Judy Says What?

You hear many saying that U.S. intervention in Iran is due and called for.  I had thought so myself until I read  this CNN article - John Roberts interviewing Moorhead Kennedy; a survivor of the 1979 hostage taking crisis in Iran.  It was my belief that if the people of Iran could not live in freedom, could not demonstrate against opression, if the women were treated like animals; and if the peoples votes count as nothing - That a country large and powerful enough to make a difference should aid in their defense.

Now I realize there are a number of reasons why such intervention is not necessarily recommendable.  The Moorhead Kennedy interview has changed my perspective entirely.  It may be easy to say that the least we can do is aid those in need; let’s not invite nuclear war though!  It is time to think the big picture through a little more thoroughly…

If intervention is were explained as being conducted to enable Iranians to hold fair elections… Where is the line to be drawn?  The borders in such a situation will quickly turn from the apparently black and white to a startling shade of grey.  In the end, the U.S. will still have been fighting against the newly voted in president (as well as for the Iranian general populace).  It would have the appearance of supporting Mousavi; it will therefore display as partisan activity.   Would this indeed by default not actually become partisan activity?  It seems that it would.

• If U.S. intervention were to be seen as meddling; not just by Iran, but by other nations as well - This means that U.S. citizens are endangered by these acts.  More of a threat than ever in this age where threat posed by nuclear weaponry is an imminent reality
• Injustices apparent to U.S. government and citizens are not always injustice to all other nations.  In this case; how dare U.S. always be the first one to step in.  No wonder the U.S. is often seen as the meddler. 

I am not claiming that there are no actual injustices currently occurring in Iran; or that they lacked anywhere else the U.S. had previously intervened.  I am simply illustrating a number of different opinions that would require a new and fresh look at intervention; and am trying visualize things how other nations could perceive this activity.

• If Iran perceived the same degree of aggitation today as in 1979 - we would likely enter a war.
• And where does the national budget enter into this?  If the U.S. wasn’t so busy minding the business of others; they would be able to charge less in taxes to take care of their own.

What comes to mind as a better solution than direct intervention is for the
U.S. to invest that same amount of energy mediating the world arena - To basically round up a special alliance of governments to aid nations in necessary specific events.  This way aid would become much more powerful and targeted; and this way the U.S. wouldn’t always be perceived as being the major interference in foreign affairs.

I do not claim to know all of the answers, gosh; I don’t even know all of the questions.  I just had to say why I found this CNN article with Moorhead Kennedy fascinatingly educational and provocative.  Be sure to check it out.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS