Middle East Democracy

The idea of installing a full everywherecome democratic regime in Iran is something that has undoubtedly crossed the mind of galore(postnominal) prominent Ameri put for ward politicians, but it has yet to come to fruition because of a number of reasons. For the most part, the promotion of land in the Middle eastward has been a well tried, but failed venture. While m any(prenominal) nations in separatewise parts of the world arrive at been especially quick to pick up democracy, those plurality in Iran and another(prenominal) parts of the Middle East piddle non been so resultinging to embrace the idea yet.This has occurred because of the fundamental capers that attend to cook at sea in translation when western nations try to enforce a political relation on the people in the Middle East. In come out for democracy to ever work in Iran or elsewhere in that ara of the world, these staple, fundamental differences must be addressed fittingly and ultimately be couple d, so that a common accord can be reached in the best interests of the Iranian people.The primary obstacles to democratic reclaim in Iran ar many and they be tall obstacles. In short, these atomic number 18 rudimentary problems that the people of Iran obligate with western governments and they atomic number 18 the sort of problems that will detention democracy from coming to Iran at this point. The main thing standing(a) in the way is a difference in ghostly theory. though democracy itself purports to support all religions and in ride to go on religious freedom, it is built upon Christian principles and has been a primarily Christian push throughfit since its inception.When the set up fathers designed the documents that started the nation, they opened up their Bibles for consultation. This is not a fact that is lost on the Iranian people, nor is it lost on the Iranian government. agree to NationMaster.com, the statistics on religion in Iran ar staggering. match to th at website, 98% of the people in Iran ar practicing Muslims (NationMaster.com). This in itself is something that creates major issues with democracy and stands as a obstruction in the way of each having an active democracy in that field. Of that 98% clip, more(prenominal) than 89% of the Muslims are Shia, which creates an added problem. That sect of Islam has been particularly harsh in regards to American policy and democracy.In addition to the problem surrounding religion, on that point is a problem that exists over control of the state of matter. The coercive party in Iran worked very intemperate to gain control of the country and they immediately micturate a system in place that rewards those who support them and cracks down on those that oppose them. This is d cardinal because the country is set up to allow this theocracy to have full and complete control over just about every aspect of the country, including the economy. Since their control is so widespread, there is wads of vested interest in keeping the coercive party in office. If they were to be booted out of office in favor of some unfermented leaders, lots of outraged people would be missing out on the benefits that they were used to receiving.According to MapsoftheWorld.com, The chief of the state is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khomeini. The fling of the Iran government is hot seat Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad. The Cabinet consists of Council of Ministers selected by the president with legislative approval (MapsoftheWorld.com). This alone shows the heartfelt complete control that the leader of the government has over the country. Though the head of the government is an elected positive, there is little to suggest that any elections are conducted in a fair manner.Though the government in Iran is technically considered a democracy because of the fact that they hold elections, one would be hard pressed to find anyone that would consider their system a clear example of the peoples respectables. A former American government official has even said in the last month that the democracy effort in Iran is one that will be tough to come by given the up-to-date state in the country and Americas current relationship with the leaders of that country. In a impertinent York sunniness word by Eli Lake, a former presidential assistant is quoted as theoriseing, There is not the expertise, there is not the energy for it. The Iran office is hard-pressed about the bilateral policy. I think they are not affiliated to this anymore (Lake). If that quote is any indication, because the democracy effort in Iran has a tough future ahead of it.Overcoming the barriers to democracy will not be easy in Iran, but they are doable with the right policy. One thing to consider is that the religious preferences of the Iranian people are largestanding and they are not likely to change any duration in the near future. As such, western nations must understand that they are going to be dealing with an Muslim nation and they must cave in allowances for that. Though pure democracy in an American sense will never come off as being an Islamic idea, the proponents of such an Iranian democracy movement must suck in genuine to bridge the gap that exists in spite of appearance perception between the two nations.They must headstone democracy in its most positive light to the people of Iran, to make them understand that it is not something to be feared, but rather something to be embraced. If the basic differences in religious preference are going to be conquered, hence democracy must appear to them as something that can be structured with their Islamic determine. Having them adopt Judeo-Christian values is not an option, so if democracy is going to head to Iran, then it must be taken contiguous to their preferences.As far as power is concerned, this looks like a problem that baron not have a solution. Given the fact that the controlling party is not likely to give up any of their take chances in the nation regardless of what the American government has to say, a new democratic creation must take this into account. Though there is no way to truly overcome this obstacle, some progress can be do by insuring that the people in control right now understand that they will not be thrown to the dogs in a new democracy program. They will still have the chance to be in power if they are elected fairly by the people of their country. This will not likely be enough to pacify those in power, but that might not be possible in the long run.The primary supporters of democratic reform in Iran are mostly from Western nations and their interest is two fold. For American leaders, the establishment of democracy in Iran helps promote that sort of movement all over the world, and it helps to protect American interests oversea as much as possible. The hope of such a government would ultimately be to get rid of the tyrannical leader that runs that government. When tyrants are eliminated from office, the entire world is better off for it, according to American policy. According to a 2005 New York quantify word, the American government is taking bang-up measures to help this happen.They are being helped by leaders in other democratic governments. In an member by