Posted on 04/10/2007 12:48:51 PM PDT by dmh191
On March 23, 15 British sailors and marines were taken hostage by Iran. Accused of entering the territorial waters of the Iranian regime, the hostages were paraded and humiliated on Iranian television and have since been released. Americans, as well as the British, watched with apprehension, as the fate of these brave men and woman was uncertain.
For Americans, an Iranian hostage crisis is a familiar occurrence. After all, it has been less than 40 years since the hostile takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on November 4, 1979. President Jimmy Carter's ineffective approach to the hostage crisis prolonged the ordeal, resulting in a 444-day stint.
Only with the threat and emergence of a true political leader, Ronald Reagan, did the Iranians finally relinquish their hold on their American captives. Lasting geopolitical damage had already been done, however, as the Iranian government was emboldened by the ordeal. By having the United States' president at their mercy, suddenly the Iranians were able to become globally relevant. Though this is not altogether the same scenario, Iran seems to be using a similar tactic.
The capture of British soldiers came on the heels of recently passed United Nations sanctions on Iran. Vying for relevance and power, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made grand attempts to remain in the headlines, most notably by promising time and time again to build a nuclear program, even though the world opposes this.
Many argue that the Iranians dislike the current political regime in charge, and I believe this to be true (in fact, I don't know many people who would like living under an oppressive regime). Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is best characterized as a thug who forces his citizens to live under his unruly will. Though Ahmadinejad was "democratically" elected to the presidency, his candidacy was marred by backing from hard-line extremists, and his low profile allowed him to soar under the radar.
Ahmadinejad's election platform focused on stomping out corruption and promoting social justice, two principles that practically everybody can theoretically support; yet Ahmadinejad's intent behind these propositions were unbeknownst to many voters. The recent hostage situation, coupled with his continuous acts of defiance towards the international community, force one to consider the two most obvious options: either war is in the making or, preferably, a revolution from within may be imminent.
Signs of a revolution may best be seen in the country's moderate majority rejecting Ahmadinejad's hard-line stance. In particular, the Islamic Association (a student organization at Amir Kabir University of Technology) disrupted a speech by Ahmadinejad by jeering the president off the stage in December. The student protesters, as well as many other Iranians, are upset about the state of the economy and, most of all, their diminishing civil liberties.
The best-case scenario for the Islamic Republic of Iran is for the Iranians to take matters into their own hands, express their dissatisfaction and overthrow the oppressive regime. I believe that this can be done, but not without help. The Iranians need our encouragement. They need to know that if they fail, the rest of the world will come to their rescue instead of simply leaving them to an even more powerful dictatorial regime. This is the message we should be sending.
Great Britain's assistance with the War on Terror, particularly in Iraq, has been vital to the War's fledgling success. Prime Minister Tony Blair of the Labor Party has, until recently, stood steadfastly by the side of President George W. Bush in fighting the threat of Islamic fascists worldwide. This most recent act of war by the Iranians warns of a greater conflict looming ahead. Iran has captured the British soldiers, it seems, to maintain bargaining power with the Western theatre. By bringing Ahmadinejad and his cronies to the table, the Iranians will automatically gain leverage. This must be avoided. A revolution must be initiated instead.
On September 20, 2001, George W. Bush bravely made this proclamation to the nation in front of Congress: "Our War on Terror begins with Al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
Bush went on to blame our enemies' "will to power" for their unwavering determination in destroying the West and warned of the length of this said goal. We cannot forget that message, as it is just as relevant today as it was nearly six and a half years ago.
The world faces two distinct options when dealing with Iran. Ignoring the nation generally results in Iran screaming even louder for attention, but by playing into Ahmadinejad's scheme, we give them greater power. America should try a different approach. If that fails, which it might, military action, sadly, might be a very real possibility.
The Iranian people, and the rest of the world, deserve better. They deserve to live freely.
It’s only an act of war if one side says it is. Britain, like the US with carter in charge, apparently didn’t have the balls to say so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.