the islamic republic of iran

I'm writing on this particular nation because I feel they are the greatest threat to American tolerance in the broader world. Of all countries in the world, American people seem least informed about the government and history of Iran, and by the same token, a fair number (52% according to a late October 2007 Zogby poll) are in favor of resolving issues with Iran with violence.

I know there's a new administration in place and that sentiment changes over the course of a year or so, but the latent anti-Iranianism is something that I feel stems from one real point: ignorance of the culture (both political and historical) of Iran.

Let us first establish the situation of the region. I'll try to do this in as few brushstrokes as necessary. Iran is the second most populous country in the Near East with a total of about 70 million people (7 million shy of Egypt, 30 million more than number 3 Sudan and 40 million more than number 4 Iraq). As far as I can tell, they are the only Shiite country in the broader region, and this is the major reason the country seems so aggressive. More than ethnic or wealth gaps, their religious self-segregation seems to create a regional strain. Iran has made it clear, also, that they take a fairly radical (to an American audience) stance in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Now is the part where we take a quick step back and re-evaluate. We know Iran is a very large country exercising a fair amount of influence in the region. And we know that their religious composition isolates them to a certain extent from the other powers of the region. It stands to reason that their stances would be aggressive when in harmony with the region and moderate enough to avoid tribal wars when their opinions are at odds with neighbors.

Insofar as Iran being a nuclear threat, the most recent intelligence report I looked over suggests with moderate to high confidence that the country would like to be a nuclear power and gives a likely time table of 2010 to 2015 for when they could have the capability to construct such a weapon. I don't wish to downplay this fact in any way. It is not in very many peoples' interests to see Iran as a nuclear power, but we do need to understand the motivation. What may come as a surprise to those 52% who wanted to bomb Iran is that Iran has very little interest in attacking (with nuclear force) a country with a large enough arsenal to wipe their country off the face of the earth a thousand times over. Bear in mind, Iran has no real warheads right now. Their desire for them is of much bigger concern locally. Any attempts at gathering the material to construct a nuclear weapon is simply posturing. If you have a smaller neighbor (Israel) who you are completely incompatible with religiously, ethnically, and economically, and that neighbor may or may not have nuclear weapons, you'd be very interested in procuring weapons of your own. The whole program is a regional power play that we're all giving a world stage. All Iran is looking for is a tighter grip on the region, to be seen as the defining power of it. As South Africa is to the Sub-Sahara or the USA is to the Americas, Iran would like to be to the Near East. It's all a trade game.

That went a little longer than I expected it to, but I'd like to continue on to the figure who has come to embody the Iranian population, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Too many make one of two major major assumptions based on what they know of trends in the region: 1) He is an oppressive dictator, 2)He holds the power our president holds. Of course, these two are contradicting, but more than that, they are both incorrect. Ahmadinejad was freely elected and, though much of his popularity has started to dry up, he has at points in his career been held in very high regard by the people who elected him. Domestically, he cut interest rates and opened up wealth to a larger segment of the population. And on an aside, he is also the first non-cleric president in the history or Iran which may explain a little bit of the excitement around his election in 2005.

In regard to the second misconception, the title of president more accurately refers to only a domestic policy high official. He was elected by the people, but his election was subject to the approval of a higher authority, the Guardian Council. When regarding the name Islamic Republic of Iran, the operative word is Islamic. Atop all hierarchies is the Supreme Leader, a position held currently by Ali Khamenei. He is in turn put in place by an elite group of pre-screened elected officials known as the Assembly of Experts. Its a little convoluted. The people select from pre-screened candidates to determine the Assembly in charge of determining the competency of a Supreme Leader, so we have the first step. Just think indirect democracy. This Leader in turn appoints a Council in charge of overseeing the positions of government elected by the people (including the president) as well as the heads of major government agencies. Just think... well council is in the name. The real power in international affairs lies in the last two bodies (the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council) as they have the right to essentially veto anything.

[If only I had a chart to illustrate this...]

The religious authority, though subject to a revolt from the Assembly of Experts, really isn't responsible to any sort of secular authority, so it becomes a bit of a mess trying to untangle the leadership from their ideology in the interest of compromise. This is where sensitivity comes into play. It is very much important to approach the leadership of Iran respectfully and tactfully, mindful of the difference in their structure. The more we try to demonize the secular figures and distance ourselves from the out-of-touch religious authority, the less we will accomplish.

I know it doesn't count for much, but the more informed we are about the situation of this country and their equally legitimate governmental structure, the more likely we are to maturely and rationally sit down with a group of great people in a region whose deep history really tells the beginning of civilization.

the federal reserve explained

i was thinking about this last night before i went to sleep. and i have often given little rants about this to people who like hearing my political opinions on things.

united states currency is regulated and printed by a semi-private organization known as the federal reserve. until, i think, about 40 years ago, the federal reserve printed money based on a gold standard. this meant, that any money you had, you could legally exchange for gold.

oh but those days are no more. currency is now based on full faith and credit in the united states, meaning jackshit. our money is based on faith in the assertion that the american economy will always be "good for the money."

(have you noticed im trying to be calm? its really hard.)

the reason this is so bad is because our entire econmoy rests on the legitimacy of the federal reserve and since there is no legitimate federal oversight, its pretty safe to assume the reserve only has its own interests in mind.

essentially all of the dollars in the united states are loaned to us from the federal reserve (AT INTEREST), which means we are at any given moment in time always going to be indebted to our own currency. your dollar is no longer worth a dollar; its worth a dollar and nine cents. royally uncool? yes.

though the federal reserves relies on us not being able to pay the money back, the false inflation really doesnt put me at ease. though the federal reserve has the power to restrict and allow the printing of money, their little bit of independence from the government who represents me is a little scary. and though many libertarians call for, at the very least, a restoration of the gold standard, we have seen no progress. honestly, having a massive reserve system entrenched in the economy of my country isnt a completely bad thing. giants are harder to move. in times of economic uncertainty (like now), i really long for the days when there was more accountability on our part and less discretion on theirs.