Reading through some blogs tonight and was provoked into thinking more on that crazy week of the opening of the United Nations General Assembly and especially the visit by Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.The hardest part of that week was having a close relative of a dear friend of mine remark that we should just "nuke" Iran before their nuclear program develops full scale. I know people feel this way, but hearing someone say it, over a nice dinner, someone who is actually sort of a government person, completely rattled me.
Here's where I'm coming from: I love that part of the world. I love the Arab world, I love the South Asian world, I love the Persian world. I simply have a soft spot, in general, for the Muslim world. I love their history, I love their spiritual truths, I love their art, I love their music, I love their food, I love their films, and all these things have created a lovelovelove for the people. I have only been to one little city in the Arabian/Persian Gulf, but I dream all the time of going to others throughout.
So, specifically, about Iran. I know Persians. I love Persians. It seems to me that our media, our government cannot bring us any depth beyond what to fear, what to protect, what to defend. OUR INTERESTS. The President of Iran seems for most important purposes a loathsome creature. But more intriguing that week, in and around the U.N., was what Persians were saying about him and why. The Iranian diaspora is coming from a different place -- than the US media/government -- they condemn Ahmadinejad out of fear and love for their country, their people. Why is he evil in our eyes? Are we concerned more for our nuclear monopoly/safety or for the dignity/freedom of the Persian people? What are the motives for the U.S. abhorrence of Iran's leadership? Where will that lead our actions? Will it be positive/constructive for the average Iranian?
Does it make us love the Iranian people?
I just don't understand the math -- so we punish Iran with nuclear weapons for wanting to have nuclear weapons, ostensibly to protect themselves from being destroyed by said nuclear weapons. Are they not permitted to defend themselves? We are likely a real threat, especially when one considers that the only country in the world to have ever used the nuclear bomb on another country has been the United States. We are rather threatening. Should we really be telling others not to have bombs themselves?
I HATE all this, I really do. No one should have the bomb. I love America. We should be nuclear free, that should be our pride in the world. We should lead with the most astounding non-violent act: Get rid of it, get rid of fear, initiate peace and reconciliation.The great American Thomas Paine, who proposed so many revolutionary ideas for this country (including it's name!), said this:
The world is my country,
all mankind are my brethren,
and to do good is my religion.
Amen.
Film, art, music, literature inform me a great deal when I want to understand a culture/people – watch _Children of Heaven_ by Majid Majidi. He’s made numerous, unspeakably lovely films about his people. Ahmadinejad should not be the only face/voice/instrument one thinks of when Iran is mentioned.
4 comments:
I cheered out loud at this entry, Heather. Here, here.
Is Children of Heaven the incredibly sweet movie about the brother who runs a race to win shoes for his sister? I love it, one of my favorite movies. Do you have it?
I agree with your horror at the flippancy of people when they say we should just "nuke" Iran, clearly ignoring the fact that it would be Iran's innocent citizens that would bear the real brunt of such an attack, but equating the U.S. possession of nuclear weapons with Iran's desire (particularly, Ahmadinejad's desire) to acquire them is its own fallacy. Iran isn't interested in nuclear weapons for defense--it's hoping to wield them as a threat. The idea that Iran would not go on to bomb Israel is naive and Iran would also be just as likely to sell its nuclear weapons to terrorists where they could end up at our shores, killing many more innocent American people than died on Sept. 11th.
It's true that the U.S. is the only country to have used its nuclear weapons--and a horrible aftermath they had, too, but they also ended a terrible war that was costing many, many American (and Japanese) lives. More than 18,000 Americans died in Iwo Jima alone, in a period of less than a month, which is nearly six times the number of Americans who have died in four years in Iraq. In a perfect world, nuclear disarmament would free us, but unfortunately, as long as there are evil people in the world (and if we don't think Ahmadinejad is evil, all you have to do is read a few lines of his ideas, such as his holocaust denial or the fact that there are "no homosexuals in Iran"--presumably because they have all been killed or locked up?), it is better to have a positive hegemony--and yes, the U.S. is that--with a such deterrence at its hands than to leave the world defenseless.
As I understand it, Iran's people, particularly its university students, have been itching to get rid of Ahmadinejad and his ilk for years. Such a revolution might be bloody--many times the greatest forces of positive change are--but it might change the face of the mideast entirely if it were to happen. If there is any way we can help them, we ought to. And remember them, and all people who live under oppression and the face of evil, in our prayers.
We should not be afraid to criticize the U.S.--such protected speech is the cornerstone of what makes our country so very great--but to equate the intentions of the U.S. with those of Iran's president muddies the real distinction there is between the free way we live and the protection we offer to the rest of the world with way a country like Iran would use such a terrible power to wreak havoc on anyone it saw fit.
