Kyle Brady: Blog » Ahmadinejad

Iran As A Potential Ally [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:05:45 +0000

Iran has long been a problem for the Western World, not just America, and it doesn’t appear as if this not-war-yet struggle is going to be resolved at any point in the near future, especially given the recent actions by the country’s questionably re-elected President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the country’s military. But things could drastically change, given the proper intentions.

The Presidential elections held in Iran recently that resulted in the re-election of Ahmadinejad, have largely been considered fraudulent and dishonest, with speculation that Ahmadinejad falsified election results to ensure his victory in a contest analysts say he was already going to win. The protests of his rival’s supporters over the last few months have gained worldwide attention, and the focus has increased as Iranian forces moved to prevent gatherings of citizens, public dissemination of information, and digital protests. So it should come as no surprise, after more than three months of the country existing in a state of political upheaval, that their President, known for egotistical and irrational behavior, would wish to refocus the international media’s attention.

Prior to the recent protests, Iran has long struggled with the allure of nuclear power: its origin can be found in United States' sponsored endeavor in 1950 as a civilian enterprise, but after a revolution and a change of political ideals, this program quickly became a vehicle for both weapons and attention. The United States quickly revoked support in the early 1980’s, and in more recent years both the U.N. and America have been staunchly against any sort of nuclear program in Iran that has ambitions greater than providing basic nuclear power for its people.

Iran, as a country, is not very radical. A large number of its people, if not a majority, believe in modern ideals and would love nothing more to join the Western World in grasping for the future - this much has been made clear through the protests. There exists, however, a sector of the country that wishes to exert major influence not only on its Middle East neighbors, but the entire world, ostensibly giving birth to the worldwide Caliphate that Islam fundamentalists so strongly desire. In a strangely sage talk given by Robert Baer, a former top CIA operative, on November 5th, 2008, he discusses this predilection by Ahmadinejad to extend his power outside of the country’s borders, labeling it an “empire by proxy” – through the use of oil manipulation, threats, and the support of certain militaristic groups, they have achieved modern relevance.

Baer also discusses how Ahmadinejad would likely lose his re-election, since he is far too radical for a country whose religious Supreme Leader is considered more realistic and rational than their President, and that both the media and the Western World focus too often on the President and his questionable actions, rather than the country as a whole. It is through this very lens that the recent behaviors of Ahmadinejad may be analyzed, leading to a surprising conclusion for a nation that is not necessarily well represent by its political figurehead.

Iran’s current President’s attention-seeking behaviors are well documented, including his manipulation of media and dissemination of propaganda to augment reality or cover-up failures - much like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il. When the international media decides to talk about other issues or countries, rather than Iran, actions are taken to once again thrust the country into the spotlight. Over the last few years there have been numerous threats of nuclear weaponry, open war, and attacks on Israel, none of which have come to fruition, let alone taken entirely seriously by the international community.

If there was any doubt that Iran’s relevance is independent of Ahmadinejad’s behaviors, the recent activities in the U.N. should act as sufficient evidence – the chain of events is rather simple: Iran is forced into nuclear negotiations once again, Ahmadinejad makes a predictably inflammatory speech at the United Nations, a notice of nuclear facility activation is given to the IAEA, and President Obama makes a rebuttal along with his U.K. and French counterparts. This interchange is highly formulaic, and predictable based on previous activity, but the crucial difference is in the reaction to Iran’s nuclear facility announcement – the Western World was not surprised that such a facility existed, ostensibly under military control and too small for civilian purposes, and indicated that Iran’s notice to the IAEA was less than revelatory.

The United States’ awareness of such granular detail of the Iranian regime, but continued public inaction and lack of discourse, is an indication of the actual threat perceived by the Western World. Ahmadinejad was no doubt infuriated that his actions, which he likely assumed would cause an international outcry, turned out to be so laughably impotent, and instead amounted to a political embarrassment. In truth, the United States is concerned about the ability of Iran to produce nuclear material, but the path to weaponization is long – even if the program is successful, a highly questionable assumption, it is unlikely that Ahmadinejad would be able to use it on the Western World at all. And if he instead chooses to use it on his publicly sworn enemies, such as Israel, the entire Middle Eastern region collapses into a state of divided warfare – something Ahmadinejad is likely well aware of.

A conclusion that can be drawn from this international interchange, and one that Robert Baer comes to ten months prior, is that Iran can be an ally to Western interests, and should not be treated with such open hostility. The removal of Ahmadinejad from power is essential to Iran’s progress on the worldwide stage, and his childish and impotent actions should be treated almost entirely independent of those of the people. In the coming years, strong allies will need to be found in the Middle East if any hope of fundamentalist peace is to be had – an ally with legitimate power, influence, and strength can make all the difference. Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, and Pakistan are all tenable allies at the best of times, but these countries with positive U.S. relations do not hold sway with the entire region in the way that Iran does.

