The Dangers of US Foreign Policy

24

Author: Laura Bowen

At the latest installment of the Global Affairs Brown Bag Series, former New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinser spoke about the dangers of and an alternative solution to a violent attack on Iran. “This is the very first stop . . . of a month-long tour,” Kinser said, who is touring the US with several other professionals in an attempt to raise awareness of the issues between Iran and the US.

Kinser’s first main point was that “an American attack on Iran would be a terrible idea . . . for Iran, the Middle East, the United States and the world.” While “Iran does pose a destabilizing threat,” Kinser said the best way to terminate the threat is through diplomacy and negotiations, rather than bombing and violence.

Kinser provided historical background between Iran and the United States, explaining how in the 1950s, “Iran actually was a functioning democracy.” However, the United States disapproved of the leader, Muhammad Musadek because he was attempting to nationalize the oil industry. The U.S. replaced him with the shah and at the time, “it was so easy to accomplish and seemed so successful,” Kinser said. Yet the shah’s regime became more and more repressive, leading to the Iranian revolution that has produced an anti-American government. In a nutshell, “this nuclear crisis would never have emerged if the United States had allowed the democratic [growth] . . . of Iran,” Kinser said.

This point stressed an idea which Kinser believes is still pertinent in the American government’s decision making-analyzing the potential long-term effects. Kinser said that right now, the government in Iran is extremely anti-American, and he posed the question, “What could be worse than that?” However, were we to bomb Iran there would be, “no regime . . . it would be chaos and anarchy in Iran,” Kinser explained. He then addressed an issue that he himself was baffled by, which is why the United States is always seeking “constant conflict and constant revolution.” Kinser said it did not make sense because the United States is such a developed country and “rich people don’t make revolutions.”

Kinser concluded that in the White House, “utopian fantasies guide policy.” He based much of the issues with a psychology that officials believe in-“Let’s be real men. Let’s do what has to be done [to Iran].” However, he compared a violent solution to “an extreme form of intellectual laziness . . . bombing is easy.”

While Kinser offered a solution of diplomacy, he said “There is no guarantee. We don’t know what the end of this process will be.” He said the negotiations would have to be “bilateral-that is, directly between Iran and the United States . . . direct, unconditional.” Kinser provided the violence-free negotiations between China and the United States in the 1950’s as an example of the action that the United States should take to avoid conflict. The fact that President Nixon was in charge of these negotiations proved Kinser’s point that, “this is not an idea that has a political [conservative or liberal] tint to it.”

Students gave mixed reviews of Kinser’s presentation. “I know that the situation between the U.S. and Iran needs to change, but I don’t think he provided a legitimate [alternative] solution,” Alex Stevens (first-year) said. On the other hand, Caitlin Goss (first-year) said, “I think diplomacy is the only way we can achieve our international goals . . . I agreed with him.”

This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.

Loading

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here