The administration of the U.S. Government has
offered the Assad Alawite Government of Syria a generous offer of surrender,
Sect. of State Kerry said that they would need only mutually agree on an
interim government I would suppose before an election of the Muslim Brotherhood
into total power. How one wonders could Assad demure on that?
I still wonder about U.S. foreign policy on the
Middle East. Why is it that we stimulated and supported escalation of a revolt
against the government of Syria? It doesn't especially seem to be in Israel's
best interest and the first answer that comes to mind is that the
administration is worried about Iranian nuclear weapons development and hope
that some sort of Shi'a domino downfall would knock the Iranian revolution
down. That seems like a long shot.
So far as I know U.S. problems with Iran began
after the nationalization of the British oil fields in Iran after the Second
World War. Iran had a democracy then and they still have-one of just two
functioning ones in the Middle East. Of course we returned the fled Shah of
Iran to power and legend has it forced out Mossadegh the Prime Minister. Subsequently we then built up a military for the Shah of the Peacock Throne and developed
relations with a very cruel Savak secret police agency of Iran that were globe
ranging repressing dissidents. The U.S.A. developed large corporate resource
extraction interests and of the course the military industrial complex got good
arms sales, and all that was sold to President Eisenhower as a bulkhead against
communism. Yet we have seen that Iran has no tendency to become communist-even
purging those well-meaning anti-souls.
So during the Iranian revolution the student
radicals captured the U.S. embassy, as a temporary measure yet didn't kill
anyone-such innocent days. One imagines that Saul Olinsky and or the Weather
Underground or even perhaps a returned from Vietnam radicalized John Kerry if
Iranian would have joined in that event. The long, slow burning institutional
grudge of the U.S. government cannot forgive the Iranians for their trespass,
yet Hillary Clinton should have-the State Department was very slow in rescuing
the Ambassador in Benghazi as if it weren't to important.
It might be the development of nuclear weapons
that is of ongoing concern since former President Amadhdinijab has left office.
He did like to twit the U.S. Government yanking its chain with threats on
Israel and the Great Satan of course-a true populist exploiting patriotism.
Even so Iran does have legitimate defense concerns. Saudi probably has a nuke
or two, Pakistan has dozens or hundreds and both nations are Sunni while Iran
is Shi'a. Neither is it likely that Iran has forgotten the Iran-Iraq war when
Saddam used Iranian corpses to make bridges for his tanks. There were more than
a million casualties in that war.
Probably the better way to get along with Iran is
restoration of as normal of relations as possible. Usually people on good terms
with a fair amount of transparency don't wake up and decide to surprise nuke a
neighbor or two especially if it guarantees a mass retaliation.
Iran has defense concerns from the Sunni world and
an urban populace that has a tendency for westernization something like that of
Turkey. Iran in some respects can adjust its democracy like that of Canada of
the past. Iran's Council of Experts is comparable to Canada's Privy Council
that is now mostly anachronistic yet formerly was more powerful than parliament
as in Iran today. As times change the quantification and allocation of power to
various institutions shifts without need for revolution. The Democracy of the
United States is somewhat different than either and more of a Republic or
really a corporatist entity with pretensions of global universal hegemony
through Wall Street. Normalization of relations with Iran-just diving in is likely
to be the logically best way to direct U.S. foreign policy.
Another concern of Iran is globalism. There are of
course various megalomaniacs of all stripes seeking world dominion. AL Gore has
a recent book named 'The Future' that outlines an emerging networked globe
marketplace evolution. Not everyone shares that goal or thinks it would be good
of course; many have ecosphere reform ideas that fit with economic reform while
keeping strong individual boundaries as if they were local gauge symmetries
letting democracy and development exist nationally. Iranian Shi'a leaders may
be slow to want anything to do with the corporatist world seeking to restore
plundering of natural resources supremacy and degradation of morality. The
homosexual elite of the Obama administration may hate the Islamic folkways and
Sharia proscribed homosexuality. Arnold Toynbee noted that of all social
institutions people will defend their religion most strongly especially since
it is a matter of eternal fate.