They don't like us. Granted. They want nuclear power: what country doesn't? Where lies the justice is preventing other countries from having something we already exploit? Plentiful electrical power is necessary to lift a country's people out of third-world status. They want ballistic missiles. In other words, they want to join a club that includes most of Europe, as well as Israel, Pakistan, India, and freaking North Korea. Can we really float the idea that they are so fanatical that ballistic missiles (possibly tipped with nuclear warheads) are somehow unsafer in their hands than they would be, say, in those of Donald Trump or Mike Huckabee? After all, W had his finger on the nuclear trigger for 8 years, but no mushroom clouds resulted.
Iran and S.A. represent the two sides of the Islamic schism, and since they can't get to each other, the entire Mideast is a crucible for their proxy war. And we ally with either as suits our convenience. (Iran has been doing quite a lot in the war against the Caliphate, after all). Why, exactly, should we reject one country and be friends with the other? At least Iran hasn't supplied terrorists to crash into Manhattan landmarks. A plague a' both their houses? Only if we think we have no strategic interest in the future of the Mideast.
It is, perhaps, distasteful to say so, but the situation in the Mideast suits the U.S. exactly. We are in no danger from either country, despite hyped-up fear-mongering that is used by politicians of all stripes to terrorize the sheeple. I am not so naive as to think that our national interest has the least thing to do with morality or human rights: we ally with whomever is expedient, and have historically shown quite a bit of favoritism towards strong dictators who support the corporate agenda. Conversely, we love creating sanctions against those who do not support that agenda, hence our debacle in Vietnam (to say nothing of China), our tantrum-boycott against Cuba, and our unsuccessful attempt at regime change in Venezuela (to say nothing of our many successful attempts at regime change in areas as diverse as Libya and Australia). And the current situation in the Mideast allows us to continue our ongoing war-without-end-amen, which means fat profits for the munitions companies and contractors. First we build 'em, then we blow 'em up so we can build 'em again. I wonder, en passant, if the amount of bombing we have done in the region hasn't caused one whole helluva lot more damage than a few well-publicized monument destructions by the people on the ground. But it's okay when we do it, because we are the Good Guys.
Perhaps, however, your question is more one of idealism than realpolitik. But that is a terrible can of worms, since ultimately it means coming down on the issue of whether or not we have a "right" or "obligation" to compel other countries to observe our sense of morality. If we say "yes," are we not then arguing just as the most fervent believer in the American Century that our country and civilization are somehow superior to those of Iran and S.A.? Very well, but where does that end? It's the eternal conundrum: if suttee is reprehensible, then why not caste? If polygyny is reprehensible because it allows women to be degraded, then how do we justify supporting nations in which it is permitted? If it is an essential part of Islam, then are we not condemning Islam? You can see where this leads, once the genie is let out of the bottle.
-- Mal
= new reply since forum marked as read
