For years, relations between the US and Iran have been hostile. From America's Cold War manipulation of the nation through Shah Pahlavi to Operation Ajax, which effectively threw Mohammed Mossadegh out of office, the USA doesn't have the best historical track record in it's dealings with Iran. In recent years, relations have gotten even worse. Although the two nations recently agreed to talk once again after the 27 years of silence that followed the attack on the US embassy in Tehran, accusations of supporting terrorism, the threat of war, and Iran's alleged nuclear aspirations have kept the situation explosive. Yet today, Iran's president Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University.
I've always believed that open discussion is one of the most important keys to peaceful relations, and so I think that Columbia's invitation was a step in the right direction. Perhaps, in the spirit of dipolmacy, it wasn't wise for Lee Bolinger to say to Ahmadinejad's face that he "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," but I applaud his bravery in openly questioning Iran's controversial political policies. As Ahmadinijad demonstrated with a significant portion of his speech, he was obviously displeased with his less-than-warm welcome. I can easily see how he might not have expected such accusatory marks right off the bat, but i think that in general it was a positive thing. Too many of our past failed relations with Iran have been dictated by a lack of communication. I think that is is far better for us to openly air our concerns and to allow Ahmadinejad to hear them, think about them, and respond to them, than it is for is to just let out disagreements grow into an outright war.
Pretensions and lies don't last long in an academic atmosphere where they are openly challenged, and I think that Columbia did a pretty good job of challenging Ahmadinejad's policies. I hope that this talk won't be the last of it's kind, because despite the controversies that surrounded it, I think it's a step in the right direction. Let's stop being secretly suspicious of each other's motives, and stop considering a war that may turn out to be unnecessary. We need more frank and open discussion like this one if we are ever to come to some sort of peaceful understanding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Thing is with open discussion is that one side wants something that that the other side is unwilling to give. In this case, the United States wants Ahmadinejad to either give in to some kind of inspection or remove his policies and Ahmadinejad probably wants the United States to leave him and his country alone. Although I am all for open discussion in situations like these, I don't that either side is going to yield and make compromises yet.
Especially since in this case because like Ellie said America has had lots of disputes with Iran and various other countries as well. It seems a little idealistic to assume that everyone can just drop their problems and old conflicts with each other and hope that they no longer have any motives behind their actions.
Open discussion is great for solving problems, but that's assuming it leads somewhere. In addition, open discussion would simply lead to war, rather than prevent it, if both sides simply use the opportunity to insult each other instead of looking for solutions.
I totally agree with Ellie that the only path to a peaceful solution between the two nations is through discussion that presidential candidate Barack Obama has advocated. Nothing's going to fix itself through an angry, folded-arms silence reminiscent of days on the playground. Even if a compromise is near impossible to come by, its always worth pursuing, especially when the looming threat is so great.
I think that it was a very positive step toward peace being established between the U.S. and Iran by Columbia inviting Iran's President for a speech. That being said, the U.S. and Iran are nowhere near settling their differences. The U.S. wants Iran to change its policie so that the changes favor its own interests. Iran will only change its ways for the U.S. if it gets something from the U.S., which is how most things work. And I don't know what the U.S. is willing to give to Iran so that Iran changes its pubic policies. You've got to give a little to get a little
I believe that there is a small chance that Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia could lead somewhere. Although it is not likely that it will, it is always safe to hope. In a perfect world, both nations would just give up the ghost and drop all issues. We obviously don't live in that world so we are going to have to make some sacrifices just as Iran will have to. Like I said previously, it is safe to hope and in my mind I think "Hopefully I'm wrong in thinking that this visit is meaningless"
Has anyone ever told their acquaintance when going out to the movies that they just look flat out ugly? Although I completely agree about questioning the morals of Ahmadinejad, attacking him is like putting brush into a fire. In my opinion he is not going to go back to Iran pondering whether or not the U.S. likes him, but he is instead going to be ticked off that he flew to Columbia just to be confronted publicly. In all sense, the University of Columbia made a big mistake that could impact our country as a whole, and not in a positive way!
Would anyone go out to the movies with an extrememly insane mental case? That's what Ahmadinejad is. This guy has called Christianity and Judaism "deviations from the right path," denied the Holocaust, and then at Columbia, reversed his former opionion on it and pretened that nothing happened. He doesn't deserve an open discussion, and having one will probably lead nowhere anyway. Even if something is accomplished, it would definitely take years of effort and resources by the U.S., and we still probably won't get Iran to stop what it's doing in the nuclear arms department. Having him at Columbia was the wrong idea. We have to convice the rest of the world that Iran and Ahmadinejad are crazy, then actually do something about it, prefereably with missiles.
I completely agree with Ryan L. I think that this discussion could have been a great step in the right direction. However, by criticizing Ahmadinejad right off the bat, Bolinger started the conference on a bad foot and may have hindered better relations that could have been formed.
While it's good that communication is at least open between the US and Iran, I think the animosity and differences between the nations are far too great for there to be a resolution to their conflicts any time soon.
Post a Comment