It's too bad about the economic crisis happening this week. With the huge meltdown on Wall Street, the proposed corporate bailout and the ensuing craziness in the campaigns, we missed something really interesting. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, spoke at the United Nations just last Tuesday.
Like any sane person, I am in total disgust over his politics and his militarily expressed form of Islam. He presides over some of the worst human rights violations seen in the modern world. A good deal of his rhetoric is dangerously irresponsible. But, damn, is that dude entertaining.
Can you name another world leader who refuses to wear a tie because it's "a symbol of western decadence?" Is there another world leader who has been laughed out of Columbia University for saying that homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran? Outside of our own president, there is not a politician out there who can gaffe his way around the stage like Ahmadinejad.
His speech was nothing out of the ordinary, really. There were the 60-plus mentions of God's will, the vows never to stand down from starting a nuclear energy program and the expected blaming of Jews for all of the world's problems.
Offensive to the extreme? Yes. Foolish? You bet. Should we actually be worried about Iran's mean-spirited president? Well, that question is a little harder to answer.
Americans have always had a troublesome relationship with Iran. In the '70s, there was the revolution and then the subsequent oil embargo and hostage crisis. That did not stop us from selling them all sorts of weapons during the '80s, mainly to fund nun-beheading rebels in Central America and to damage Iraq's military. Yes, mistakes were made.
After that, the relations between the United States and Iran stayed quiet yet frosty until Dubya gave his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. Since then, citizens of both countries had been placing bets on when America will open up a can of "They Have Weapons of Mass Destruction" on Iran.
History aside, should we be worried about what kind of threat Iran poses to the United States?
Yes. Well, no. Possibly.
The truth is, there a far too many different situations and far too many confounding variables to say one way or another that Iran poses an immediate danger to America that calls for any extraordinary measures.
The first situation that needs to be addressed is the Israel question. Iranian officials have made it a talking point to "drive Israel back into the sea." On their part, the Israelis have vowed to bomb anything in Iran that remotely looks like it could produce an atomic bomb.
Should this concern us?
There are a couple things to consider. First, contentious Arabic nations have been talking about driving Israel into the sea since 1948. The number of times this has been accomplished is significantly fewer.
It should also be noted that Israel's military is quite capable of holding its own. During the Six Day War, Israel trounced several nations in less than a week. In the case of war breaking out in that region, I don't think it is Israel's continued existence that we should be worried about. That's not to say we shouldn't provide support to the only democracy in the region, but we also shouldn't try to exaggerate the threat.
Another situation that needs to be brought up is the possibility of Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. Should we be worried about this? Yes. City-annihilating bombs are a pretty big concern. How should we go about diffusing the situation? It's complicated.
I don't know if you caught the presidential debates on Friday, but there were two different opinions of how to solve the problem. Obama's plan is to personally engage in high-level talks with the Iranians. McCain scoffed at this idea, saying it would "legitimize" the rogue nation's status. His plan would be to place more embargoes on Iran and possibly start up a "league of Democracies" to put further pressure on Iran.
Both plans have strengths and weaknesses, but I will say this - if a country can drop a legitimate nuclear bomb on a city, that is legitimate enough for me. I'd feel more comfortable with US dialogues to Iran - no matter who wins our election.
Of course, there are also the Iranian people to consider. Most of them are rational, pro-Western and utterly against any type of military action on either side. Ahmadinejad would have a tough time trying to convince them to engage in a fight to the death with the West.
In the end, it goes like this - Iran will continue to cause problems for us in the future. That's more or less something that we have to acknowledge. How the United States deals with it, however, can be decided. The situation with Iran needs both tact and a certain amount of prodding, and it is up to the next president to deal with it.
Ted Rogers is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at twrogers@student.umass.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!