Terror, for the sake of terror, ought to be regarded as meaningless and aimless. Yet the West has far seemed to me not only willing to have it, but to comply with its deadly effects, both dramatic and destructive. Especially the dramatic aspect, though.
Currrently the world is facing a crisis of terror for the sake of terror. The Iranian alleged nuclear program has become one of the biggest reasons, if not the most important already, for people the world over to fear (again, particularly in the West). Let us examine the facts:
- Ever since the days of the Cold War, which in some senses is not really over, the looming fear of nuclear anhilation has haunted societies and generations as if was really that close. But most of the world population today has lived with this fear embedded into our very raising, and yet nothing has happened other than unfortunate accidents such as Fukushima. There is nothing to be gained from nuclear warfare, which is why it has not happen and wll not happen anytime soon.
- Something to definitely consider are the commercial and military ties Iran has held with Syria for years now, but that today are accentuated given the crisis now underway in Syria.
- On this latter point much can be said, but I wish to focus on the fact that there is a lack of effective action to bring an end to the turmoil in Syria as it was done in Libya last year.
Why, might one ask, are the UN and everyone else not moving faster to intervene in Syria, but being so swift to impose sanction on Iran? The nuclear threat reason is overrated so I will just dismiss it. The next easy reason to argue is oil, but the Saudis have already stated that they can make up for Iran’s supply within weeks of the latter´s demise. Why, then?
Ahmadinejad is an ally of Chavez, Ortega and other South American leftist leaders. In a way, it could be assumed that all these countries are forming an alliance, an axis of sort, but then again the military forces of those countries, and considering the geopolitics aspect, it would not be a viable idea.
The only thing I can think of is that there are contractors with big contracts in Syria, backed by profits of Iranian oil, who cannot simply afford to lose the deals.
Another thing to consider: The presidential election in the USA, which includes president Obama seeking reelection. Everyone knows about Obama´s stance on war and military intervention, as well as the perspective on the same subject the Republicans have. Failing to interfere militarily in Syria and more strongly on Iran serves as a great war horse for Obama, even after David Cameron has already stated that a coalition of the willing could effectively enter Syria. But Obama has remained intriguingly silent.
The point is that Syria, as well as Iran, serve as smokescreens for sometihng different. There is little reason to worry about Iran´s nuclear program, seeing as the other programs already in existence have not been used for years, and the Iranian one is no different. Syria is a worrisome point, but until the Russians and the Iranians gets their money out of there, I do not see a UN resolution being passed anytime soon.