Unfortunately, he is one of the only politicians willing to admit that in a national discussion. And Ron Paul is not talking about only our last ten years of involvement over there.
The truth is, we've been in the Middle East for the last 75 years in some form or another because the region is strategically important to us. Namely, they have oil, and our nation cannot run itself, let alone defend itself, without lots, and lots, and lots of oil.
If we hadn't been meddling in their affairs for four generations, maybe they wouldn't be so pissed off at us.
So, where do we go from here?
First of all, we don't leave Iraq to implode and die. Why not? It's simple. It's the right thing to do. We started this mess over there, and we owe it to those people to finish it.
Yeah it sucks, yeah we're probably in it for the long haul, yeah, if I were a politician this would be political suicide (John McCain). But I don't believe that we in America can fulfill our aspirations of being a benevolent hegemony unless we use our power for good. Here's a way to start: help those we've promised to help. However wise or misguided we think it is, we cannot leave these people to kill each other over religious differences and political intrigues.
Disclaimer #1: the Iraqis need to reciprocate with some decent attempts at working democracy. I understand they've been under dictatorship for generations, and need some room to stretch and understand their new rights and freedoms. But it should be stated that nothing will be accomplished if they continue to stagnate in their reconciliation attempts. We cannot help others if they are not going to also help themselves.
Disclaimer #2: I don't really view the US as a "benevolent hegemony", but many of us wish this were the case. While America's footprints throughout the world have often been tainted with corporate greed and CIA manipulation (Guatemala, for instance), we have also done great things, too (Tsunami relief, for instance). While there is a hypocritical dichotomy between these two faces of America, the only thing we can do to better the situation is to start doing more great things and start cracking down on the bad.
Secondly, though we have blunderingly created a power vacuum in Iraq and Afghanistan, we CANNOT allow Iran to fill that vacuum. That's like giving Hitler Austria and Czechoslovakia. We must somehow hold off Iranian influence. Honestly, this seems impossible.
But there is one avenue the current administration has not used. If anything, they seem to have abused it.
Diplomacy. There are two things that the US and Europe can find in common these days. One, we're all targets of terrorism and two, we don't want Iran to have nuclear capability. Most recently, following the election of American-friendly president Nicolas Sarkozy, France's foreign minister came down hard on Iran's nuclear program, warning of the possibility of war.
It is time we again approached our NATO allies for help in the Middle East. This time, we shouldn't force them to conform to our brittle and myopic plans, but should work with them to find a solution on common ground. Furthermore, this action should not seek to selfishly increase our power in the Middle East, but to squarely check Iran's hateful and bigoted threats.
Thirdly, we should actively work to increase our reputation and relations with Middle-Eastern countries. While we have done a lot through the Cold War and afterwards to earn a reputation as an evil empire, we have done much good, as well. It's time to emphasize that good behavior and reject our bad behavior. We need to stop politically manhandling those countries for economic (namely oil) concessions, and start helping them achieve their goals and aspirations. They're not our whores to beat for increased compliance. America needs to admit and then end its hypocrisy. We need to demonstrate the good international behavior that we demand from Iran. We need a benevolent diplomatic renaissance.
Comments (1)
You make several interesting points, Will, and you do a nice job of providing supporting links.
Unfortunately, though, I respectfully take issue with a couple of things you say.
I don't think the U.S. should ever view itself as--or aspire to be--a benevolent hegemonic power (first, I don't think such a thing exists--even in theory, and second, it wouldn't be our place to assume that role).
The notion that somehow we are an inherently "good" global power just doesn't pass muster with me. That's not to say American people aren't, for the most part, good, or that the American government hasn't done some good things, but as a player on the foreign stage, our motives have always been selfish (just like everyone else's). Even our involvement in WWII (arguably the last "just" war), was based more so on what we stood to gain, and a reaction to us being directly attacked at Pearl Harbor...otherwise we wouldn't have waited some two years to enter (and we wouldn't have blasted Hiroshima AND Nagasaki).
I know this is coming across as "America=bad" but that's not my intention. Instead, I'm actually more in line with Ron Paul in that we need to stop forcing ourselves on other countries and focus more on improving our own problems (although I diverge greatly from Paul on how we accomplish that).
The second point I wanted to adress: I understand your view that we "broke" Iraq and now we are obligated to fix it, but I just don't agree with that principle. We are the reason Iraq is broken so I don't see how suddenly we're going to be the ones to provide the solution. Our mere presence there is causing this turmoil, so if we truly want to improve this situation, we need to step back, invite Iran (shiites) and Saudi Arabia (sunnis) to negotiate the "new" Iraq along with the Kurds, and let them decide the oil revenue sharing.
My personal belief is that we continue to stay there not because we're concerned with improving things, but because we've invested so much in getting that oil that we can't simply abandon that effort and cut our losses (in other words, Bush and his cabinet--made up mostly of former oil execs--can't let go of the prize).
It's terrible what we've done there and I know you're calling for peaceful resolutions to terrible situations. But it's that whole "hegemonic" thinking that got us into this jam in the first place, that belief we somehow had the high road (the right to overthrow Saddam and bring democracy) that led us to believe the current administration had some good intentions in mind. We now know, however, that if they really had those intentions, they would have intervened in Darfur, Burma, and any other number of places.
Anyway, I enjoyed your post. It was very thought-provoking. I know that in the end, we both want a peaceful resolution. I'm afraid, though, that the answer if far more complicated than either of us can imagine, of course.
Posted by Ranjit | October 5, 2007 12:15 PM
Posted on October 5, 2007 12:15