Another topic that I was interesting in was democracy in Iran, especially relating to the past Iranian Presidential elections this year, and how America reacted or how America should continue to act on this issue.
Here's a brief background history behind the structure of the Iranian government. Iran is a theocratic republic which means it is a "government subjected to religious authority." (CIA Factbook). There is a supreme leader and a president who is head of the country. The supreme leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts which are composed of clerics. The supreme leader is chosen for life and he appoints many leaders. The president is elected by the people every four years. The president can have at two terms and a third nonexecutive term.
This year, in June, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected a second term. People in Iran began to protest this election because they believed that the votes were rigged and many protested. There was a huge crackdown on the protesters and many people were arrested. During this time President Obama was reluctant to strongly oppose the actions of the Iranian government. Most of the President's hesitation was the fact that some of the leaders of Iran were blaming the western countries' on starting the protests. In an interview President Obama said that "I hope that the world understands that this is not something that has to do with the outside world; this has to do with what's happening in Iran. And I think ultimately the Iranian people will obtain justice."
This issue brings up a good question on how involved should America become concerning democracy in Iran? America is considered a leader in democracy and showing the world the glories of democracy. In the past we have gone into negotiations and sometimes even war in order to spread democracy around the world. I believe that it is wise to respect other countries' ways of governing, but it is important that everyone has equal rights to freedom of the press, of assembly, and of speech.
For more details about Iran here is a really helpful website from the BBC. This website also provides you with a list of news papers and news stations from Iran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/790877.stm
Here is another website from the CIA Factbook that provides a list detailed information about Iran.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
This is a brief interview of President Obama answering questions about Iran
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transcript-of-the-Presidents-answer-to-Harry-Smiths-question-on-Iran-CBS-6-19-09/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that Obama should have made a statement concerning this past Iranian Election. I believe that if Obama wants to pursue peace in the Middle East, like he has said many time, he needs to make sure that Governments are running smoothly. This does not mean that he has to go in and place a Democratic Government in every country, but he should speak out when a man had allegedly rigged to vote so that he would be President for the next 4 years. This election will affect the rest of Obama's term and quite possibly his next term. If Iran's leaders are not following the rules outlined in their Constitution, the people will never be happy. If Iran wants to proclaim their nation as the Islamic Republic of Iran and uphold their Constitution that was signed on April, 1 1979, they need to have fair elections. I was very unhappy with Obama's hesitation and the hesitation of the United States in general. Hopefully this will never happen again, but if it does we will act in the better way of the Iranian citizens and speak out.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama was right in staying out of the internal debate in Iran. While there is no way that he could possibly please everyone, his actions caused the least amount of damage in both lives and in American - Iranian relations. Had Obama taken a harder stand and gone so far as to demand that the elections be re-held and that Ahmadinejad accept the possibility of stepping down would have dramatically escalated the violence and protests that were already occurring. The Obama administration realized that there was almost no chance, no matter what their actions, that Ahmadinejad would resign his position and that they would have to work with him for the next four years no matter what. Keeping this in mind, they wisely opted to maintain amicable relations with Ahmadinejad, which will undoubtedly lead to a more cooperative Iran in the future.
ReplyDeleteA reply to Political Blogger:
ReplyDeleteI do believe that if a nation is suspected of rigging their votes and if the people of that nation are protesting, then I agree that the United States should respond to these actions. But how President Obama reacted very cautiously, because during this time many leaders of Iran were saying that the West was influencing many of the protesters. It is difficult to speak out against Iran when the relationship between Iran and the US is somewhat tense.
A reply to Preemptive912:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Obama was right in getting too involved in debates in Iran. Being negative towards Iran all time can lead to a broken relationship between Iran and the US. But it also necessary that in this relationship there should be a line. The US cannot always be positive and have a slack stance towards Iran, but at the same time the US cannot continually punish Iran. With all the of these practices in mind, I agree with you that Iran and the US will have a more willing and cooperative relationship.