Thanks for the thoughts above myfriends! Yeah! Let’s discuss!
May: Indeed! Of course, you’ve seen that movie! I’d be surprised if you hadn’t. See more, see more. Another which is unbelievably touching and powerful is: "The Color of Paradise" and "Leila". But see "Color. . ." first. I don’t own any of them. N8 keeps asking me why I don’t have at least "The Children of Heaven", and he’s right because I’ve seen it countless times. I don’t hoard videos like I do books, but this one would be worth owning.
Mara: Seems to me the very purpose of having nuclear power in ones arsenal is to brandish threat. Many nations are threatened by us and vice versa. I’m just not convinced, I guess, that Iran would do all those terrible things should they have the bomb. Read recently that defense analysts conclude that Israel has the most extensive and sophisticated nuclear arsenal outside of the major powers. It would be mutually assured destruction.
In addition, using nuclear power on Israel would be veryveryvery tricky. It’s one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth, appox. 10,000 square miles. It can fit into nearly every U.S. state. How could someone bomb them without also wiping out the Palestinian population? I don’t see how it could be done. Yes, they are separated by checkpoints and guys with guns, but Israel is only 10,000 square miles how much distance will a bomb cover? Ugh! Awful thought. . .
But aside from that, I can’t quite trust all this fear-mongering, as it relates to the U.S. & Iran, esp. after what our government told us Iraq was imminently close to doing (to us) and, well, they couldn’t and they didn’t – as they had no nuclear bombs! And I don’t feel like we’re helping Iraq even after going in and removing that horrible, awful leader. It’s still horrible – people don’t love each other. They and we don’t seem to know how to stop hating and hurting. It’s all madness. Madness! I weep.
You wrote: If there is any way we can help them, we ought to. And remember them, and all people who live under oppression and the face of evil, in our prayers.
I would love to help them (Iraqis and Persians)! But truly, how do we do it? There is deep distrust and resentment toward our nation for using guns and bombs with such bravado. I don’t think guns and bombs are the answer. Not now. Everyone has them. We no longer dominate with that sort of thrust (as in WWII). I know I’m naïve, but I can’t equate it! I can’t compute it!
Ultimately, Iraqis need to help Iraqis. Persians need to help Persians. Africans need to help Africans. Columbians need to help Columbians. God needs to help us all!
Dearest Heather--I agree with you. It's madness. It's all madness, which is why the current situation is so frightening. It seems even now that there is a fondness for the Cold War when we were dealing with a rational actor like the Soviet Union, where the MAD doctrine had some sway. I'm not convinced that Ahmadinejad is such a rational actor, or that he fears at all for the lives of his own people. As you say, too, Israel is a tiny country, barely bigger than New Jersey. Several well-placed nuclear attacks could decimate it. And the Palestinian population serves such places as Iran as bad PR for Israel and nothing more. I don't think Ahmadinejad would cry over their loss either, if it meant he could get rid of the Jewish state, the focus of almost all their rage and hatred.
I do think we were wrong in Iraq, though it seems clear it was as much Hussein's fault as our own since he thwarted inspectors at every turn and did everything he could to make it appear as though he did, in fact, have such weapons. But the reason we are losing there is not because we no longer have the superior firepower in the world. As you say, we have nuclear weapons. We could decimate their country, lay it completely flat. We're losing because of our own kindness. Our soldiers are trying hard not to kill civilians, they are trying to rebuild, they are trying to route out only those who would kill them and destroy Iraq's chance at a stable government, but their enemies hide in homes and mosques and they have none of the same qualms about blowing up women and children that our soldiers do.
But we can be no other way--to run roughshod over the country like the Third Reich is not in our soul and I'm so glad it isn't. Still, I think we're at a real crossroads in history where everything that Western Civilization stands for is endangered by people who would bring it down. Yes, we MUST defend our own interests, because our interests include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and so on. If we do not actively defend our way of life, we will find it has been taken from us and a very different rule imposed instead.
I really agree with you--those in the Middle East must help themselves in the sense that they need to push this radical element out of their own midst. I'm really hoping they do. And while it's true that guns and bombs don't solve everything and their worth is so very limited, I would hope we have the ability at the time to stand by them with whatever might we can bring, if indeed it came to that. I hope not.
I'm with you--how can we not love a people struggling to find and produce beauty when their lives are threatened every day, when someone like Ahmadinejad is the face of their country? I wish we could set them free. I wish I knew how.
Post a Comment