The Black Informant | African American Commentary, News and Community Building

I simply don’t believe that whatever we’d do in Iran would be mutually beneficial. If we sent observers, that’s just asking for them to be kidnapped or worse. Sanctions don’t hurt the feelings of those in charge of nations, they only decimate civilians through food rationing. Sanctions are a real killer, one need look no further than Iraq during the ’90′s. This is all about Iranian oil at the end of the day and how it is being manipulated to wreck their economy, to create an environment where the schizos in power can justify an attempt at Mideast hegemony…Initiating a chain of events to occur that’ll cut off the Strait of Hormuz and then people here and worldwide will really go ape. Truth is, we interfere with Iran all the time. The Iranians are of a proud nation that has not been broken as I feel some would have them fated. Obama himself admitted to the CIA-backed coup in ’53 just a few weeks ago. Maybe…we should just let them resolve things on their own, on this particular occasion- that way, when the dust clears we’ll have a clearer idea of the Iran we are dealing with. We must not, above all else, become the world’s police. Our good soldiers are simply spread out too thin, along with our money- sacrificing blood and treasure on any Iranian debacle is just foolhardy at best.

Drawing the S. Africa comparison doesn’t make sense. We had nowhere near the amount of history with the apartheid government that we do with Iran.

For the most part the U.S. is powerless in this situation. We are dealing with a nation that has not forgotten how the U.S. has meddled in their affairs over the years and if the U.S. were to again that will just be used against the reformers as the regime will paint them as U.S. stooges.

Bottom line, South Africa was and is a sovereign nation. The US along with other nations decided to cross that sovereignty by imposing increased economic sanctions against that country. Why can we not do the same in this situation? Since when was Mandela viewed as a stooge for the US?

Should we continue through the pages of history and study how then President Reagan took a Obamaesque stance with South Africa. I

No, the bottom line is the Reagan administration wasn’t consistent. The Falkins? Invaded. South Africa? Nothing public. East Berlin? “… tear down these walls!”

No, the bottom line is the Reagan administration wasn’t consistent.

And in the end and in ALL cases, a nation’s “sovereignty” was not used as an excuse to do nothing. Public action, private action~ it did not matter.

BTW, Reagan did in fact make a public call to take economic sanctions further (he was pressured by political forces here at home to do so, but he did in fact publicly reject South Africa’s apartheid policy. If you are looking for a comparable “tear down these walls” pronouncement, you will not find it. But to completely dismiss or play down the actions he did take is not a fair account of history).

Clinton invaded Haiti under the guise of restoring democracy back in ’94. Again, no argument was raised about how the US was disrupting their sovereignty…except when Bush did it. Never mind the fact the two invasions produced the same results. And never mind the fact that the CBC led the charge pressuring the US to invade Haiti in the first place.