Iran is in Trouble, So are We

Imagine that there are several groups of kids on the beach. Some are throwing rocks in the water. Others are building sand-castles. Those that build them close to the water have them taken away, then they are disappointed. The biggest kids have the best supplies, digging moats, adding figurines and building elaborate draw-bridges to ensure that no unwanted intruders can get in. Then once they are done building they look around and decide they don't want mounds of dirt made by five-year-old girls around their fortress. Instead, they feel like being bullies. They don't want mud-castles made by other kids, so they kick them down. The smallest children run away to their parents, crying. Their parents tell them not to play with the mean kids: "It's time to go home and you've spent too much time in the sun anyhow," they say. Eventually there are only the big kids and a smaller group still working on their sand castle left. The big kids walk over to where the others are and cross their arms, sending a message through their body language that the beach is theirs now. What options do the skinny kids have? They can either take their castle down or have it kicked down.

News sends a pre-emptive message.

On Sunday, Time magazine reported that the US had given the message to its personnel to be ready to blockade Iranian ports, should they need to. Whether or not that's actually true, reporting that that was the case could be America's way of saying to Iran: "you are in imminent danger." The funny thing is, by heightening the tension, is the US military reacting to danger, or are they creating a dangerous situation? When you figure someone is dangerous and you've backed them into a corner, what are the chances that they are going to do something even more dangerous then? Power can be used for good or evil. Nuclear power is a hotly coveted resource and whoever has it basically has gold. They also have a potential weapon. But in this case, if the US were to attack because they decided that danger levels were too high to risk security, would they have provoked or "prevented" war? If so, then not only in Iran in trouble, so is everybody else.

Maybe it's just a bluff. Sometimes I wonder if the media is as powerful as tanks and troops are, or more. Is it possible that the media's purpose is to supply the rumour mills with enough disinformation to embrace the world for when the unbelieveable actually does come true? When fiction becomes fact? When word becomes flesh?

For example, now that the US has invaded Iraq, more people remember that it was accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction than the fact that none were found.

It's not like Iran hasn't had plenty of time to arrange negotiations that haven't taken place. However, basically the only option that has been set on the table has been to stop nuclear enrichment pronto. It seems like a drag to suddenly give up on the biggest achievement of your country in its own eye, but the international community has repeatedly said "no" to Iran's nuclear "program" whether they're doing a fine job or not. Somehow they just don't like the idea of Iran being a superpower in the Middle East. (Iranian President Ahmadinejad did, after all, say that Israel should be "wiped off the map").

If the US is serious about war, things could be serious. A military campaign to blow up nuclear facilities doesn't sound healthy, to say the least. They don't have troops to deploy on the ground but they don't need them. It would just be a heavy military campaign involving lots of bombs from the air. Leaders must now make some pretty quick decisions. Something is rotten in the metropolitan of Iran.

Is this "world war III"?
______________________________________________________________
UPDATE: Mahmoud Ahamadinejad came to New York for a U.N appearance where he came to talk about the obstacles facing world leaders. He also hoped to see American citizens "face-to-face" but because of the work schedule circumstances, he couldn't. He complimented Americans for being "good-willed" people and made reference to the fact that many of them care about the fate of humankind, believe in God and in the sense of justice. He reviewed the points that he raised during the UN assembly regarding how he felt about the international system. Specifically, that the consequences of WWII has negatively impacted some nations in the global system since we still operate with an implicit notion that the victors of WWII should have more rights to rule the world and world affairs rather than that equal rights should be granted to all within the international community. As a result, justice has been and continues to be "hurt". "Regretfully, there is great mistrust among the nations and people today because they feel they are unable to find and achieve their rights through national forums." Therefore "media has an important role to play" because "media upholds the rights of people. For media supports peace and security as well as stability. Therefore media must call for peace and justice for justice will benefit everyone. Nobody except those who are selfish will benefit from injustice. The vast majority of people by nature seek justice. I hope that in the very near future we will bear witness to the establishment of a true sense of justice in the international system along with peace and love and permanent peace in the world."

However, it seems instead that media often shirks from this responsibility to achieve justice. Writers have to pay bills too, and that often means towing the line and completing an agenda. It is strange how despite what every piece of media says about this man and how we should hate him as an enemy, I agree with what he is saying. We need to somehow come up with a solution to do away with superpowers who pressure smaller nations as to obstruct them from achieving justice. There are 52 countries seeking justice. So what does this mean? Should some nations have special rights in the Atomic Energy Agency, or should every nation have the same right to enrich uranium?

Politics