Steven R. Weisman, it is stated, The Bush administration is expanding efforts to make for Irans internal politics with aid for opposition and pro-democracy groups abroad and longer broadcasts criticizing the Iranian government, administration officials say (Weisman). This widespread support from the American government has been continued, although it has been improve since to meet its goals more effectively.The main opponents of democratic reform in Iran are fairly predictable, given the current set of circumstances in that country. The controlling party that runs the government has no interest in changing their ways, as it was the old system that allowed them to gain power and influence. They are the most puissant and influential group standing in the way.Almost as burning(prenominal) in this stance against democracy are the religious leaders in Iran. They have a huge measure of control over the race since it is their job to give clarity on religious matters. Under the current theocracy, which is run with a great deal of religious emphasis, they have lots of control and economic swing in the country. This group is probably more important to influence, since it is their interpretation of the Islamic gospel that helps create the prevailing purview of the Iranian people. Given the fact that the deep rooted Christian values in democracy are no secret, it is highly unlikely that the Islamic leaders of Iran are going to relent on their position.In order to influence these political leaders in Iran, there is only one real solution that the American government can use. Since economic sanctions and threats of war do not seem to be working, the U.S. governm ent has to take the opening night to establish some rewards for the leaders if they were to go along with democracy. Economic rewards are very powerful bargaining tools, because the Iranian leaders can get rich if they play their cards right. If the Western governments made it clear that they would extend clear support to any democratic reform, it may influence the Iranian leaders to make some changes to their current working system.Though the basic premise of democracy would indicate that any group should be allowed to shell for position atop the government, Iran has to be handled somewhat contrastively. Given the previously mentioned statistics on religion in the country, it would be extremely unwise to allow any anti-Islamic groups to push for control of the nation. It would be unwise for a couple of different reasons. On one hand, they would have no chance of gaining control of the country and would therefore just be stirring the lowlife. This leads to the second conclusion , which indicates that such pot stirring would only have a negative impact on the reception of democracy. Since democracy has to be brought to Iran in conjunction with Islam, this is a expression for disaster.One thing that must be considered when a person thinks about American influence in Iran is what variant of broad impact it will have on a number of different people. If America and other western nations were to make a push for democracy in Iran, it might endanger those people in the country that are there in order to do other good in the country. According to an article in the Washington Post by Karl Vick and Daniel Finkel, Prominent activists inside Iran say President Bushs plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote democracy here is the kind of help they dont need, warning that mere announcement of the U.S. program endangers human rights advocates by tainting them as American agents (Vick, Finkel).This means that the mere announcement of any such effort would imme diately put people in danger within Iran. This is not important on the basis that it would endanger a a few(prenominal) human rights workers. It is important on the basis that if such widespread repugnance for America exists among the people, then there is virtually no chance of American-led policy to stick in the country.Other factors must be considered, though. If America wants to keep Iran from becoming the next big Middle Eastern super power, then something must be a make. While the foreign policy of the linked States should not include the right and prompting to go to war on a whim, it should help protect American interests. The United States has spent unnumbered dollars and thousands of lives in establishing a semblance of normalcy in Iraq. According to some people, any action in Iran would destroy the work already done in its neighboring country.A United Press International article by Claude Salhani reads, However, any attack on Iran would reverse any gains made in Iraq. This point was repeated to the U.S. secretary of defense by miscellaneous Gulf officials (Salhani). The government of the United States has to be very careful in this case, as they are playing with fire, to an extent.The only way that the American government should put dollars and effort forward in an attempt to reform Iran is if they have a clear idea of how to get things done. Any plan that is devoid of such a clear objective would fail miserably. The objectives must be to help end tyranny in Iran and to protect American interests on a security level. They must be handled diplomatically, as a host conflict in Iran at this time would be a formula for disaster, given the nuclear implications that exist.A Steven Erlanger article in the New York Times indicates the thinking of Israel on the matter of nuclear weapons in Iran. In his article, Erlanger writes, Israel thinks that an American National Intelligence Estimate about Irans nuclear weapons program, published in an unclassif ied version last week, is unduly optimistic and focuses too narrowly on the last stage of weapons development the fashioning of a misfire out of highly enriched uranium (Erlanger). This means that some uncertainty exists over whether or not the country has any real, threatening weapons. If they were to possess go nuclear capability, then America and other nations must make sure to tread very lightly in enemy territory.Works CitedErlanger, Steven. New York Times. Israelis Brief top U.S. Commander on Irans Nuclear Activities. 11 December 2007. http//www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/12/11/israelis_brief_us_commander_on_irans_nuclear_activities/Lake, Eli. The New York Sun. This moderately Much Kills the Iran Democracy Program. 8 November 2007. < http//www.nysun.com/article/66065>Maps of the World. Iran Government. http//www.mapsofworld.com/iran/about-iran/government.htmlNation Master. Iran Religion. < http//www.nationmaster.com/country/ir-iran/rel-religion> Salhani, Claude. United Press International. Analysis Iran is Still a Threat for U.S. 10 December 2007. < http//www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Analysis/2007/12/10/analysis_iran_is_still_a_threat_for_us/3136/>Vick, Karl, & Finkel, David. Washington Post. U.S. pressure for Democracy Could Backfire in Iran. 14 March 2006. < http//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031301761.html>Weisman, Steven. The New York Times. U.S. Expands Aid to Irans Democracy Advocates Abroad. 29 may 2005. < http//www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/international/middleeast/29iran.html>