This type of fiery anti-Iran rhetoric seems to be the same intense wordplay that the U.S. used in their 1970s and 1980s surveillance and weapons-upgrading programs. My question is: How many other illogical or inane topics will be raised by our elected officials about such Iranian schemes, and will the American public be misled by the blanket scapegoat of "The enemy has to do with this"? As a citizen interested in both the news and foreign affairs, I believe that the American people deserve to know the truth about the U.S. government's interests in foreign countries, and especially the truth about their dealings with Iran.
Although the government of Iran loudly boasts of the success of their theocratic democracy (a contradiction in itself), we have seen immense Iranian public dissent in the previous weeks. Twitter, along with other online resources, has opened a world of communications surrounding the election protests. Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly a corrupt and dangerous leader, but that does not justify the U.S. government's indiscriminate use of Iran as a scapegoat for any mysterious international matters.
I am also reminded of the Bush Administration's policy of getting information from terrorists in any way possible, torture included. Will the Obama Administration continue to use fear mongering and paranoia to their advantage?
Please let me know your opinions.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your opinion in that Iran should not be used to hide the governments agenda with its foreign policy, in that same Washington Post article it says that Secretary of State, Hilary Rodham Clinton, said to the press "The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua...And you can only imagine what that's for." I felt that by saying this, she is trying to insight fear in Americans. It is similar to post 911, everyone was looking for revenge and they sought it in something that was completely unrelated and also used as a scapegoat. With the new administration I was hoping that these scenarios would not happen. Recently it seems as if the government has a habit of making citizens terrified of "threats" that are actually not imminent dangers.
I feel that these situations are causing serious feelings of mistrust. It leaves citizens wondering, do I trust the media who says there is no embassy, or the government? This is a hard decision to make. I was wondering if anyone else has thought about this?
In response to the second part of your blog, I think that we need to give the Obama administration a chance. It has not even been a year that he's sat in office, so we will see whether he follows through with his word. This also relates to what I was saying earlier, in this blog I've shown some skepticism towards the administration, but I am not against it whatsoever. I feel that they can right situations such as this one meanwhile restoring a bit of trust citizens can hold for the government.
Francesca,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. You make a good point about the tough choice between government and media "facts." As for Obama, I think we all hope that our Presidents serve the country's best interests well.
All,
ReplyDeleteGood discussion on foreign policy and how difficult it is to figure out the truth.
On a lighter note, I just went to CNN.com to check out the latest news. And typically, CNN lists important stories such as: the Sotomayor hearings, a bombing in Iraq, NASA trying to launch the space shuttle.
But also on that list is the latest on JON & KATE!!!! Jon's been seen in St. Tropez with another woman!!! I've never seen a second of the show, but I know what this story's about.
Why do serious new operations spend time on stories such as this? And why did I actually read it?
Thoughts?
This is what I find interesting. How can Hillary Clinton say point blank that: "The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Nicaragua." while Bayardo Arce, who works with the Nicaraguan President himself, says, "It doesn't exist. They deceived the secretary of state."? This is not a matter of opinion because whether or not the Iranians created a mega embassy in Nicaragua is a fact. If it is false, how can someone just make up the fact that it is true, and vice versa?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that I do not know enough about this topic to really elaborate (I know I have to catch up on my current events and am working on it), but these sorts of things bug me simply because in this case there IS a factual answer, unlike other debates centered around opinions.
Hopefully, either the true extent of this "invisible embassy" will be revealed or it will be proven not to exist at all. While we hope it is the latter, we cannot discount the possiblility that Iranian intervention in Nicaragua may prove to be problematic in the near future because someone thought it important enough to "abricate" the existence of a super embassy there in order to arouse people's attention.
I agree that the American government should provide their citizens information regarding foreign dealingss, granted it does pose a national security threat or induce any unnecessary international conflict.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the comment of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's was a product of the notoriously faulted political grapevine. As the Washington Post reports, such false information is reminiscent of the fictional weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during the Bush Administration.
Tied with the underlying United States resentment towards Iran after the siege of the American Embassy in Iran, it is clear to see why politicans would profess such 'gossip' as truth. Clear, but still not acceptable. I believe that all politicians should be held to a code of complete certainty before making any public statements.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder where the government gets such faulty information. Something like this could only be from an extremely unreliable intelligence source, or a fabrication from Washington to keep Iran the enemy. Either way, it should be a government responsiblity to verify this information before it sent out to the public.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I do agree with you that there is a Red Scare-esque alarm throughout the country against Ahmadinejad's regime just as there was against Saddam Hussein. Hopefully though, this situation will not end as it did in Iraq.
Thanks for the great discussion guys and gals! Keep it up. I'm enjoying reading your opinions.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we'll find out the true source of that misleading information that Clinton used in her speech, and perhaps not. Maybe, similar to the story that the Professor told us in class today, someone (hopefully not Clinton herself) made that fact up out of sheer imagination. Unfortunately, not enough fact-checking occurs in Washington, even in the modern age of information-sharing and global connectivity.
And Professor, I find myself reading the "trash news" all the time. I do agree with Michelle that it's likely curiosity, and not pure interest. I think that more important news stories should always own the headlines.