Douglas Gansler writes in the March 9 Wall Street Journal about why states should take action to prohibit investment of funds in companies that do business in Iran. He worries that state funds could be supporting 'a regime known for harboring terrorists' and 'violations of international law and human rights.' He states that Iran has 'ignored repeated international calls for peace' and has 'sponsored terrorist plots against the United States'. He cites 'the threat of a nuclear-armed state sponsor of terror' as a call to action against Iran. The title of his article is, in fact 'United States Against Iran'.
Mr. Gansler fails to make a logical connection between Iran's actions and any real threat to America. As such, here at the Common Sense Pundit, we must wonder what his real motivations are.
Iran is, in fact, a sponsor of Hezbollah and other similar groups known to carry out militant and terrorist attacks. In this regard, Iran is in good company. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and numerous other nations are currently providing weapons and other support to the Syrian rebels, many of whom are members of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and many of whom carry out suicide bombings, kidnappings, and other terrorist activities. And we must not forget that fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. (None were from Iran.) If he is interested in penalizing nations that support terrorism, Mr. Gansler might want to direct his efforts towards Saudi Arabia.
Same goes for Iran's alleged 'violations of international law and human rights'. If such behavior were criteria for nations that states should not invest in, the list of available investments would be dramatically reduced. Consider, for instance, that Saudi Arabia contributed to Bahrain's brutal suppresion of pro-democracy demonstrations in Manama. How about China's abyssmal record on human rights in Tibet and even among it's own citizens? Or Israel's construction of the Separation Wall and its ongoing confiscation of Palestinian lands? Yet Mr. Gansler does not appear to advocate divestment from China, Saudi Arabia, or Israel.
And what about Gansler's concern that Iran could become a 'nuclear-armed state sponsor of terrorism'? Recall again that Saudi Arabia, with its fundamentalist Wahhabi government and its ongoing support for al Qaeda, enjoys a quite cozy relationship with the United States. Why the double standard? Recall also that the United States facilitated or at least tolerated the development of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Pakistan's relationship with elements of the Taliban and its all but proven sponsorship of Lashkar-e-Taiba (whose members carried out the 2008 attacks in Mumbai), do not appear to bother Mr. Gansler.
The hypocrisy of Mr. Gansler's position with respect to Iran suggests that his real agenda has nothing to do the with security of the United States. In fact, we have little to fear from Iran. Of all the nations previously mentioned in this article, Iran is one of the few whose military or citizens have not attacked our nation. The same cannot be said for Saudi Arabia and Israel (USS Liberty, June 8, 1967) In fact, Iran is one of the few countries in the region that has not attacked another nation. Iran does, on the other hand, have a legitamate concern about the intentions of the United States. The US has invaded and overthrown the governments of two nations that share significant borders with Iran - Iraq to the west and Afghanistan to the east. The United States and two of its major allies - Israel and Saudi Arabia - have made no secret of their aggresive stance vis-a-vis Iran. No one can support Iran's apparent desire to acquire nuclear weapons, but it should not come as a surprise considering the current and past aggressive actions of America and its allies, and considering America's unpleasant history with regard to Iran, going back to the overthrow of Mosaddegh in 1953 and the hostage crisis of 1979.
Because Iran poses no significant direct threat to the United States, and because we appear to tolerate or even support other nations who sponsor terrorism and/or possess nuclear weapons, here at the Common Sense Pundit, we must ask why Mr. Gansler and just about everyone in Washington, D.C. support aggressive sanctions and even military action against Iran. The answer is quite apparent. Other nations of the region, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia, feel threatened by Iran. And, since each of these nations enjoys unlimited and unconditional support from America, Washington feels obliged to do their dirty work for them. But at the Common Sense Pundit, we see it differently. America has no bone to pick with Iran. Of all the nations in the world that may harbor some enmity towards us, Iran is certainly not the worst. Let us focus our resources on real risks to America and its security. If Israel and Saudi Arabia are worried about Iran, they have the money and military resources to take care of their own problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment