Iran - How should the USA respond?

The last week has shown some amazing images come out of Iran, those that escaped the censors. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is suddenly a very public figure to the entire world. For most of the us the Supreme Leader was always someone in the shadows, the great spiritual leader, whose goal is supposedly to bring his country closer to God.

This past week shows that not only has he not been successful, but that he may be forcing his countrymen to take sides in what could turn out to be a civil war. For thirty years the Ayatollahs have ruled from behind closed doors, making all the major decisions and having a figure head to be their public voice. That has now changed. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came forth and told the people not only were they not to question the election results, but that they were not to protest, they were not to question and they were not to have their own thoughts.

What century is this man living in?

Those who are protesting are the intelligentsia of Iran. Students, the middle class, those who know what is going on in the world. These are people seeking a true democracy and all that comes with it.

Iran has suffered since the mid-50's when the CIA help the Shah take power, when they had no rights, and then after the '79 revolution they have suffered at the hands of extremists clerics.

The Iran people want their freedom and I hope they get it. But, it is important that they get it on their own. No help, especially from Western nations who will call in the debt. I may not agree with President Obama on many things, but I think he is right on course on this issue.

The USA can comment that the election looked rigged, hell that's obvious. But it is the people of Iran who have to fight to get their freedom. For too long they have been held down by one form of tyranny or another. Its up to them to raise the cry of freedom and make it their reality.

Its Common Sense!

Iranian Justice (and dual citizenship)

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has publicly stated that reporter Roxana Saberi should be allowed a full defense during her appeal. Evidently, during her initial one day trial, behind closed doors, the Iran government did not feel she was entitled to a full defense.

The fact that Saberi has dual American/Iranian citizenship raises some interesting questions, especially since either side could make the case that she is spying for the other side. Of course, as long as the trial process is behind closed doors, we will never know just what she is accused of and what her defense is.

Diplomatically I do not know the international legal ramifications that are involved. Can the US even make any requests legitimately, since Saberi is an Iranian citizen? Do dual citizens have any additional rights when they are considered citizens of more than one country?

What this really raises of course is the question is whether the practice of dual (or more) citizenship's should be allowed to continued. How do we decide who can have dual citizenship and who can't? An ally this decade could be an enemy next decade and vice versa.

As the world becomes smaller and people travel and work internationally more and more, and marriages occur with more regularity between people of different nationalities, what will be the standard for multiple citizenship's? Should they be allowed, or should a person be forced to declare their loyalty to a single nation?

Or should the world start moving towards a more international view, with things like the European Union, should their be the Alliance of the Americas and more open, more universal view?

Is it time to have a world view and get away from a strictly nationalistic view?

I know a lot of questions and no answers. Share your views. As with all things, open discussion is how good changes are made.

Its Common Sense!

Obama's Diplomatic Team

I was pleasantly surprised when Obama named Richard Holbrook and George Mitchell to be special envoys to two of the most troubled spots in the world. These are old pros at the diplomatic game, and more importantly, they both have no problem speaking their opinion. They are definitely not "yes" men and it will be interesting to see if Hillary Clinton's State Department is truly going to be open to discussion and debate.

Another interesting thing I found out this week was about the tunnels in Gaza. I thought they were all about HAMAS. Well, I was wrong. Turns out they are offshoots of economic necessity and capitalism. Although HAMAS uses the tunnels to bring in supplies - like missiles and other weapons - business men in Gaza also bring in supplies to fill their stores. They pay the owner of the tunnel for bringing in their merchandise.

While the tunnels are being built, workers receive $200.00 a week, a pretty good wage for that part of the world.

So the question is, what will happen to the tunnels if Israel opens the crossings and allows commerce to flow at normal levels? The merchants will no longer need the tunnels. HAMAS will.
It will be interesting to see if tunnel owners raise their price when they are down to one client. Of course it appears that Iran is supplying HAMAS with unlimited funds, but eventually they are going to want some kind of "bang" for their buck.

If George Mitchell can work with the Israelis, Palestinians and Egyptians to insure that the West Bank and Gaza are allowed to trade like a free country and Egypt becomes diligent in patrolling their side of the tunnels, HAMAS may lose whatever face and power they had in Gaza and the legitimate Palestinian government can take control.

As for Richard Holbrook, Afghanistan and Pakistan are going to be real challenges. We wise him luck.

These first decisions by Obama appear impressive, let's hope that he continues to make the right moves for the good of all of us.

Its Common Sense!

Gaza

Fighting continues in Gaza, with Palestinian civilians taking a heavy toll. Neither side wants to talk cease-fire - the Israel military is slowly but surely gaining ground and Hamas continues to defiantly fire missiles into Israel. Both talk about the innocent civilians, but the sad truth of the matter is that neither side really cares about innocent civilians, because if they did a cease fire would be in effect.

Both sides are committed to achieving their goals. Israel, to insure their country will never be threatened from Gaza again and Hamas, showing the world that they will not be dictated to by their enemy.

For both to achieve their goals, the Palestinian citizens of Gaza have to pay the price. As all too often is the case, when zealots and radicals meet, innocents pay the price.

I do not understand why the United Nations has not gotten off its butt and sent in a peace keeping force, that will actually keep the the peace and hold both sides accountable to the agreement made in 2007. The peace keepers should have the right to take the necessary action to enforce the peace.

Okay, I know that our own beloved country is one of the reasons no peace keepers have been sent. George W believes Hamas is guilty because of their rocket attacks on Israel and I agree. I believe that as soon as Hamas broke the peace agreement, UN peace keepers should have entered Gaza and sealed the smuggling tunnels, arrest the Hamas militants responsible for the violations and allowed life to continue as normal as possible.

Of course that did not happen. The world had to wait until the situation escalated out of control and then were forced into calling for a cease fire.

The United Nations is a good idea in theory, but it has allowed itself to become so bogged down with politics, diplomacy and keeping face, that it has failed as an institution for international peace. To be effective, the UN has to be pro-active, anticipate the problem and act. Coming in after the fact will always be too little too late.

If the UN had sent peace keepers in six months ago, there would be no need for the massive relief effort that will be needed once the Israeli troops return home.

Death and destruction could have been avoided if the UN had acted quickly and effectively.

That's my opinion. Now, maybe I am hoping for too much from the UN, maybe I am a dreamer and not a realist, at least in this situation.

What should the UN do? How should they act? When should they step into a crisis?

Let your voices be heard.

Its Common Sense!