For peace, progress, and stability, international leaders should look to the Iranian Revolution and the immediate removal of Ahmadinejad as President, which would ultimately alleviate the varying concerns regarding nuclear weaponry, an unstable military, and fundamentalist leadership in a comparatively progressive region. Iran could be the keystone in bridging the divide between the West and the Middle East, potentially solving vast international problems with a few simple actions.

American Media Coverage of Iran: Possible Blackout? [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:05:00 +0000

As is probably obvious to most Americans at this point, Iran has had a Presidential election, pitting incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against a “revolutionary” named Mir-Hossein Mousavi – initial results said Mousavi won the election, but later results claimed Ahmadinejad won by a landslide, with suspiciously quick (in comparison to previous elections) verification by the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader according to their political structure. There have been protests-turned-riots by a large number of the people since the events of June 13, 2009 – the ‘net has been awash with criticisms, support of the protesters, and pictures/video showing the worsening situation. Despite the drama, American media has been strangely silent on the issue until yesterday (6/16/2009), and is only covering the issue with the slightest of attention and realism – labeling videos and pictures as “unverified”, using loaded wording in describing the situation, and a number of other shocking journalistic faux paux’s that questions the independence of such media institutions. Even CNN fell prey to this.

American media, however slanted, is typically independent of the federal government and its wishes, often acting as a counterbalance to the government itself. However, the media occasionally subjects themselves to the will of the feds, and there's even a recent example: the media blackout of military coffins returning to the United States after foreign deaths during the Bush Administration. The ban was eventually leaked, and then lifted, but the fact remains that it existed within the last decade. The reasons for such a ban were the usual litany of patriotism, national security, and withholding fuel from terrorists. Who’s to say this couldn’t have happened in regards to the ongoing Iran election protests?

If there was a federal gag order to American mainstream media on the recent Iranian events, there would have to be good reasons – and many can be easily imagined.

The Evil You Know

Prior to the election, President Obama was concerned with Iran’s growing nuclear threat/program and alarming political choices, and this election could swing that issue in either direction. Replacing the current figurehead with an unknown could be highly dangerous, no matter how the “revolutionary” has presented himself to the world. Perhaps keeping Ahmadinejad in power, so long as he either wins or pretends to win, is a better decision for our future – small strides have been made since the change of power in America, and this progress could be quickly erased by a new leader wishing to start over. Or, maybe more relevant to modern political times, is the example of Afghanistan - America helped initiate a change in power many years ago, for a leadership that was deemed favorable to our interests. Only to have that same ruling body become a significant problem for our current military interests, and an abject lesson in political power struggles.

Becoming the Villain

Speaking in favor of a specific side in the election drama could backfire, depending on who succeeds – supporting the challenger for democracy is all well and good, until he is disposed of, leaving an angry and encouraged longtime enemy in his wake. Interfering with the elections, or even discussing them via what may be seen as national media organizations, could give an already skeptical leader a figure to vilify, prompting further ignorance of the international regulatory action. Even worse would be the reaction of Iran’s allies to such actions, making an already politically polarized region moreso.

Accelerated Middle Eastern Destabilization

If Iran collapses into civil war, or whatever the presiding political force of Iran would wish to call it, lines will be drawn – countries will take sides for and against the rebellion, not only creating further international animosity, but would provide just-another-in-a-long-list-of-reasons for countries that hate each other to fight. An arena already fraught with disaster, chaos, and unstable regimes does not need more reasons to launch all out war with each other.

New Foreign Policy

The most logical and politically charged reason for a mainstream media gag order could be the new Administration’s Foreign Policy. After the last eight years, America needs an image makeover – President Obama knows this. He has spent considerable amounts of time stating positions on international issues, as well as making it clear that we are not interested in imperialist military action wherever our whims take us – this was the basic premise of the recent speech in Cairo, Egypt. To vocally participate in a Middle Eastern country’s political drama, which could potentially be a surprising revolution, would be to undo what has already begun. Further, if military action, or even sanctions, were imposed on Iran based on America’s official position, most of the world would likely discount our future words and actions as disingenuous, creating an unsavory situation for the entire country. President Obama actually recognized this point in a comment on Iran yesterday.

Conclusion

There is no official, or even unofficial, word on a mainstream media gag order, but the actions of the media organizations may very well speak for themselves. Such a gag order is not necessarily un-American or even unintelligent, since the mere words of pundits could easily be interpreted by unfriendly countries as an official position, or the will of the people – creating a string of problems, both political and militaristic in nature, that would likely push America further into a hole that is increasingly difficult to climb out of.

--- --- ---

Update (6/17/2009 1:00am PST): Reprinted at The Inquisitr with permission.