Iran trouble bubbling and not going away

It would be stating the obvious to refer to the Middle East as the most turbulent part of the world. The United States recently wound down a long and costly war in Iraq, and for many, it was not a minute too soon.

Additionally, we will remain embroiled in Afghanistan for a least a couple more years. We have been there since late 2001, and a lot of personal sacrifice has been given in order to battle the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

In some respects, the Afghanistan conflict is starting to feel a little like a forgotten war. For such an important war, we rarely see much in-depth coverage of it in the mainstream media. We hear reports when people die, but do we really hear enough deep analysis of what is going on there? My answer would be 'no,' but that is a question people will have to answer in their own hearts.

However, even if our troops do leave in 2014, the Middle East's drama is doubtful to go away. This is because as long as Israel is there, then enemies of that country will be looking for ways to hamstring it.

Israel is America's most important friend in that region. Though it is often a tinderbox of activity, there can be no denying its importance when it comes to America’s interests in the Middle East.

This was especially apparent recently when international leaders spoke at the United Nations' General Assembly. The attention of United States and Israeli leaders was firmly on the growing threat of Iran's nuclear program.

Despite the focus on Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years, Iran continues in its role as thorn in the side of America in the region. A primary way this is manifesting itself is through the nuclear program Iran is currently developing.

Iran's president is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and to put is mildly, he is a kook. He is a hostile opponent of Israel not to mention his own people. Life in Iran is why every American should be happy that we live in this country.

Since the late 1970s, the country has been under the thumb of a conservative Islamic government and citizens there publicly oppose the government at their own risk. Human rights violations are well documented there, and if anybody does not believe that, just spend a little time on-line because there is plenty of research to back that up.

Additionally, Ahmadinejad denies Israel's right to exist and even goes as far as to proclaim the Holocaust did not occur. The Holocaust occurred in World War II as the Nazis extinguished six million Jews. If Ahmadinejad takes such extreme stances, isn’t it understandable why the Israeli government has gotten so jumpy as Iran has developed its nuclear capabilities?

After all, would not the United States get equally jumpy if a nearby country developed weapons capabilities we were uncomfortable with? Am I the only one who remembers the Cuban missile crisis?

Though most international experts are unified in believing that a nuclear Iran is a terrible idea, there is a lot of disagreement about how to handle it. Sanctions have hurt Iran but it apparently has not deterred the development of the program.

There has been some tension between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the course to take. Both believe in deterring Iran, but the Israeli leader wants firmer accountability of Iran when monitoring what they are doing.

This is not an issue that is going away. If recent history shows us anything, the Iranians can be very creative when hiding what they are doing. In other words, we should not believe anything they say. Their leader hates America and Israel.

Iranian political chaos won't go away soon

If people needed yet another reason why we should be grateful to be Americans, Iran's recent presidential election provided it.

The June 12 election was disputed almost from the moment it ended. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected by a landside, but cries of corruption quickly spread the nation.

Protesters hit the streets, and there was a whiff of anarchy in the air. This was incredible especially when a person considers the type of society there. It is nothing like what we experience here in America.

The conservative Islamic leadership that has been in place since the revolution in 1979 rarely allows any type of dissent. Constitutional rights that we take for granted are only a dream for many of the people there.

Because of this, the protesters deserve a lot of respect for putting their necks on the line. In that society, it is not uncommon for people to disappear after criticizing the government.

However, the election was a farce in one respect. The real powerbroker in Iran is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who many refer to as the country's supreme leader. Since he is a supporter of Ahmadinejad, do not expect the midget president to leave the Iranian political stage any time soon.

Still, it is hard not to be fascinated by the protests that have gone on there. If the current government could be overthrown and be replaced by one that is friendlier to the United States, it could ease many of the Middle East's problems.

Of course, it has been a long time since Iran has had a government friendly to the United States. We supported the Shah of Iran and his leadership for decades. In doing this, we conveniently overlooked the Shah's human rights' abuses.

Then, when the Islamic revolution took place there, many of the people blamed us for the problems they suffered under the Shah. Eventually, the U.S. embassy was attacked and hostages were held for more than a year.

This was one of the factors that wrecked President Jimmy Carter's administration. Since then, the United States and Iran have been bitter adversaries.

