Tag Archive for iran at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'iran'

When Extremism Becomes Mainstream

Published by Colin September 8, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 7 Comments

Would anyone born into an extreme society be aware of the exact nature of that society relative to history? For example, if there was a bubble thrown around Soviet Russia (in many ways there was) - wouldn’t the people of that society view ideas like free-will, free-markets and free-speech as extremes? The norm might be long lines for basic necessities, rampant crime, neighbours, friends and family disappearing and never returning.

In many ways, the centre of mainstream society can be measured by what ideas are considered extreme. We look back in hindsight at societies such as Hitler’s Germany and Soviet Russia as though these movements became mainstream by magic. We ignore the history and conditions which made certain ideas, leaders and philosophies popular. We see images like this and this (warning: graphic) and assume that this guy is soley to blame. We fail to realize that perhaps the most important explanation of these images is this one. We presume that extremism will come into our society announcing itself with nazi flags, poverty or honest people being locked up right away.

So many American Christians are terrified of such boogey men. Take fighting radical Islam - which is often compared in mainline conservatism to a war against “fascism“and Iraq is compared to World War II. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Islamic Law, radical Islamic repression, widespread Islamic Terrorism and Christian persecution at the hands of Islamic elements in government will never become a reality in the US.

Extremism Doesn’t Look Like Extremism
I suspect that Sinclair Lewis is a little closer to the mark: “when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” This is not a statement to be ignored - it is backed by historical patterns that are repeated over and over again. Extremism rarely comes from outside a society, but it cultivated, embraced and implemented from within. Adolph Hitler wasn’t released on the world until he had secured power in his own society using tradition, religion and philosophy that Germans were familiar with. In other words, we must be more fearful of internal extremism gradually overtaking those historically accepted and mainstream “Americanisms” - the constitution, freedom, Christianity, security, prosperity, capitalism and “democracy.”

American Extremism will look like patriotism. It will be embraced by the dominant religious elements: Christianity in this case. It will be described as traditional American values such as free-enterprise, democracy and security.

Because extremism moves into the mainstream culture, language and political system - the best measure is historical context. For example, “liberal” is used today as a cuss-word against left-wing democrats. I accepted this as the historical definition until, when I was twenty, I visited a memorial to Meriwether Lewis and was shocked to see Thomas Jefferson use the term to describe Lewis:

Of courage undaunted, possessing a firmness and perseverance of purpose which nothing but impossibilities could divert from its direction, … honest, disinterested, liberal, of sound understanding and a fidelity to truth…

I looked into it and found that the mainstream definition is relatively new, and in fact completely the opposite of what it had meant for hundreds of years. If it weren’t for the word “libertarian” - we might not have a word that summarises something close to the definition of liberal.

Case in Point: GOP Primary
But this has happened with so many things. Conservatives in the past eighteen months have been calling Ron Paul a radical and a fringe candidate. And he is - in that his positions aren’t mainstream in the slightest nor are they what is now called “conservative.” There is a radical gulf between Paul’s view and the conservative movement.

But that is what should scare us - and if conservatives would stop marching forward and question their orders for a moment, they might get a glimpse of where they are going. For example, “county first” was plastered all over McCain’s convention - is that phrase responsible? Is it biblical? Is it actually patriotic? Should that be the moral and political priority of conservatives and Christians? If that is an acceptable idea, is a rally worth $16 million in money taken from the country, celebrating one man, in one political faction a genuine articulation of that ideal?

How Extremist Leaders Win the Support of Otherwise Principled Men
What does it mean when those voices calling for objective morality and the rule of law are considered extreme in favour of embracing those solutions with “reasonable,” “common-sense” and short-term sacrifices to solve problems that were first created by such measures? Conservatives don’t like Paul because a purer form of traditionally conservative ideals comes out so different than the practices of what is now called conservatism. Conservatives would rather align themselves with men who share almost none of the deeper convictions, morals and ideals of their own movement, but who will still give lip service and token support to popular conservative causes (abortion, family, military). They will support unprincipled extremists who are promising that they will ignore their nature. This is foolishness - but a familiar path that humanity has taken in placing reckless, unprincipled men in power.
Continue reading ‘When Extremism Becomes Mainstream’

One Final Goodie from Bush & Co.

Published by Don Emmerich April 30, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 79 Comments

Originally Published at Don Emmerich’s Blog.

