Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

While a world away, fear of Iran should inspire change

As the situation in Iran worsens, where does our role lie?

Published: Sunday, September 27, 2009

Updated: Monday, September 28, 2009 19:09

Haley Marks, Editorial Editor

If the military testing that took place in Iran over the weekend and yesterday was not merely a test but rather an act of nuclear warfare, how would our world exist today? How would one little word of command change the face of world history and the futures of generations to come? What would the day after the opening bells of World War III look like to a college-aged American?
   

These missiles, tested for peaceful reasons, according to Iran, are the Shahab-3 and Sejil-2. These long and short range missiles can reach optimized distances of up to 1,250 miles. Because they are considered a type of missile called "solid-fuel," they are more difficult to detect and may not be able to be shot down during flight.

   

If used, these missiles could easily reach Iran's publicly-named enemy, Israel, as well as countless European cities and American bases in those regions. Today.
   

Fear should strike home when one realizes that these tests are more steps towards Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's obvious goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.     The geographical buffer that the United States enjoys is being more  and more strongly threatened and with the global focus becoming keener on Iran, and its newly re-elected leader, how should we, as Americans, view the unfolding situation?
   

The threat of nuclear war seems more real than I have ever wanted to acknowledge, yet one major cause of these escalating events, the rigged re-election, occured mere months ago.

   

A smug man who denies the Holocaust, has actively worked towards obtaining nuclear power, oppresses his own people and is all too reminiscent of infamous dictators of the past, stole an election from his people and very few Americans even took notice. Moussavi, the defeated oppositional leader, could have been the light at the end of this nuclear-stressed tunnel and we were unable to do anything to avenge his stolen election and create some sense of increased stability in the Middle East.
   

Iran is currently puffing up its feathers in preparation for more strictly enforced sanctions that they will surely receive in response to this continued nuclear program. At the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and other international leaders spoke out against Iran's nuclear program and just days later missile testing has occurred in the county's air space. The tight rope that Obama must now face has once again been shaken and only days before an unprecedented meeting that will take place between the United States and Iran in Geneva on Thursday.

What do all of these political current events have to do with you? In essence, our comfortable lives are in far more danger than ever before and many of us remain unaware of the severity of the situation.

The Iranian election came and went. Now the warnings that were spoken with Moussavi's defeat have seemed to come closer to fruition and the people of Iran are no longer the only possible victims of his repressive regime.

I am grateful that pressure has been placed on Ahmedinejad to cease all attempts at obtaining nuclear weapons, although I am in no way comforted at this time. I cannot say what the Obama administration should do. I can only offer my whole-hearted advice, as directed towards our generation: Please pay attention. If you are to follow one unfolding news story in your four years of college, have this international political disaster be it.

Write to your congressmen, educate your friends and talk about the options facing President Obama. Sign up for an online news alert and make notice of the monumental nature of these recent developments.

It is time to mobilize. It is time for our "generation of change" to reach our necks out from behind the confines of American apathy and take a stance against a global issue that, if not stopped today, will place our future children in danger.

Drama is necessary, global security is at stake. It is our responsibility to take a stance. The clear choice must be to stand behind any and all means necessary to strip Iran of nuclear capabilities before that button is pressed and it is far too late.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