How bitter has it gotten? When Iran and Iraq engaged in a war throughout most of the 1980s, we indirectly supported Iraq in the conflict. In one of the best examples of the cliché 'politics makes for strange bedfellows,' we were giving support to Saddam Hussein as he led his country in the disastrous conflict.

The war basically ended in a draw as hundreds of thousands were killed.

As for current day Iran, anything is possible. I know that is difficult to believe, but when I was growing up, I never believed the Soviet Union would fall apart and the Berlin Wall would come down.

Though it often seems like it takes forever for large-scale change to take place, it often happens quickly when the acts of a few resonate throughout a nation.

Have we seen that happen with the current protests in Iran? Only time will tell.

Twenty years ago, student protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing appeared to be the springboard to widespread social change in China, but it never happened. One man famously stood in front of a tank there, and if he is still alive, we likely will never hear from him again. The government there is as oppressive as it has ever been.

However, if another revolution took place in Iran and it favored the United States, the irony would be that the citizens there would have accomplished what he have tried to do in Iraq for years.

And that would be remarkable.

Never hand a mad man the microphone

Recently, we witnessed an unusual sight when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke as an invited guest at Columbia University in New York.

Ahmadinejad is easily one of the world's most dangerous men, and the invitation extended to him by the school ignited considerable controversy. It is not often that a prestigious university rolls out the red carpet for somebody who is one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world, so it was an unusual event to say the least.

Many consider Ahmadinejad to be nutty, and his position on many issues would support that conclusion.

He believes the Jewish Holocaust that took place during World War II did not occur, and he said during his talk at Columbia that there are no homosexuals in his country.

As for his position on the Holocaust, it makes sense when studying his pattern of anti-Semitic behavior. He has called for the destruction of the state of Israel and clearly is not a friend of the Jew.

As for his ridiculous claim about no homosexuals being in his country, it makes one ponder just how he would know something like that.

His country is certainly known for being oppressive so would it really surprise anybody if he had governmental agencies spying on people's sex lives? Whether it was in Nazi Germany or modern day Iran, minority groups like homosexuals are easy targets for the government.

The bottom line is if he is spying on homosexuals he is probably spying on a lot of other minority groups, maybe even religious minority groups like Christians.

As for his talk at Columbia, the big question is whether or not he should have been invited.

I believe the invitation was a mistake.

Those who defended the invitation said it was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how freedom of speech works in our country. They said it would help highlight important differences between our country and Iran because America is a melting pot when it comes to expressing ideas, while Iran is not.

While I am the first amendment's biggest fan, I don't see how giving this man a forum contributed to the marketplace of ideas in a constructive way.

He has plenty of other avenues in which to promote his warped perspective of the world.

If nothing else, his appearance at a prestigious university like Columbia legitimized his status as a relevant leader. After all, if he can be welcomed by an academic giant like Columbia, many will recognize him as somebody who has something important to say.

True, Columbia President Lee Bollinger did attempt to challenge Ahmadinejad on many subjects, but he was a lightweight in the presence of a master.

As he has many times before, Ahmadinejad ducked and avoided his questions in a skillful way. He didn't lay a hand on him.

What Bollinger should have remembered is that the main purpose of universities is to educate and develop the perspective of its students. Was that accomplished with this visit?

I don't believe so. All it did was expose them to a dangerous man with dangerous ideas. Surely, if these students are bright enough to go to Columbia, they already understand that there are unstable rulers in the world.

It did not require giving this man a forum in the media capital of the world to make this point to the students.

The best summary of why this was a bad idea was given by Abraham H. Foxman in a guest editorial in "USA Today."

Foxman, who is national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote: "In the final analysis, there is only one relevant point about whether he should have been invited: the great need in the world today is to make a moral statement to isolate this individual, not give him legitimacy. His ideology of hatred and Iran's building of a nuclear weapon to implement that ideology are the greatest threats to civilization as we know it. Columbia should have taken a stand that some ideas are simply not acceptable."

Sometimes ideas and people are so bad that they need to be rejected from the marketplace of ideas with extreme prejudice.

Ahmadinejad is somebody who needs to be confronted firmly. He should not be invited to places like university campuses where he can be politely applauded and face minimal resistance.

Bad men should be treated appropriately.