I'm thankful McCain lost, but an Obama presidency gets me about as giddy as I've been these past eight years under Bush. That is, not at all.
I sure felt left out when clusters of jaunty, overjoyed students screamed into the night, enthusiastically hugging each other in warm embrace, convinced their problems would evaporate with the passing old-world Bush years and that Barack Obama would fulfill every dream they envisioned in their unencumbered Election Night ecstasy.
A friend then thoughtfully changed the chants and cheers to regard the decriminalization of marijuana which, I think, enjoyed more support among the student body than Obama and about which I could earnestly join in the celebration. What are friends for, right?
There is one aspect of this prospective wave of Obama-induced change for which I am admittedly hopeful. And that's Iran.
No, this isn't because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad released a statement congratulating Obama's victory, despite the power this event had in convincing people that even Ahmadinejad was voting Democrat in '08.
The real reason I'm hopeful (kind of) is because Obama has said it would be his policy to engage Iran in open unconditional talks with Iranian officials. This actually would constitute change.
Five successive U.S. administrations have failed to make progress on the Iranian front, the telling common denominator being that all five have refused unconditional negotiations, embracing instead a consistent policy of hawkish antagonism.
With a people and a leadership uniquely at odds with ours since our CIA covertly overthrew their legitimate, democratically-elected government in 1953 and installed our clients the Shah, Iran is now at the forefront of our foreign policy obligations.
Making significant progress on any of our other Middle Eastern concerns - Iraq, Afghanistan, an Israeli-Palestinian deal, et cetera - will be dramatically more difficult without positive developments in our relationship with Iran.
Part of this is because of Bush policies that have thrust Iran into the role of the singular superpower in the region. Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Taliban's Afghanistan, both neighboring adversaries of Iran, have been toppled and are mired in continuing wars with our military, effectively fostering Iran's ascendance as the preeminent regional hegemony.
So much for Bush stickin' it to Iran.
Additionally, Iran is sandwiched directly in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have more than 140,000 troops and 30,000 troops, respectively. We have at least 36 Navy warships, two aircraft carriers and 25,000 troops directly south of Iran in the Persian Gulf as well as military bases in every one of the gulf's states except Iran.
Funny that the media would have you believe that they are the instigators.
The hawkish confrontational approach of the Bush administration actually cost us valuable progress with Iran. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Iran (then led by moderate President Mohammad Khatami) strongly condemned the attacks and actually cooperated with the United States in the fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan. U.S.-Iran diplomats met on an almost monthly basis.
And then in 2002 Bush slumped Iran in with Iraq and North Korea in a group he called the 'axis of evil.' In the next elections in 2005, conservative hawk Ahmadinejad would be elected and our hopes for diplomacy with Iran effectively sunk. This was a missed opportunity spoiled by hostile unilateralism toward Iran.
Can open unconditional talks promised by Obama rekindle a constructive relationship with Iran? Maybe. It certainly couldn't hurt to at least recognize the potential coinciding interests between Iran and the U.S.
On Iraq, popular vote has brought a majority of Shiites to power in government there, which certainly pleases the Iranians. They also agree with Obama and most Americans that we should begin significant troop withdrawals.
With a development like that (if Obama keeps his promises) Iran would no longer have a need to support militant insurgents against our troops, because there would no longer be an occupation.
On Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah, these are actions of desperation. These are the types of actions for states which have been put through decades of tough economic sanctions and international isolation, who have been deprived of a formal voice in global affairs.
It's not unreasonable to begin negotiations by eliminating the economic sanctions on Iran (considering they've produced exactly zero desired results) and integrating them into the international community to give them a political voice so that they don't have to rely on violence to pursue their ends.
On the nuclear issue, Iranian diplomats have stated clearly that they would only consider suspending their uranium enrichment programs with a security guarantee from the United States, that we put regime change and military options off the table at least temporarily.
Since nearly three decades of antagonism and isolation, driven by hawks and war-mongers that apparently lose sleep over the fact that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust but still loves Mel Gibson, have proven utterly ineffective and even counterproductive to our interests, we should embrace Obama's call for negotiations.
He's just got to keep his promises.
John Glaser is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at jwglaser@student.umass.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!