Ruining our economy wasn’t enough. Nor was waging an immoral, unnecessary war. No, it seems that the Bush Administration might have one final goodie for the American people. Yes, that’s right, a war with Iran.

Not only does the administration continue saber rattling over Iran, but it’s now known that the Pentagon is planning for “potential military courses of action.”

The stated reasons for this potential attack are that (1) Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and (2) Iran has for some time been waging a proxy war against the U.S. in Iraq.

So these are the charges. Of course, charges are not always factual, and we should keep a few things in mind.

First, according to the U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran terminated its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Now, of course, Dick Cheney claims that he knows better, that he knows what Iran is really up to with its uranium enrichment program. But this guy doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to making predictions; moreover, I think it’s safe to say that the 16 U.S. spy agencies know more about the inner workings of Tehran than our Rambo-wannabe vice president.

But why then, some have asked, does Iran insist on enriching uranium? Surely, they must be lying when they say they have peaceful intentions; surely they must want to blow up the world. But that doesn’t at all follow. Just three short decades ago, Henry Kissinger claimed that Iran needed nuclear energy because its economy demanded that it save its oil for other purposes. (We should also keep in mind that, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.)
Let’s move on to the second charge, which is that the Iranian government is arming many of the Iraqi insurgents. Now, for obvious reasons, even if it could be shown that the insurgents have arms that were made in Iran, it wouldn’t follow that the Iranian government was responsible for the attacks. Among others, this point has been made by Gen. Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In February 2007 when the Bush gang began claiming that the Quds Force was sending explosives to Iraqi insurgents, Pace told the Voice of America,

It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.

This should all sound very familiar. The same people who lied about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and al Qaeda ties (and in case you didn’t hear, there were no WMDS and no al Qaeda ties)—these same people are now trying to hoodwink the country into another war.

I’m certainly not defending Tehran, which is repressive and undemocratic. I personally think the Iranian people were much better off under Mohammad Mossadegh, who was a peace-loving and democratically-elected prime minister in the 1950s, a man who—oh by the way—was driven from power by the CIA and replaced by a brutal monarch. (And what, you’re asking, did Mossadegh do to deserve such treatment? The answer is that he thought Iran’s oil reserves should be owned by Iran, not the British government. A very heretical belief in Western minds.)

Now it’s certainly possible that, despite its claims, Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. And I certainly don’t think the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran. But it’s simply absurd to believe that, if Iran got nukes, it would use them against the U.S. and/or Israel. If nothing else, the Iranian government is rational. And therefore it realizes that using nuclear weapons against nations with superior military forces and enormous nuclear stockpiles would result in its own annihilation. So if Iran is seeking nukes—and again, our intelligence agencies tell us that such is not the case—but if it is, then it would only want them as a deterrent.

Now is not the time for another war. Now is the time to talk, something the Iranians have been trying to do for several years. In May 2003, for instance, Iran’s leaders sent a negotiating package to the U.S. through a Swiss diplomat. There wasn’t anything Tehran wasn’t willing to discuss: “everything was on the table—Iran’s nuclear program, policy toward Israel, support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and control over al-Qaeda operatives captured since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan.” Yet the Bush administration not only refused to talk to the Iranians but even reprimanded the Swiss diplomat for conveying the message.

It seems that all we can do at this point is pray.

Iran and the US: The Shared Goal

Published by Colin September 13, 2007 in General. 39 Comments

Aside from the US war in Iraq, the next most pressing foreign policy question is the developing conflict with Iran. Many on both the right and left have put forth proposals outlining everything from sanctions to a preemptive nuclear strike. What makes Iran so dangerous?

They are clearly a radical fragment of the global Islamic movement

they are developing nuclear technology, which, according to most analysts, could be ported to weapons in as soon as ten years
they actively fund and support insurgents fighting against the US in Iraq (more so than any other state, they are “the other side” in the War on Terror)
They have declared that Israel should be removed from statehood, by force if necessary

Primarily due to these reasons, many Americans are naturally a little worried about Iran. At the very least, they are hostile towards the idea of Iran continuing on their present course. American officials (including the candidates for president in both parties) are presenting the country with the idea that the worst case scenario is a very realistic possibility. In fact, just yesterday, it was announced that plans to bomb Iran are now in the works.

Most relevant parties have concluded such a comprehensive attack plan would require at least a week of sustained bombing runs, and would at best set the Iranian nuclear program back a number of years — but not destroy it forever… The Bush administration “has just about had it with Iran,” said one foreign diplomat.

