President Bush’s Pressure on Iran Is Hypocritical

El Vaquero Editor in Chief

While Americans dig deeper and deeper into their pockets to fund President George Bush’s imperialistic quest in Iraq, soon they may also be facing the burden of a similar invasion of Iraq’s neighboring country, Iran.

It wasn’t enough that our president ran out of lies to tell the country last fall when we discovered the “imminent” threat of Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons was not so imminent (and was in fact fictitious), but now the politician we call our leader is pressuring Iran to dissolve its nuclear technology in the wake of a new “global threat of terrorism.”

What is especially troubling is that Bush recently claimed that rumors of an invasion of Iran were “ridiculous,” but he asserts that the United States will keep all of its options on the table.

As the current administration puts increasing pressure on Iran to discontinue its nuclear program, it is clear that our politicians aren’t playing fair,
yet again.

Why is our government pressuring Iran to discontinue
the same weapons program
that exists in Israel or even
Saudi Arabia?

Why Iran and why now? Maybe it’s not just a coincidence that the next country Bush targeted with his self-righteous, god-fearing finger is a country that did not support the current war with Iraq.

Perhaps it is also not a coincidence that the country that was focused on right after Iran was Syria, an ally with Iran. Syria, too, did not support the war in Iraq. Syria did not provide support militarily or diplomatically; Syria didn’t even permit the use of its borders.
There are many questions we as American citizens must be asking of our leaders before we allow them to take such drastic measures in the Middle East, an area of the world which deserves extremely delicate, fine-tuned and poised attention.

If we claim that Iran has no right to develop nuclear technology, then why are we not claiming the same toward Israel or Saudi Arabia?
If the argument is made that Israel is a democratic country, then what about Saudi Arabia? This country is about as un-democratic as Iraq was and is also developing nuclear technology.

Why is our president ignoring their advances?

The reason that President Bush is not pursuing any pressure in these nations is because they invest obscene amounts of money in the United Sates economy and in fact support our foreign endeavors.

Basically, a country is allowed to develop weapons that actually pose an imminent threat to our safety as long as they give us enough money and support us when we want to invade countries that do not fall into these categories.

Even if they do not support us, as long as they do not get in our way — that is good enough too.

Does that sound like the glorified, self-righteous “spreading democracy” blueprint that Bush has laid out for us?

This administration has proven to us time and time again that everything does in fact have a price and also that money talks.
If the price is right, you can buy your way into Bush’s safety net no matter what you are doing to your people and what kind of government you work under.

He manages to use the false premise of “spreading democracy” to mask the true desires of conquest and scouring of another country’s resources.

Bur regardless of which nations we hand-select to invade and “democratize,” our goal should not simply be to spread democracy, at the grip of a gun, to any part of the world in which democracy does not currently flourish.

Our goal should not be to impose our Western culture’s moral and economic fundamentals on others.

Our goal should not be to democratize countries so that we can profit from free trade and an open, capitalistic economy.

Our goal should not be to assume the pretentious responsibility of deeming which country is good and which is not, based completely on our own self-interests.

If nothing else, the only goal we as a country should work to achieve internationally is the building of American credibility on the global scale so that we have the diplomatic integrity to take action when we deem it absolutely necessary.

But even if the immediate goal is to make the international scene a safer one, should we not begin with ourselves?

Are we the model we want to build these other countries after? Is democracy so prevalent and successful in the United States so that we can model others after it?

Are we as just and legitimate as we think we are?

There is a reason why the rest of the world is so untrusting of our intentions; there is a reason why our credibility has been tarnished.
This administration has put a new, eerie meaning to the adage, “Do as I say, not as I do.”