Iran, US Iran relations and the release of prisoners

I was so glad when I heard the news yesterday. Iran released the British sailors. It was welcome news after weeks filled with anxiety about what could happen next.

After watching the documentary "the secret" and learning more about the law of attraction. (By the way I have been a student of metaphysics for many years so I know our thoughts have a tremendous influence in what happens in our lives.) I had for the past few weeks prayed for peace in our planet. I could not imagine us involved in another war for whatever reason.

I no longer focus on conflict and how to end it. I focus on peace and I wish everyone did. I don't think we should call people who are against the war part of the anti war movement because it has negative connotations. We should call it instead, the peace movement, that way, I feel, they can actually attract "peace." I believe some wars have to be fought, but most are manufactured.

"Only when there are many people who are pools of peace, silence, understanding, will war dissappear." OSHO

I also like this one "If you want peace, work for justice." Pope Paul VI

My issue with international affairs and conflicts in general has to do with lack of context in our media about any country we tend to have conflicts with. It is a mistake to believe what our leaders say without asking the tough questions. I have never believed anything a politician from any party tells me without some skepticism.

Here is what I have learned about Iran recently. My intern Arnav Chakravarty wrote a paper on US Iran Relations and Policy and this is what he found in his research. Here is a quick summary and a recommendation to create peace with Iran.

1. The US has played an integral role in Iranian domestic affairs since the early 1950's.
At the time President Eisenhower felt we needed to stop the USSR influence there so he decided the then elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh (yes he was democratically elected)
was a threat to US oil interests throughout the region, so he approved the former British plan to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh (Sokolski and Clawson 2005) The CIA was ultimately successful in removing him through a domestic coup and restoring the Shah of Iran to power.
According to author Dilip Hiro "This reprehensible act of the United States left a deep scar on the minds of Iranians, implanting most of them with abiding animosity toward America." (Penn 2005)

2. During the Johnson years, according to the US Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs in 1999, "the only bone of contention between the two countries was the shah's seemingly insatiable appetite for more and newer military equipment." The conflict continued and exploded under the Jimmy Carter presidency with the hostage fiasco. the Iran Hostage crisis, lead to anti Shah groups protesting the oppressive nature of the Iranian regime and despised US support of it, so it took over the American embassy in Iran and took 66 people hostage. The standoff eventually ended under the Reagan administration.

3. Ronald Reagan's presidency outwardly focused on arming Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. In other words, our government supported Saddam Hussein over the ayatollah's Iranian government. Reagan then decided he needed to get arms to the contras in Nicaragua to avoid it becoming another communist vietnam but congress refused to get involved, so he sold arms to Iran because the profits from those sales would to to the Contras, who would buy arms with the profits. This was known as the Iran Contra scandal. This eventually led to more distrust between the US, Iran and Iraq.

4. Under the First George Bush and Clinton relations with Iran stabilized until 9/11. When the current Bush administration decided on a pre-emptive approach to future terrorist attacks and consequently invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, other countries in the Middle East, including Iran felt genuinely threatened by the US's increasingly militaristic presence in the region and have taken action for their own security. The new Ahmadinejad's regime's attempt to begin nuclear development has the US and particularly Israel and some arab neighbors worried.

5. The Bush doctrine of pre emptive strike is no longer acceptable. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated "The US will give the diplomacy a little time. "(Shanker 2006) and while President Ahmadinejad's statements are agressive, his views only represent a minority view, while most of the Iranian government wants energy for civilian purposes only, not military purposes.
In fact, it is the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamene'i who , on more than one occasion, has indicated his willingness to pursue dialogue with the US (Azlan 2006) and with Iran's supreme leader willing to negotiate with the US, the US has tremendous leverage over the Iranian public.
Iran is a "sophisticated and technology-savvvy country that boasts adult literacy rates approaching 90 percent. The vast majorities of Iranians- nearly 70 % of who are under 30 years old are fiercely pro-american and would like nothing more than an end to the clerical regime."(Aslan 2006)

WHAT SHOULD U.S. THEN CONSIDER?

Iran is currently the 4th largest exporter of oil in the world. If they cut their exports, it could cause a global recession. Yet many believe Iran would not play the "oil card" because it sustains its economy (Bremmer 2006) but if isolated, it might be its only choice, so UN enforced economic sanctions may not be the best policy.

Military intervention through surgical airstrikes have been discussed. Vice President Dick Cheney has claimed surgical strikes from US air bases in Turkey would effectively destroy Iran's nuclear capability and"set back Iran's nuclear capabilities by at least a decade."
(Holsinger 2006) However the probability the US would be able to hit every one of the nuclear spots is extremely remote. (Pena 2006) and Additionally, the collateral damage from the initial air strikes would result in large numbers of civilian casualties (Isenberg 2006)

The best option then is a negotiated solution which leads to enforceable agreements that would be based on the motto:"Trust but verify." Averting a war is worth the compromise.

Can America afford another war when we are spending $250 million dollars a day on Iraq? I don't think so. It is time to try another route and this time without weapons of mass deception.