Petro-Politics: Iran, Dictators, and lots of Oil

Let's talk about Iran, while most of the world refuses to listen. Let's talk about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's ultra-theocratic pseudo-democratic president that wants Israel "wiped of the map," and believes that the Holocaust is a "myth" propagated by anti-Arab European countries. Let's talk about the fact that Ahmadinejad's cleric plutocracy wasn't elected by legitimate means, or about the fact that Ahmadinejad doesn't have the support of the poverty-stricken citizens within his own country, and or even that, in one of the tragic ironies of American foreign policy, Iraq's free elections only extend Iran's Shiite influence over Baghdad's fledgling democracy. Let’s talk, and hope someone will listen.

Perhaps, while we’re at it, we should mention the nuclear weapons; you know the ones capable of decimating tens of thousands of people instantly that Iran’s been developing since ‘95. Or maybe we should discuss the ferocious purging of western liberalism and freedom from the corridors of Tehran's intellectual circles, the restoration of Iran's '79 Cultural Revolution. Let's mention that Iran's brutal government is the most aggressive anti-democratic force in the Middle East—and we can't do anything about it.

Yep, Iran is free to do just about whatever it wants, terrorists, nuclear weapons, and otherwise, and we too can talk about it all we please, but the rest of the world will continue to turn a deaf ear so long as oil continues to flow. Yep, all the freedom and democracy George Bush hopes to spread in the Middle East means nothing so long as most of humanity must suckle on the teat of Iran's oil monopoly in order to sustain existence--so long as Europe's addicted to Iran's oil and China and India (about a third of mankind) are utterly dependant on Iranian economic alliances.

So how do we go about controling the rising tide of radicalism in Iran? It sure won’t be easy. With China, a permanent U.N. Security Council member, nestled in a tremendously expensive and comprehensive Iranian oil contract for a cool 30 years, it's likely a veto will be smacked on any attempt at world economic sanctions; so that's out of the question. With Iran's nuclear arms program in full gear, and the United States' institutional means severely decayed, outright invasion would be supremely dangerous and monumentally misguided; so that too is out of the question.

As far as I see it, the answer is sobering and simple: not a costly war or a tenuous diplomatic bargain, just a global and determined effort to once and for all decrease the world's dependence on oil—then we no longer must comply with dictators' insidious demands in the name of industrial and commercial necessity. Sever the artery of Iran's economic lifeblood and you suffocate the air from their tyrannous regime. If George Bush really wants democracy in the Middle East, he has to fight to phase out oil, not to set up military bases at the heart of it; you can treat the symptoms only so long, it's time now to cure the disease.

Perhaps as a New Years' resolution this year we should decide to make the research and development of a secondary energy source a top priority in our War on Terrorism. Until then, Iranian petro-politics will allow radical jihadism to bludgeon unbridled through regional governments, and freedom can never ferment in the Middle East.