The Hysterical West and the Reality of Iran

The Western world is in hysterics. Iran has nuclear capabilities.

To the West I say: suck it up. Those capabilities aren’t going anywhere, and there’s no reason why they should. It’s the Iranian government’s right to provide their citizens with the cheapest, most reliable power available. US policy makers balk at the thought, saying that the real Iranian goal is to achieve nuclear weapons. But are we really the best judges of the matter? In order to understand the situation in Iran and the US reaction, it’s helpful to look at past events:

The Islamic Revolution occurred in 1978 when the US-backed Shah was
overthrown and a new theocratic Islamic Republic was established in Iran with Ayatollah Ruhola Khomeini appointed Supreme Leader. US-Iran ties were severed a year later when Iranian students overran the American Embassy in Tehran, taking 63 people hostage. The hostages were released in 1981, but diplomatic relations between the two countries did not resume until 2000. Iran has been actively pursuing nuclear power since 2002, which the US has strongly opposed. Despite insisting it’s insistence that the program is for peaceful purposes only, Iran was found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005. That same year, ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran. In 2006, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran.

At present, eight nations have acknowledged nuclear weapons capabilities: China, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, North Korea and the United States. There’s a slight irony in this: the nations most concerned about Iranian armament all have the capacity to nuke the world several times over, yet they fear that Iran will be irresponsible and dangerous with nuclear weapons. Even if Iran were to achieve armament, the actual launching of any weapons would be suicide. If it were to harm another country, all the others would have retaliated before Iran could even enjoy their success. It should also be acknowledged that if, hypothetically speaking, Iran were to actually be in search of nuclear weapons, it would most likely serve a strategically defensive purpose, not an offensive one. Iran shares a border with the nuclear state Pakistan., and It is their right as nation to protect their borders.

In the 1950s, the U.S. launched the “Atoms for Peace” program, which supplied nuclear equipment and information to schools, hospitals and research institutions around the world. The U.S. began supplying Iran with these capabilities in 1957. Of course at the time, Iran was under the leadership of the US-backed Shah, so it was okay. However, after the Islamic Revolution and implementation of the new government system, U.S. support disappeared.

The real fear of the U.S. and its allies is not that a weaponized Iran would attack. The real fear is the implications of allowing Iran to achieve the level of industrialization and international respect enjoyed by many Western nations. Iran is a theocratic republic. Their president is vocally anti-Israel. By being respected and allowed to have the same freedoms as the Western world, Iran would upset the entire global balance. A precedent for success in the face of Western (and especially U.S.) bullying would be established in the Middle East, jeopardizing the control of Western corporations over precious oil stores. The United States’ real fear is the empowerment of the Middle East and the fall of the Eurocentric global bent.

The American Pledge of Allegiance ends, “with liberty and justice for all.” There is nothing “Just” about the anti-Iran policies of the American government. We may not trust Ahmadinejad, but he is doing what is in the best interest of his people. Though their liberties may differ from ours, there is no justice in denying them the right to power we so enjoy.