President Obama has made a secret correspondence with the country
of Iran a few weeks ago. Now that the tensions and stupidity have died
down, I feel safe enough to actually comment on this and if someone wants to,
have a conversation without someone turning into a hot head. So let me
begin.
The non-controversial part: The fact that the president had a secret
correspondence was never the issue. In fact, historically, Presidents had
that right since President George Washington. These letters are useful in
making alliances, and even bringing about better relations with other countries
as a whole. They are also integral to ending wars as well. So
President Obama I have no problem with you in this respect.
The Controversial part: What people took umbrage to was the
fact that President Obama was communicating with the country of Iran. For
those who do not know, Iran is a known terrorist training ground for certain
Islamic terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and even Hamas (who attack America's
ally Israel). Additionally, they have sworn to wipe the State of Israel
off the face of the earth if given the chance. Then you have things of
less grand a scale, such as the suppression of women's rights, imprisonment and
possible torture of political dissidents, harboring of terrorists, public
executions, and a few other things that are clearly violations of the basic
moral compass and what it means to be country representing freedom and
democracy.
In the correspondence, President Obama
invites Iran to join the fight against ISIS/ISIL and that America will give
them support to do so. Of course Iran is very interested in helping as
ISIS/ISIL are Sunni Muslims who are killing Shiite Muslims in other countries
(Iran is a Shiite Muslim country). As such Iran wants to fight ISIS/ISIL
to protect their Shiite brethren. Now this is where things get dicey. We
already would be helping a country that most likely wants to see America die,
and is essentially our antithesis, but this gives Iran a foothold in Iraq where
Shiite Muslims live. Reason this is bad is for two reasons. The
first reason is that it allows them to get their oil pipeline from Russia,
through Iran, into Shiite controlled Iraq, and then into Syria (another Shiite
majority country that is considered a puppet state of Iran) and then into
Europe. Thus, allowing Iran's economy to grow and giving them the money
and logistics they need to build up their war machine. The other bad part
is that it gives Iran a pathway to send their forces safely into Syria, via the
Shiite controlled southern part of Iraq. So they can re-establish Assad
as the president of Syria (a government that is considered a totalitarian
dictatorship) or annex Syria as part of Iran along with the southern region of
Iraq under the right of protection idea so as to protect ethnic Shiite Muslims.
As Syria borders Israel (the southern part of Iraq does also) it allows
Iran send its forces directly into Israel to wage all-out war once the conflict
with ISIS/ISIL is over. Either way, Iran becoming involved is a lose lose
situation.
Conclusion: We have ourselves a quandary.
We help Iran get into the war with ISIS/ISIL, but it means sacrificing
the safety and security in the Middle East in the near future. Or we send
our own forces in and do the job for the Middle East so as to prevent the worst
case scenario from happening. This is not a very easy decision and to let
Iran in means America will be playing a very dangerous chess game with Israel
possibly being sacrificed. So what happens next depends on the President,
and the decisions of the other world leaders involved in the Middle Eastern
conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment