National responsibility.

August 31, 2012

If people benefit from Western Liberal Democracy they have an obligation to all free people to help protect this way of life. I understand that many second generation citizens have often begun to lose their national identity, but those who speak a foreign language are obligated to compel their nations of origin to support Liberal Democracy. This means that someone from Venezuela that benefits from living in the U.S. has an obligation to the U.S. to advocate Liberal Democracy to people from Venezuela. The U.S. is a melting pot, but nationalism for another nation is also acceptable.

What we must recognized is that what makes the U.S. great is it’s value system. If an immigrant succeeds in the U.S. it is because the value system of the U.S. allowed it to happen. If foreign nations posses the same values and embrace Liberal Democracy, they to will prosper. Sometimes these nations need encouragement. Who better to encourage reform in Iran that Persian Americans? American Muslims that immigrated from Islamic nations should encourage tolerance in their countries of origin. They should encourage the presence of all religions, tolerance of all world views, and recognize the value of the open forum. The United States is for everyone who adopts its values, but remember what John F. Kennedy said. “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

This issue is devoid of partisan politics. It strikes at the fundamental nature of Liberalism. Tolerance must be met with tolerance, otherwise nations will begin to reject various views. I think that it can be widely agreed that citizens of the United States want to see a return of civil liberties for everyone (including those at Gitmo). The problem is that they are unable to do so without compromising their own safety. This is why Gitmo is still open. U.S. citizens do not want homeland security, but there are too many groups plotting terrorism. The best way to fix this problem is to advocate progressive change abroad. I want to be very clear that I do not advocate war against Iran, but rather a change in its political structure.

Iran today is similar to fascist Germany is many ways. It is similar in that it idolizes a group of individuals as though their were the supreme authority over all of humanity. The Iranian government openly advocates violence against the West for the simple reason that Western Ideals are present in the Middle east. The same can be said for many extremist factions throughout the middle east. The question is what will fill the gap if the West withdraws? Obviously there will not be a progressive liberal society that will fill the void, instead I assert that there will be a push by regional powers to fill the void. This will result in massive death and skyrocketing oil prices.

Nazi Germany attempted to colonize Europe by inducing a constant hysteria among the German populous. It constantly needed to find threats to justify hegemony. When there were no threats it simply invented them. Nazi Germany (especially the SS) was content with annihilating other cultures that did not submit themselves to the Reich. This was fascism, and it is being repeated in Iran. The rhetoric is the same, and so is the hysteria that the government educes in the populous.

Then there is the subject of Mossadeque during the Cold War. Lets view what occurred in terms of a global perspective. Both the West and the Soviets were vying for power in Iran. The Shah’s government was in power, he was favored by the West. Western businesses such as BP established themselves in the nation of Iran. Initially the profits were well in favor of the West and only slightly benefited the Iranian people. These meager benefits would first apply to the Shah then the Shah would appropriate them accordingly.

BP invested great sums of money into the nation including large portions of their intellectual property which developed the equipment to pull oil out of the ground. This initial investment was gradually paid off and the Shah gradually benefited more from BP’s oil production. The Shah obviously lived a very lavish lifestyle to the envy of the average Iranian. He siphoned off huge portions of money for himself and his personal benefit. Nonetheless, the West backed him because they were unaware of the situation. All the while the Soviets began to plant the seeds of descent through Mossadeq.

Mossadeq gained power, and urged nationalization of oil production. This was a common Soviet move to redistribute wealth. The Shah knew that what would soon follow would be collectivization, and inevitably his death. So, the Shah asked for help from the West. The West (unbenounced to the situation in its entirety) was obliged. The Shah regained control. Then in 1979 there was the Islamic Revolution that ousted the Shah entirely. This new Islamic Republic was hostile to the West, but not from a Socialist perspective, rather an ethnocentric one. Nonetheless, many Western nations have since done business with the Republic, and both have prospered.

It is clear today that the Islamic Republic of Iran is aligned more with the former Communist states than with the West. Understandably so considering the Shah’s rule. This does not change the fact that the West is friendly toward Persian people. The West has benefited the people of Iran since the Islamic Revolution. It is false for the Iranian people to believe the Islamic Republic is not align with any specific ideology. It is clear that the government in power is sympathetic toward former Communists, and that the former Communist nations reciprocate that sympathy. What the Persian people in Iran and abroad need to realize is that they are not benefiting from the current actions of the Islamic Republic. Instead, the leaders of the Islamic Republic are needlessly forcing a violent outcome from the current situation. All the while the former Communist nations are quietly supporting them just like they did for years.

It is not hard to see that the West wants prosperity for the Persian people, while the former Communists are indifferent toward war (take Syria’s current situation for example). Russia is poised to make tremendous profits from a war in the middle east.  The question is whether the Persian people will condone their government’s direction toward war, or whether they will demand peace and prosperity through descent. This nonaligned movement  that Tehran is a part of was established by Communist leaders. It is foolish to believe that this movement is not a subsidiary of the Russian Federation and former Communist nations. Iranian leaders insist they are acting on behalf of Iran and the Persian people, but they are only doing so because they are being enabled by various other powers. Will the Persian people recognize who has their best interest in mind, or will they succumb to the same hysteria the German people fell for before WWII?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s