Magda Borgarelli
Last Monday night was the last presidential
debate. The topic was foreign policy,
with a special focus on the Middle East.
Watching both President Obama and Governor Romney speaking of what their
policy would be, what they seemed to have in common was their fear for a
“nuclear Iran”, claiming it would bring instability throughout the region. Granted that I do agree that nuclear weapons
are very dangerous and shouldn’t fall in the hands of any extremist groups, I
found it somewhat contradicting when the issue of Pakistan came up, especially
if one compares it to Iran. Both of the
candidates conceded that Pakistan is our ally, though it is not acting as such,
and that we can’t “divorce” it because of its nuclear weapons. Some may argue that there is a double
standard for Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons. I mean, Pakistan is a country in which the
Talibans are a rather strong political force and who have denied us access to
its borders to kill Osama Bin Laden.
However, it is our ally, and most importantly, it has 100 nuclear
heads. Iran, on the other hand, is
considered a no go from all sides and from everyone. It has been implied that we would go to war
in case the country ever obtains nukes of any sort, all in the name of
stability of that region and our friendship to Israel. However, I was kind of disappointed when what
is happening in Libya and Syria was not mentioned as critical for the stability
of that same region. Currently, civil wars
are going on in which governments literally are killing their own people, but not once
was that mention as something that could break the balance of the region.
Magda,
ReplyDeleteI found your post to be really interesting, specifically when you mentioned the "double standard" on Iran. You're right, it does not make sense that that U.S is fearful of a nuclear-capable Iran, when we are allies with Pakistan, an equally nuclear capable country that has been on inhuman government killing sprees since 2010. Nevertheless, I don't think we should completely ignore the Iranian threat. It seems to me that Iran does have the potential to use its nuclear weapons, but that does not mean we must ignore countries such as Pakistan, who have just as much, if not more, nuclear power.
Perhaps the debate ignored Libya and Syria because civil wars are not a direct threat to America. Although I believe that it is important to focus on all countries experiencing conflict, it is necessary to select a few issues, because the US does not have the resources to control all the issues occurring in the area. To many Americans, a nuclear threat takes precedence over internal state conflict.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on the notion that the US is contradictory. However, one must pay attention to the fact that Iran does not yet have functional nuclear capabilities. Perhaps the US wants to prevent any "unfriendly" nations from gaining the new technology, as the US believes Iran is less likely to use nuclear devices respectfully. Nuclear proliferation is not always a good thing.