From the Other Side
However, in the eyes of Iranians, the US is not exactly seen as their buddy. Not including direct US meddling in Iran since the 50’s, the typical Iranian is going to fear the US for the following reasons:

They are engaging in a global “War on Terror”, which up to this point has only been against member of their religion and in their geography
They have nuclear weapons and some of their leaders and potential leaders have threatened to use them
They have actively supported Iran’s enemies in the region and even rebuilt entire nations in their area. They actively fund hostile regimes, even supplying them with weapons and training
They took Islamic land by force and created a belligerent Jewish state right in their midst

It not surprising that many Iranians, who were on the verge of toppling their own extremist regime (with a pro-diplomacy, pro-capitalist one), have now decided that, while they hate their own government, the US and it’s policy are much more dangerous to their way of life. Likewise in the US, where congress and the president have approval ratings at historic lows - people are clearly more afraid of terrorists than of the US government.

The Shared Goal
Both governments, ironically, have a common interest - fighting each other. If the US government is able to preserve the spectre of a global Islamic terrorist threat, then, despite the infringement of liberties associated with the “sacrifice” for war, the current status quo will survive and even prosper. If the Iranian regime can convince it’s people that the US is out to both directly and indirectly fight against their religion and nation-build in their region, then the people will not turn on them.

Naturally, the only requirement of these governments is not to change policy, but to balance an escalation of conflict with the quenching of dissent. This is not by way of a conspiracy or a unified agenda, but just like any issue which transfers into votes (gas prices, abortion, homosexual marriage), it is naturally in each politician’s best interest to drum up problems that government needs to fix. The perception of an aggressive Iran is as good as gold in an election year.

For example, after announcing his candidacy for President, former Sentor Fred Thompson has declared:

…if we look weak and divided in this country, we’re going to pay a heavy price for it in the future. We’re living in the era of the suitcase bomb, and they’re not going to go away. They’re here now, they’re armed and dangerous, and they’re trying to get weapons of mass destruction… Iran is becoming more and more obvious, a major, major problem for the United States of America. They are killing our people… they’ve got 3,000 centrifuges now and basically reprocessing that uranium enough to get fissile material within the next few years and most experts think well on their way to making a nuclear weapon and, of course, they’ve threatened Israel… I don’t know how much more stark the situation can be. They perceive us as being weak. They perceive us as being divided, and they think they can get away with anything.

The same is true for the Iranian leaders, only their situation is much more dire, as they were near radical change towards moderation. Everyone has heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats and strong language, yet even a cursory look into the economic and military condition of Iran shows that they have no muscle to back this up. However, this desperation has bred the same kind of dissent quenching language. Take Ayatollah Khamenei’s remarks in March:

The only way to oppose and react to such aggression and coarseness is to preserve our national unity… [The Americans] are determined to divide us. That’s why all the political parties must stand together under the banner of the imam... Under the pretext of sectarian feelings, religious inclinations and gild orientations, the enemies are bent on destroying unity of the Iranian nation or fan religious differences in the world of Islam and draw a wedge between the Iranian nation and the rest of the Islamic community by inciting war between Shiites and Sunnis …In God’s assistance, all people of every sect or religion will expedite their hopeful move towards their bright future, at the same time all Muslim nations will demonstrate their unity by promoting Islamic solidarity and fraternity.

The Hype Factor
Like most complicated issues (it’s not really complicated, but too complicated for talking points) this common interest has been generally missed in the smaller (and more emotional) issues like nuclear technology and anti-Israel statements. However, the essence of the debate was most recently captured on the Factor when Ron Paul and Bill O’Reilly squared off on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdpkOg4q-3c

O’Reilly has a vested interest in a conflict (or at least the hype thereof) because it gives him something to rant about. Dr. Paul’s “history lesson” which “may or may not be true” (so let’s exchange talking points all day on it) is boring and calms people down when they should be fired up. Otherwise they are not terrified of the major catastrophe brewing in the Middle East (unless America is over there kicking butt).

The reality is that just as the current unpopular leadership of Iran and the US share a common goal, the citizens of these countries will be the ones who pay for any conflict in taxes and with their lives. As in every war, the leaders of both countries will demonize the other side while simultaneously speaking of the necessary sacrifice involved to “win” the conflict. While it may be in the leadership’s best interest to promote conflict, it is obviously in everyone else’s interest to seek peace.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Nov
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Zeal For Truth