Recently, I have been pondering over the situation between Iran and America, but not just the current situation concerning Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. I have been thinking deeply over the way that America conducts it's foreign policy towards not just Iran but other states in general. It is well known that international relations, especially American theory of it, has been mostly dominated throughout its history by Realism. I used to think this was a sufficient answer as to why America invaded Iraq, but I have discovered that America's actions go against even the realist dominated policies, or if I am overstating that, at the very least it went against the sound advice some very prominent realist thinkers. So just whose policy was it that prompted former President Bush to invade Iraq? Whose interests were at stake? Or, was it all a big mistake? Was liberal policy to blame for advocating the relevance of globalization and interdependence and thereby suggesting an unavoidable impact one country (especially an oil producing one) can have on the rest of the world? Or was it the case of an administration and president who were influenced by more ideological and religious beliefs than sound statecraft? Was the invasion poorly planned or was it part of a bigger purpose? How did Iran come out the victor in the region despite all of America's and its allies efforts? Can Iran really be classified as an Islamofacist state as so many people in America are calling it? Is the regime in Iran just waiting to be tipped over by democratization? All these things and more shall be discussed in the future (enshallah).
No comments:
Post a Comment