Sunday, January 23, 2011

West pushed into invading Iran - Rebuttal of Tony Blair

After the second day of talks between the “six world powers” and Iran, Tony Blair issued a series of statements in response to Iran's nuclear aspirations. Telling the French AFP journalist organization that we should be looking towards a military option, and through force we should confront the Islamic Regime of Iran. Mr. Blair, whom apparently still thinking himself as forming a 'coalition of the willing', speaks in demonizing terms of 'us' and 'them' when referring to Iran. With statements such as “we have to get our head[s] out of the sand. They disagree fundamentally with our way of life and will carry on unless met with determination and, if necessary, force." – Mr. Blair sets up a dangerous over-simplification which, for reasons which will expanded upon, could compromise the region even further.

Blair, in his Black and White analysis implies 'Us' to mean the “West” (primarily the United States and Britain, not uncommon in western media). While Conversely, referring to the “Iranians” as 'Them'. Blair however forgets to distinguish between the the Islamic Regime of Iran and the people of Iran, of which are of mostly Persian descent. Effectively removing the voices of descent from within Iran, Ignoring the calls from within for change. Voices that one would assume would be potential allies of Blair's if not for the CIA coups, mass corruption, and invasions of Iran's neighbors by “the West” (wars which still have not ended). What Blair helped do to Iraq' still remains in peoples memories, burned into their retinas by 'shock and awe', carved into their bodies by interrogators, and leaving the lingering foul taste of Ensure Plus in the peoples mouths. But it is more than an inability of US/UK to handle the past operations attempted in the area . There is now something in Iran which is to be protected: The resistance to oppressive Islamic regime.

Movements such as the Green Party of Iran, The National Counsel of Resistance of Iran, and The People Mujahedin of Iran (P.M.O.I.). Three secular democratic organizations that are vehemently opposed to the ruling Islamic Regime of Iran. And unlike Iraq, the opposition movements in Iran are powerful and influential. Having access into the inner workings of the ruling Regime. These mostly youthful movements (Note: over half of the population in Iran is under 25 years old) have borne witness, along with the Iranian people, to the greatest atrocities of the ruling regime. It is an insult of enormous caliber to refer to the people of Iran as if one in the same with the oppressive regime.

More important than Blair's choice of rhetoric, any “force” applied by the US/UK would be retroactive towards overthrowing the Islamic Regime of Iran. Basically, the Iranian Regime has stepped over its peoples rights time and time again, creating much internal descent. Now every authoritarian action the Islamic Republic takes towards oppressing their population adds to the peoples animosity. This process is seemingly self destructive in nature: The Regime in question, upon being confronted for their previous acts of oppression, censorship, and violence – extend their repressive acts – which creates more civil unrest, requiring more drastic acts from the Regime, ext, ext.. These 'acts of super-irrigation' continue until a catalyst, a final straw, is applied that breaks the camels back and sparks a revolution.

Exterior military threats, whether made idly or prematurely, such Mr. Blair's statement: "We are not. The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they'll carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and if necessary, force."-- Does nothing but weaken the resolve and moral people of Iran, while simultaneously stimulating the reactionary government into a more secure position in power.

It also needs to be stated the fallacy made in the argument presented by Mr. Blair above. Mr. Blair implies that there exists a fundamental difference between 'us' and 'them', assuming Mr. Blair is correct and there is a 'fundamental' difference between cultures, the reasoning still does not excuse the use of force. This is of course unless it can be demonstrated that 'they' pose an imminent threat ('they' being Iran).

Today Mr. Blair's remarks are even more out of place. As Iran poses less of a threat to the West now than it did four months ago, for two reasons: First, Stuxnet, a computer worm that infected Iran's nuclear reactors, computer systems, centrifuges, ext.. Stuxnet, thought by some to have been designed by the US Army, is cited for potentially setting back Iran's nuclear aspirations five years. Blair's discomfort regarding Iran's Nuclear Program, unless in regards to preventing an incident similar to Chernobyl, is silly (I don't expect Blair to care about the “nuclear spies” Iran has arrested in connection with Stuxnet). Iran has been crippled by some accounts, buying time for alternative means other than force.

Second, Tunisia and the recent ousting of Ben Ali and the fall of his regime. An event which has sent shock waves through the Arab world, providing an example for a popular uprising. If the revolutionary tipping point lies on the horizon for Iran, it is only a matter of time until the regime is overthrow.

It appears that Mr. Blair is either ill-informed, unconcerned, or alternatively motivated on the present situation in Iran . His perspective and view of the people of Iran is that they are inconsequential, perhaps even a potential enemy – Placing a very disheartening 'Don't Care' stamp on the file of the I.R.I. human right violations. Mr. Blair's statements and their implications are months out of date, and all but spit in the face of the victims ruled by the oppressive Islamic Regime of Iran.

Mr. Blair apparently did not learn much from Iraq. As the reasoning being presented now for the use of force against Iran; was just a topic of discussion at The Iraq Inquiry. Where Blair defended the Iraq war by repeatedly saying that 'we' had to invade Iraq if Saddam failed to comply with the West's demands of complete disarmament within six month. This seems to be another weak justification for war that Blair repeats without being confronted for – What if China were to tell Israel to completely disarm its nuclear program within six months or face military use of 'force' – Ultimately creating a double standard.

Professor Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy committee puts it better than myself: “A lot of people in this town [Washington D.C.] are talking about military strikes [engaging Iran]. But why refer so prematurely to the military strike option when another option has really not been tried? And that is Regime change from within. How? By empowering the Iranian people to seize control of their own destiny.”

As a self proclaimed 're-born Christian', I hope Mr. Blair will reflect on the situation in Iran and what other options he could peruse besides war. It is disconcerting for Mr. Blair to criticize President Obama over “going into the heart of Islam [Cairo]... and offering a hand of friendship,” while simultaneously advocating the use of force -- A foreign policy philosophy best described as 'War is Peace'.

No comments:

Post a Comment