Showdown with Iran - Assignment Example

Showdown with Iran Introduction Everyone agrees that the Middle East peace process is one of the hinges of modern international politics. Iran is one of the major players in the process, even if its leaders have been marginalized by the United States and Israel and its rhetoric is often hostile to both. Over the last 10 years, Irans foreign policy in the Middle East has shifted from one of relative innocuousness under the moderate president, Mohammed Khatami, to that of potential spoiler under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It could be said that Iran has had a very negative effect on the region. The election of Mohammed Khatami to the presidency of Iran, in 1997, was a great surprise. He was considered a liberal in a country with a very conservative government. For a short time it looked like Iran might be emerging from its Islamic revolution and liberal Iranians had great hope. But by 2004, at the end of his second term, Khatami admitted his efforts at reform had failed. Many liberals were blocked from running in that year’s parliamentary elections and hard-liners swept back into power. A year later, a second outsider was elected president, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum. A populist with piety, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad brought an serious and strange energy to the conservative cause in Iran after his election. He worked hard to roll back the reforms that Khatami had undertaken and he took up a provocative foreign policy, seriously increasing tensions with both the United States and with Israel. In December 2006, he hosted a conference in Tehran to “review” the historical truth of the Holocaust. This angered many people around the world. 1- Do you agree that the US efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served the Iranian interests? If yes why ? if no why ? The situation in Iraq, with the American invasion in 2003, is not a zero-sum game. There may indeed of been Iranian benefit, but there is also a benefit to the United States. The reason that President Bush invaded Iraq back then was to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks. Iraq was known to support terrorism and to give money to people who committed suicide bombings. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States swore to attack terrorism wherever it was. It was in Baghdad. Since that time there have been no attacks on American soil something that both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should be very proud of. At the same time, the invasion of Iraq had consequences that could not be foreseen at the time. It was hard to know how other countries in the Mideast region would react. It is definitely true that the Iranian government was “Feeling its oats.” They were looking for Iran to gain more influence in the region. That is one of the reasons they were pursuing a nuclear program. They were also, at the time, pursuing partnerships with both Syria and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. They wanted to have more influence and impact on the countries in the region. Because the American invasion of Iraq left a power vacuum, the Iranians were able to capitalize on it and gain more influence there. In a sense, Iranian interests have been served, but so have American ones. 2- With respect to the current war in Iraq what roles does Iran play in this conflict? As stated above, America made a number of mistakes after toppling Saddam Hussein. Among these mistakes was not consolidating power and alienating important interests. Many important sectors of the government were disbanded. Iran stepped into the vacuum, influencing and offering money and advice to many parties. There is evidence that Irans Revolutionary Guard has trained members of the Iraqi insurgency, helping them to develop lethal improvised explosive devices. Iran has influenced many Iraqi lawmakers and have helped to stoke anti-Americanism which has made it harder and harder for America to do its job. Under Saddam, the Sunnis were in charge and Iraq waged war against Iran, a majority Shiite state. Iran could never hope to have any influence. But with the invasion of Iraq, suddenly the Shiite were back in control and Iran could influence them as co-coreligionists. This was definitely to their benefit. Iran send political and military advisers to people in Iraq. They were happy to tie down the Americans and cause serious casualties. For Iran, the news that American was going to invade Iraq had upsides and downsides. The upside was that Saddam would be gone and most likely Shiites would gain control of the government because they make up a majority of the population. On the downside, the U.S. Would be on Irans doorstep and would have a serious military footprint in the region should they wish to attack Iran. These are all issues that are still being played out. 3- Tracking the tension between US and Iran what are the best/worst case scenarios facing the two counties against each other. There are many different directions that this situation could now go in. The luckiest thing for Iran was the election of President Obama who is a bit of a pacifist. However, it does appear likely that military action will be taken against Iran by either the United States or by Israel. Many American soldiers have now left Iraq. Perhaps the U.S. would have attacked Iran earlier this year if the Iraqi government had been properly in place and show signs of stability. Neither Iran or America is going to stand down. It is important for Iran to remember that the United States has a great deal of power. They may not even have to kill anyone in Iran in order to cripple the Iranian nuclear installations. It is apparent that America should act. Irans president has made outrageous statements about Israel, similar in some respects to Hitler. A nuclear armed Iran is a menace to the region. It has shown that it will not listen to anyone in the international community. The time has come to act. 4- Do you think the video is relevant to the themes of the cause Middle East in world affairs? how? And do you recommend this video for other viewers The themes one finds when one looks at Middle Eastern politics are timeless. It is a question that has bedeviled humanity from time immemorial: can different ethnic groups live on the same land? How can they do so without violence? The answer is that it is hard to answer. One of the best examples in the world today of this problem is in Israel/Palestine. Not many geopolitical issues are as complex and intractable as the conflict in the Middle East. It has a long and painful history and many people have tried and failed to solve it before. Nothing new has happened in the last few years to make it any easier to solve. In fact, some things have gotten quite a bit worse. As things stand now, it is unlikely this conflict will be resolved. The two sides are intractably opposed to one other. Furthermore, the Arab world is poorly developed in economic sense, the maintain old grievances and are unable to look to the future. These are all issues that provide an important context to the dispute between Iran and the United States. Without understanding the issues in the Middle East and the history it is hard to make sense of the current problems involving Iran. This video makes these themes relevant. The truth is that because human identities are not stable they can be manipulated by demagogues and bad people. It is easy for propaganda and newspapers to whip people up into an aggressive frenzy. Ethnicity and nationalism can be used to convince people to kill their neighbours, or blow themselves up on buses full of civilians. It can cleave nations in two, and destabilize whole regions. This is something that this video makes evident in its discussion and explanation of the problems with Iran.  In the course of this conflict, ethnic nationalism—a collective aspect of human identity—plays a very significant role. The conflict is shaped and motivated by those who want to secure their claim to land and history. None of this is new, but in a world as connected as ours, such conflicts are more damaging than ever before in our history. There has been little movement towards reconciliation in recent years. These issues form the background and backdrop of the problem. They are now so much a part of the narrative that they are virtually impossible to change. What is the key to solving this conflict? The solution must lie in getting Iran to give into the international community without losing face. That is one solution: the other is an attack, but not invasion, of Iran. This video provides a great deal of useful information regarding this difficult situation. It shows the context of the problem and introduces many of the main players. It is able to cleverly illustrate the dilemmas and issues that both sides face in this stalemate. It also hints at the potential results and devastating consequences. I would definitely recommend it. Read More