5 comments

Shelly
Tue Mar 30 2010 04:59
Sometimes you need to take a step back and look at the situation for what it is. Thank you, Haley for urging everyone to wake up and face the music before its too late. People were also complacent about Hitler, Stalin and a host of other 'great' 20th C. dictators who killed millions - have we learned nothing??
As for this commentator who calls himself 'Editor at Large' - his comments are rife with falsehoods (Ahminajad does not come from Jewish parents - there are no Jews in the region he comes from! and there are only currently 25,000 Jews in Iran which has a population of 90 million - that doesn't make for 20%! His comments are simplistic and full of misconceptions.
Nick
Wed Oct 7 2009 01:34
This is the kind of rhetoric that will lead the US into an unnecessary war with Iran. A nuclear armed Iran, though hardly a good thing, is not an end-of-the-world scenario. Just as deterrence, containment and engagement worked to deter the threat of nuclear threats in the past, it will also be effective against a nuclear armed Iran which, despite the rhetoric of its puppet, powerless president, has shown to be led by rational actors interested in maintaining power.
Editor at Large
Tue Oct 6 2009 10:34
Paragraph1: If the article is published online on Monday. Then "over the weekend and yesterday" is redundant. "Yesterday", Sunday, was over the weekend. A military test is not equivalent to an act of nuclear warfare, this hypothetical concoction is erroneous...Paragraph 1 Objective: fear mongering. Achieved: Sure.Paragraph2: Iran is improving their military. Every country has a sovereign right to do this. If Haley was the leader of Iran, and her generals put a proposal in front of her that aid we can improve our missiles, would she not say yes?Paragraph3: Stranded paragraph. Nevertheless, a country which is able to defend itself is able to secure better negotiating rights on the world stage. Generally a country unable to achieve its economic and policy objectives peacefully will most certainly develop an infrastructure in order to protect itself. Will the US stop every developing country in the second and third world from developing military infrastructure in order to protect its interests?Paragraph4: Whether or not you accept Haley's assumption that President Ahmadinejad's goal is "obvious", history clearly shows that countries that develop a nuclear program have clearly enjoyed more cooperation on the international stage, better economic positions and a substantial increase in foreign aid and investment. One only has to look at India, Pakistan and China for recent examples. The best example is India and Pakistan. These two countries were in a race to develop nuclear weapons. Despite the increase in nuclear capable countries, India and Pakistan's relations are actually more secure because both have nuclear weapons. If one one country, say India had them, then India would have a clear advantage over Pakistan. Which leads me to my next point, Israel has nuclear weapons but the other countries do not. Israel's foreign policy would be substantially different, it would be on a level playing field if Iran had nuclear weapons. Furthermore, I wonder if Haley knows that President Ahmadinejad's parents are Jewish. Furthermore, more than 20% of the Iranian population is Jewish. Did you know that Israel is the only country that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty? If Haley were the President of Iran (which has no previous history of starting wars) and she knew that Israel had nuclear weapons and has a history of starting wars (The Six Day War, The Sinai Peninsula, etc..), I wonder if she would forego even the appearance of developing nuclear weapons in order to deter her aggressive neighbors... I wonder if Haley knows that in the Six Day War, Israel destroyed a US Intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, sending fighter pilots to strafe the floating sailors that were still alive because they had evidence that Israel started the Six Day War.Paragraph5: I doubt the threat of nuclear war is any more real for the rest of the world, but we are hopeful for Haley.Paragraph6: Haley fails to see the historically tested argument that countries that have nuclear weapons enjoy better economic conditions, have more of a presence on the world stage and are less likely to be bullied by countries that do have nuclear weapons (i.e. Israel). Sanctions have clearly shown to disproportionately affect poor and middle class citizens, the working people. For Haley, the appearance of taking a tough stance on Iran is better than the unintended consequence of hurting the working people of Iran. Paragraph7: Haley is correct, the world in which we grew up on, which was based on American imperialism of dictating to other countries what our interests are and using the military to actively seize those resources will likely be diminished in the future. Americans will be forced to take what is reasonably theirs and must work for it. Of course, other countries have been doing this for decades.Paragraph8: Haley speaks of Iran as if its a misbehaved child. The right of sovereignty places equal status among countries. In the interest of persuasion, most people understand that treating a fellow adult like a child is the least effective way to change their behavior. Perhaps America is acting as a child, or at the very least Haley, pretending that only the US can have the big stick and not anyone else. This can be summed up in one world, hypocrisy.Paragraph9: Fellow readers, please disregard Haley's advice pleading for you to follow only one new story like the dumb Americans that we are, please follow only this one. Forget about global climate change, unmet energy and healthcare and the growing rationing of food and water that affect all of human kind. Haley is asking us to forget about the problems that unite humanity to together under a common challenge, and asks YOU the reader to focus only on challenges that seem to tear us apart. Paragraph10: See paragraph 9.Paragraph11: See paragraph 10. Paragraph12: Haley just doesn't get it. You can't prevent the the development of science and technology. ...
George W. Bush
Tue Sep 29 2009 15:47
I don't trust the United Nations IAEA inspectors. I would prefer to use the mighty United States of America's militairy. We could easily send a coalition of the willing into Iran. This coalition will topple the dictator, remove WMD's and provide a security force while the country rebuilds itself as a stable democracy. I say this with confidence because I once succeeded in performing this task. Mission Accomplished Boys!
Your name
Tue Sep 29 2009 15:33
Suppose a man has a loaded gun in his pocket. Suppose you think he's going shoot you. As of yet, you are not threatening the man with the gun in any objective way. You do have a button on your jacket that once irritated the man with the gun, but you're not really sure whether that has anything to do with his exercise of the blessed 2nd amendment.

Now, would you rather:
A.) Lunge for the man's gun because you feel sufficiently threatened by its presence.
B.) Do anything less stupid.

I don't know the exact outcome of either of these choices, but I do know that if you lunge for the gun, and the man is left holding the gun after the ensuing tussle, he will have a reason to shoot you.







log out