Unless you have been in a cave for the past few weeks, you doubtless know about the situation in Iran. Talk of electoral fraud, resulting unrest, protests across the entire country, heavy-handed actions by the party in power (who incidentally "won" the election)...the standard story.
Now, I'm no judge as to whether there actually WAS electoral fraud in the Iranian elections. But given the amount of unrest that we've seen, and the sincerity and (more importantly) longevity of the protests, I would say there's a serious issue that needs to be resolved. I would also say that knowing what I know about Americans and knowing what I know about the Iranian regime, the US generally favors the protestors. But that's beside the point, really.
Here's the question I referenced in my title, which I have seen no one ask at all. (If you see an article where someone has asked this question prior to the date of this post, please forward it to me so that I may credit it properly.) It's the one that, as the Oracle says in The Matrix, is "really going to bake your noodle later on": were the protests in Iran IN ANY WAY catalyzed by the success of democracy in neighboring Iraq? In other words, would the Iranians be behaving the way they are today if the Iraqis weren't succeeding in getting their own country under firm democratic control? Perhaps George W. Bush's concept of "spreading democracy" wasn't so stupid after all...but you might not ever hear anyone else suggest that.
No comments:
Post a Comment